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

11617182022

Comments

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Lateana said:
    So, this game has devolved from my initial reading of the PvE aspects of the game several months ago. I am now rethinking my Kickstarter purchase. I do not want to play a PvP game and it appears that AoC is rapidly turing into a PvP game.
    Nah, that's not the issue here. This thread is just discussing the Corruption system that's been put into place to reduce open-world PvP. AoC is definitely not a game where one can PK on a whim - PKing has consequences, we're just trying to share our thoughts on what the extent and effects of those consequences should be.

    There are PvP Elements: Sieges, Caravans, and Node Wars, but the only things that you really should be expected to participate in are the Node Wars, and even then, you can probably help your Node in ways other than fighting. Otherwise, you can avoid PvP almost entirely, save for the few instances where someone might PK (edit: or harass ;P) you.

    There are many people who believe the restrictions on PKing are too harsh, which includes myself to an extent, and that is the issue here.

    Hope that cleared it up for you!

    - Sikuba
  • Ashes is a PvX game.
    Nothing has changed about that.
  • Sikuba said:
    Lateana said:
    So, this game has devolved from my initial reading of the PvE aspects of the game several months ago. I am now rethinking my Kickstarter purchase. I do not want to play a PvP game and it appears that AoC is rapidly turing into a PvP game.
    Nah, that's not the issue here. This thread is just discussing the Corruption system that's been put into place to reduce open-world PvP. AoC is definitely not a game where one can PK on a whim - PKing has consequences, we're just trying to share our thoughts on what the extent and effects of those consequences should be.

    There are PvP Elements: Sieges, Caravans, and Node Wars, but the only things that you really should be expected to participate in are the Node Wars, and even then, you can probably help your Node in ways other than fighting. Otherwise, you can avoid PvP almost entirely, save for the few instances where someone might PK you.

    There are many people who believe the restrictions on PKing are too harsh, which includes myself to an extent, and that is the issue here.

    Hope that cleared it up for you!

    - Sikuba
    I am glad you responded to that post. My version was not going to be PG at all. 😂


    No seriously
  • I read through as much of this thread as I could stomach, if I kept going my eyes would probably of started to bleed.

    As a PvP player, I do not have a problem with the Corruption System. Is there flaws? sure.. are there changes I think should be made? of course.
    However I do not think, at any point people should be using anything regarding "penalties are too harsh" in their argument, at that point you're taking an unknown variable and claiming it is unfair.

    I haven't kept up to date with all the changes as I've been busy, but from what I've gathered from reading through, not much if anything has changed.

    If you're green and someone attacks you, you have two choices.
    • 1) Don't engage and get a penalty, but make the person aware you're not (in the mood/don't want to pvp)
    • 2) Fight back, less penalty when you die, or potentially win and lose nothing.

    For the person attacking, you have a two choices.

    • 1) Realise that this person is going to stay green, at which point you can weigh the risk vs reward. (If this is worth enough for me to gain corruption for it.)
    1A) Gain Corruption.         1B.) Walk away.
    • 2) The person fights back, you either win or lose. Huzzah.. PvP!

    Now, as for the debate about resources. PvP wins resources. Am I the only one that has realised this? (I think I got to about page 10, so sorry if someone stated this before me..)
    Of course we don't know how the system is going to work. But likely if you can interrupt someone from collecting resources. You can just interrupt them and start taking it yourself. At that point, you're purple and to do the same, they'd have to open themselves to PvP which would be what you wanted in the first place besides the resource. Either way you won right? (unless they beat you, but that is another story..)
    Because as far as I recall, you only gain corruption for killing a green player, not attacking them.

    Now to further point out, corruption stacks. So going on the assumption that you're of the same or very similar level to the person, you should gain minimal corruption and past that, we can't really say what penalties will occur for a first kill when you're at 0 corruption. If you have previous corruption, that really isn't the fault of the other player.
    Though I do however agree there should be a way to work off corruption besides dying. And the idea that people can stay green whilst attacking reds is absurd.

    But most people should not be worried about corruption. I'd say if you've killed someone twice and they're still not attacking back. Stop. Because that is no longer PvP regardless of how you see it. If a player does not want to partake in PvP and you continue to kill them, that is griefing and is of no benefit to you. Hence the stacking penalty.
  • Sikuba said:
    You can avoid PvP almost entirely, save for the few instances where someone might PK you.
    I'm not sure that PvErs will count refusing to fight back after being attacked while green as avoiding PvP combat.
    Refusing to fight back is not really avoiding PvP combat.
    The hope is that Corruption will keep PKing at a minimum and that the vast majority of players will not want to risk Corruption, so will break off the attack relatively quickly when their target chooses to remain a non-combatant.

    We will have to actually play the game to get a feel for how easy it is to avoid combat.
    Regardless, we know that PvP combat is not required for individuals to progress.

  • @Dygz

    I was referring to all PvP in the game when I said PvP (not just world PvP), and PKing was the exception, which is why I said almost entirely. : p 
  • Dygz said:
    Sikuba said:
    You can avoid PvP almost entirely, save for the few instances where someone might PK you.
    I'm not sure that PvErs will count refusing to fight back after being attacked while green as avoiding PvP combat.
    Refusing to fight back is not really avoiding PvP combat.
    The hope is that Corruption will keep PKing at a minimum and that the vast majority of players will not want to risk Corruption, so will break off the attack relatively quickly when their target chooses to remain a non-combatant.

    We will have to actually play the game to get a feel for how easy it is to avoid combat.
    Regardless, we know that PvP combat is not required for individuals to progress.


    You are correct. If someone kills me, or interrupts me, and I die or lose resources I am just cannon fodder and not an actual PvE player. If I don't want to fight my flag should make me invulnerable to attack of any kind  and not subject to ANY penalty.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Sikuba said:
    @Dygz

    I was referring to all PvP in the game when I said PvP (not just world PvP), and PKing was the exception, which is why I said almost entirely. : p 
    I know what you meant.
    You are focused on PKing.
    I am saying that PvEers don't want to simply avoid being killed by other players, they want to avoid being attacked by other players

    As Lateana somewhat confirmed, the preference being immunity to attack from other players; not just avoidance of PK.
    We don't know how common it will be to be attacked while green.
    We will have play the game to know how easy it will be to avoid being attacked while green.
  • Lateana said:

    You are correct. If someone kills me, or interrupts me, and I die or lose resources I am just cannon fodder and not an actual PvE player. If I don't want to fight my flag should make me invulnerable to attack of any kind  and not subject to ANY penalty.
    In the same way that this game is not allowing for unrestricted PvP, it is also not allowing for unrestricted safety.

    PvE friendly doesn't mean players can always totally avoid PvP. It means PvP is restricted.

    This game is a middle ground - though it does lean more towards the PvE player than the PvP player. Truthfully, if any individual is not ok with that, then it is probably safe to say it is not the game for them.
  • @Dygz

    I don't know if we'll be seeing a lot of players attacking like that, to be honest. Doing so marks you purple - if you don't have the confidence to kill the green player and instead need to resort to harassment to get what you want, being purple is probably not a good idea for you. All the green player needs to do is Yell/Shout or Whisper a friend and the harasser will probably be dead.

    I doubt poking like that will be a viable option, but on the off chance that it does become one, we'll start seeing players respond to that behavior, particularly PvPers. Someone without the confidence to kill and take the resource is a very gankable target, especially when they make themselves purple to begin with.

    I agree that there's not much in place to stop a player from attacking to begin with, other than flagging. But, at the same time, I feel that flagging is a stronger repercussion than you're giving it credit for. You're stuck purple for a while. Anyone can kill you and the only consequence for them is that they become purple as well.

    These are the people that real PKers would love to hop on at a moment's notice. Little consequence, free loot. In this case, the people you're being protected from are protecting you, in a sense.

    Such a shame this is all hypothetical. I'm really looking forward to being able to play the game : p

    - Sikuba
  • Since we don't know if we'll be seeing a lot of players attacking like that, we cannot honestly state that we can avoid PvP almost entirely.

    PvEers don't necessarily care whether the person is a PKer, a hardcore PvPer, or a casual PvPer if what they want is immunity from being attacked.
    You keep focusing on the killing part. 
    Who lives or dies is meaningless when what you want is to avoid that combat altogether.

    If I'm walking through a park and someone stabs me in my back, I'm not going to think that's OK simply because the person runs away when I either ask to be left alone or yell for help.
    That's not "avoiding" combat. Getting stabbed frequently while I'm minding my own business is disturbing and problematic enough regardless of whether someone dies or not. "Oh, that person who stabbed you died," doesn't really make me feel much better if I still get stabbed by other people on a fairly regular basis.

    We have to play the game to see if Corruption is enough of a deterrent for Lateana to enjoy playing.
  • OnyxTN said:
    But most people should not be worried about corruption. I'd say if you've killed someone twice and they're still not attacking back. Stop. Because that is no longer PvP regardless of how you see it. If a player does not want to partake in PvP and you continue to kill them, that is griefing and is of no benefit to you. Hence the stacking penalty.
    Eh, there's another angle to this. It can be in my interest to reduce the earning potential of a neighboring node, and I can send in two dozen PVPers with decent (and not their top-tier) gear. They can then rampage and burn their way through the node while racking up corruption until they eventually die and drop the expendable gear, and it's still not griefing because it satisfies a legitimate political goal (see: Clausewitz on war is the continuation of policy by other means).

    If the receiving end of the raid suffers heavy losses, then it's their fault of being unable to handle players wearing merely decent gear.
  • Davlos said:
    OnyxTN said:
    But most people should not be worried about corruption. I'd say if you've killed someone twice and they're still not attacking back. Stop. Because that is no longer PvP regardless of how you see it. If a player does not want to partake in PvP and you continue to kill them, that is griefing and is of no benefit to you. Hence the stacking penalty.
    Eh, there's another angle to this. It can be in my interest to reduce the earning potential of a neighboring node, and I can send in two dozen PVPers with decent (and not their top-tier) gear. They can then rampage and burn their way through the node while racking up corruption until they eventually die and drop the expendable gear, and it's still not griefing because it satisfies a legitimate political goal (see: Clausewitz on war is the continuation of policy by other means).

    If the receiving end of the raid suffers heavy losses, then it's their fault of being unable to handle players wearing merely decent gear.
    This can surely happen and if lots of players, groups and guilds takes this kind of strategy it can easily mean that current corruption system is not hard enough bunishment.

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 
  • Ferryman said:

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 

    Make the corruption mechanic more oppressive than what is reasonably expected by PVPers, then it nullifies the risk vs. reward calculus in using unconventional PVP methods. Then Ashes loses its main selling point to a significant proportion of the playerbase.

    And those additional mechanics aren't necessary. If a node's main organizing guild is incapable of setting up a halfway decent intelligence system to notify its residents of incoming attacks, then that node deserves to die.
  • Davlos said:
    Ferryman said:

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 

    Make the corruption mechanic more oppressive than what is reasonably expected by PVPers, then it nullifies the risk vs. reward calculus in using unconventional PVP methods. Then Ashes loses its main selling point to a significant proportion of the playerbase.

    And those additional mechanics aren't necessary. If a node's main organizing guild is incapable of setting up a halfway decent intelligence system to notify its residents of incoming attacks, then that node deserves to die.
    Catering groups who roams to kill single players has never been Ashes selling point or devs interest either. Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Davlos said:
    Ferryman said:

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 

    Make the corruption mechanic more oppressive than what is reasonably expected by PVPers, then it nullifies the risk vs. reward calculus in using unconventional PVP methods. Then Ashes loses its main selling point to a significant proportion of the playerbase.

    And those additional mechanics aren't necessary. If a node's main organizing guild is incapable of setting up a halfway decent intelligence system to notify its residents of incoming attacks, then that node deserves to die.
    The main selling point of ashes has never been just the pvp but the world its self. The pvp is a part of the game no doubt but without the other parts of the game it would become stale and quite frankly boring. Think only about one part of the game is well pointless. 

    This is from the wiki and it what I see the game as

    "The developers describe to four 'pillars' of the development process. The first is the Nodes System, which is how the world interacts with the players. Second is PVP, which includes battlegrounds, guild wars, a PVE/PVP flagging (or corruption point) system and how players can catalyze change in the environment. The third pillar is the economic system. There are regional set marketplaces that caravans can travel to, to trade goods they have gathered or created. Players can even sell or trade in their own villages if they choose. The fourth pillar is the story. The story will be told in three main ways. Tasks, Events, and Narrative, with the narrative being the primary"
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Ferryman said:
    Davlos said:
    Ferryman said:

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 

    Make the corruption mechanic more oppressive than what is reasonably expected by PVPers, then it nullifies the risk vs. reward calculus in using unconventional PVP methods. Then Ashes loses its main selling point to a significant proportion of the playerbase.

    And those additional mechanics aren't necessary. If a node's main organizing guild is incapable of setting up a halfway decent intelligence system to notify its residents of incoming attacks, then that node deserves to die.
    Catering groups who roams to kill single players has never been Ashes selling point or devs interest either. Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
    Just because the system allows players to do what he described doesn't mean the game is catering to those players or others who do that. The point of the system is not to prevent actions like that, it's to deter them. By detering these kind of actions it decreases the frequency and there by how much it will affect players.
  • In this thread we spend a lot of time referring to PvPers and PvEers, even though Ashes is designed to cater to PvXers.

    We will very likely have to accept that some players will find times when it feels like there is not enough Corruption-free PvP combat and some players will find times when it feels like there is too much non-consensual PvP combat.

    We just have to hope that for the most part when we wish to focus on PvP combat, we will generally be able to easily find enjoyable content and when we want to focus on PvE we will generally be able to find enjoyable content.
  • Ferryman said: Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
    What, Albion? I know where you borrowed that minimap ping from. Albion likes to think of itself as hardcore, but isn't hardcore enough. Hell, watch the public AOC Alpha Zero streams and you won't see any minimap to speak of.

    Come play Eve, join an established alliance, observe the infrastructure set up with intel channels where fellow members notify others of enemy movements and when to get safe + standing orders on how to get safe.

    That's the kind of emergent gameplay IS are gunning for with Node vs Node warfare and intrigue, and you shouldn't expect to be coddled by IS with mechanics to keep you safe.
  • nagash said:
    The main selling point of ashes has never been just the pvp but the world its self. The pvp is a part of the game no doubt but without the other parts of the game it would become stale and quite frankly boring. Think only about one part of the game is well pointless. 

    This is from the wiki and it what I see the game as

    "The developers describe to four 'pillars' of the development process. The first is the Nodes System, which is how the world interacts with the players. Second is PVP, which includes battlegrounds, guild wars, a PVE/PVP flagging (or corruption point) system and how players can catalyze change in the environment. The third pillar is the economic system. There are regional set marketplaces that caravans can travel to, to trade goods they have gathered or created. Players can even sell or trade in their own villages if they choose. The fourth pillar is the story. The story will be told in three main ways. Tasks, Events, and Narrative, with the narrative being the primary"
    You copypasta a lot of words and demonstrate no understanding of what they mean.

    Read what you copypasta'd, attempt to understand the scenario I wrote out above as not mere meaningless ganking but aiming to destabilize another node's economy, and hopefully you'll realize you were barking up the wrong tree.
  • Ferryman said:
    Davlos said:
    Ferryman said:

    Although this kind of behaviour can be prevented without making corruption system itself more bunishing, but making outnumbering cause harder corruption penalties is one option. Also zergs should be seen (on minimap) or heard from distance so people have a chance to get away. 

    Make the corruption mechanic more oppressive than what is reasonably expected by PVPers, then it nullifies the risk vs. reward calculus in using unconventional PVP methods. Then Ashes loses its main selling point to a significant proportion of the playerbase.

    And those additional mechanics aren't necessary. If a node's main organizing guild is incapable of setting up a halfway decent intelligence system to notify its residents of incoming attacks, then that node deserves to die.
    Catering groups who roams to kill single players has never been Ashes selling point or devs interest either. Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
    Just because the system allows players to do what he described doesn't mean the game is catering to those players or others who do that. The point of the system is not to prevent actions like that, it's to deter them. By detering these kind of actions it decreases the frequency and there by how much it will affect players.
    No need to nitpick. You know what i ment. Now you presume that its actually intend that groups can easily roam and killing people. Now if devs does not want their game be about mindless ganking, why they would allow this kind of behaviour, which is much worse than one player PKing other? So referring that, i am sure there will be some kind of anti-zerging mechanics in place or in other hand the open world will be totally broken and numbers rules the land. 

    I am a huge fan of OWPvP and especially ZvZ as long as the fights stays somehow equal. And that is also the problem, because hardly these encounters are equal or even close that. If there wont be any anti-zerging mechanics, that will create a snowball effect and group sizes will just go up. Those who suffer most are solo and small group players. This same happens in hardcore PvP games, even to that genre this kind of behaviour kind of belongs. Still you can see anti-zerging mechanics in use, because catering zergs will easily ruin the gaming experience of most of the playerbase. 


  • Davlos said:
    nagash said:
    The main selling point of ashes has never been just the pvp but the world its self. The pvp is a part of the game no doubt but without the other parts of the game it would become stale and quite frankly boring. Think only about one part of the game is well pointless. 

    This is from the wiki and it what I see the game as

    "The developers describe to four 'pillars' of the development process. The first is the Nodes System, which is how the world interacts with the players. Second is PVP, which includes battlegrounds, guild wars, a PVE/PVP flagging (or corruption point) system and how players can catalyze change in the environment. The third pillar is the economic system. There are regional set marketplaces that caravans can travel to, to trade goods they have gathered or created. Players can even sell or trade in their own villages if they choose. The fourth pillar is the story. The story will be told in three main ways. Tasks, Events, and Narrative, with the narrative being the primary"
    You copypasta a lot of words and demonstrate no understanding of what they mean.

    Read what you copypasta'd, attempt to understand the scenario I wrote out above as not mere meaningless ganking but aiming to destabilize another node's economy, and hopefully you'll realize you were barking up the wrong tree.
    Do you understand that not everyone who is part of a node is an enemy? Attacking a nodes people just to bring it down is fine in war, but as part of everyday life it's just going to make people hate you and in some cases the game. If all you see is PvP or guild vs guild then you are the one who does not understand what this game is meant to be.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    PAX West demo had a placeholder for a mini-map.
    And we know that Bounty Hunters will be able to track Corrupted, so seems like there will likely be a mini-map available at launch.

    And, yeah, the people here concerned about PvP combat in Ashes would not touch Eve with a ten-foot pole.
    Eve is notoriously PvP-centric.
  • eh I think people are centering on the PVP ruleset a little bit much yet, we dont yet have a solid grasp on how it will actually workout without being able to test it, and that is the biggest point there... a test... its what we do to figure out how something works in a set environment... if the Devs implement one thing and turns out everyone hates its actual implementation... its gonna get worked on some more until its either better or gets thrown out...

    point being...

    its still too early to tell! 

    (yes, the ellipse is a useful tool that I overuse on a daily basis...!)
  • Dygz said:
    Since we don't know if we'll be seeing a lot of players attacking like that, we cannot honestly state that we can avoid PvP almost entirely.

    Well, based on that logic, we don't know whether or not anyone will ever attack anyone at all in any situation. Everything here is hypothetical, you can't just write off one point out of a discussion that is all theory because we don't know that we'll be seeing people do it. This is what we can consider a last resort argument - you can't refute the point so you just try to negate it however you can, even if the logic is invalid. It is unproductive and does not belong in a discussion. Regardless, the refutation is below.

    People attack others because they want to and/or there are rewards. That is absolute. It applies all players, whether you're Green, Purple, or Red. The incentive is balanced with Corruption, which is the deterrent to kill Green players, as well as the flagging system, which functions for everyone (Except Red in certain cases). Green player have a high incentive to kill, but also a high deterrent. Purple players have less incentive, but also a substantially lower deterrent. Red players have extremely high incentive, as well as either a deterrent equal to Purple, or none at all, depending on whether the confidence of the attacker. Based on a balance of incentives and deterrents (risk vs. reward), Purple players have a much higher ration of incentives : deterrents than Green players do, making them better targets for anyone aiming to PK. It is therefore irrational to imply that Purple players will not be attacked while green players are.

    Now before you go repeating yourself once again, claiming that I am focusing too much on PKing, I would like to reiterate that the deterrent to poke and harass farming players is that, in doing so, the harassing player must flag himself Purple, making himself a target for any and all players within proximity.  The reward itself is fairly minimal, taking into consideration the potential time deficit of harassing players. If you do not believe this to be enough to reduce this kind of harassment to where it will not be an issue, or at least be uncommon, then that is your opinion. You are entitled to this opinion, although I would hope that you could support it with solid logic. I, for one, do not feel as though this method will be viable, as it is both inefficient for acquiring resources and potentially dangerous for the one harassing.

    Dygz said:

    ...
    Who lives or dies is meaningless when what you want is to avoid that combat altogether.

    If I'm walking through a park and someone stabs me in my back, I'm not going to think that's OK simply because the person runs away when I either ask to be left alone or yell for help.
    That's not "avoiding" combat. Getting stabbed frequently while I'm minding my own business is disturbing and problematic enough regardless of whether someone dies or not. "Oh, that person who stabbed you died," doesn't really make me feel much better if I still get stabbed by other people on a fairly regular basis.

    We have to play the game to see if Corruption is enough of a deterrent for Lateana to enjoy playing.
    Entering a game with world PvP almost ensures that you will encounter it at some point. As you said, the frequency of world PvP/PKing depends on how effective Corruption is. I would hope that there are very few people out there so intent on complete liberation from any kind of PvP that they would ignore a gem of a game such as Ashes - there are so many positives to outweigh the negatives. Thinking in terms of the game as a whole, world PvP is the only time you cannot avoid PvP. That's a lot of game, and a little, extremely regulated amount of PvP. I'm sure Lateana, as well as the rest of the PvE crowd will be perfectly happy. 

    - Sikuba
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Ferryman said:
    No need to nitpick. You know what i ment. Now you presume that its actually intend that groups can easily roam and killing people. Now if devs does not want their game be about mindless ganking, why they would allow this kind of behaviour, which is much worse than one player PKing other? So referring that, i am sure there will be some kind of anti-zerging mechanics in place or in other hand the open world will be totally broken and numbers rules the land. 

    I am a huge fan of OWPvP and especially ZvZ as long as the fights stays somehow equal. And that is also the problem, because hardly these encounters are equal or even close that. If there wont be any anti-zerging mechanics, that will create a snowball effect and group sizes will just go up. Those who suffer most are solo and small group players. This same happens in hardcore PvP games, even to that genre this kind of behaviour kind of belongs. Still you can see anti-zerging mechanics in use, because catering zergs will easily ruin the gaming experience of most of the playerbase. 


    What he described didn't sound like mindless ganking to me. Mindless ganking is attacking someone because you can, which is something the system discourages. Coordinating an attack to weaken a enemy node's economy isn't mindless. If you look at the fact resources drop on death and how the caravan system is set up, you can tell the flagging system encourages us to fight over resources.

    I look forward to raids and being raided because those are how big battles are started.

    I don't think the flagging system will affect zergs and "anti zerg" mechanics will come from other places. I can see the lack of fast travel and open world nature of the game having a huge affect on zergs but only time will tell. That said, this is an MMO where you are supposed to play with others. Encouraging people to work together for protection is a way of getting players to play together.
  • Davlos said:
    Ferryman said: Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
    What, Albion? I know where you borrowed that minimap ping from. Albion likes to think of itself as hardcore, but isn't hardcore enough. Hell, watch the public AOC Alpha Zero streams and you won't see any minimap to speak of.

    Come play Eve, join an established alliance, observe the infrastructure set up with intel channels where fellow members notify others of enemy movements and when to get safe + standing orders on how to get safe.

    That's the kind of emergent gameplay IS are gunning for with Node vs Node warfare and intrigue, and you shouldn't expect to be coddled by IS with mechanics to keep you safe.
    Yes i borrowed minimap idea from Albion, but i would prefer that you could actually hear larger group coming like in real life. And because in Alpha zero does not have minimap it automatically means there wont be one in full version? Right..

    Albion may not be hardcore enough to ultimate hardcore players, but it is still ten times more hardcore than Ashes. And thanks for inviting to take part of EvE, and even i love sandbox games, i dont like to fly with space rockets so i will pass. 
  • Ferryman said:
    No need to nitpick. You know what i ment. Now you presume that its actually intend that groups can easily roam and killing people. Now if devs does not want their game be about mindless ganking, why they would allow this kind of behaviour, which is much worse than one player PKing other? So referring that, i am sure there will be some kind of anti-zerging mechanics in place or in other hand the open world will be totally broken and numbers rules the land. 

    I am a huge fan of OWPvP and especially ZvZ as long as the fights stays somehow equal. And that is also the problem, because hardly these encounters are equal or even close that. If there wont be any anti-zerging mechanics, that will create a snowball effect and group sizes will just go up. Those who suffer most are solo and small group players. This same happens in hardcore PvP games, even to that genre this kind of behaviour kind of belongs. Still you can see anti-zerging mechanics in use, because catering zergs will easily ruin the gaming experience of most of the playerbase. 


    What he described didn't sound like mindless ganking to me. Mindless ganking is attacking someone because you can, which is something the system discourages. Coordinating an attack to weaken a enemy node's economy isn't mindless. If you look at the fact resources drop on death and how the caravan system is set up, you can tell the flagging system encourages us to fight over resources.

    I look forward to raids and being raided because those are how big battles are started.

    I don't think the flagging system will affect zergs and "anti zerg" mechanics will come from other places. I can see the lack of fast travel and open world nature of the game having a huge affect on zergs but only time will tell. That said, this is an MMO where you are supposed to play with others. Encouraging people to work together for protection is a way of getting players to play together.
    Groups running around nodes killing all players insight can of course be camouflaged under coordinated economy distraction. That is very beautiful thought, but maybe one time of ten this would be like this and most zergs are running to just have fun. Fun with cost of other players. Fast traveling will have some effects to zerging, but not that much it would help invidual players. 

    And you fall to basic misunderstanding what MMORPGs are about. It does not mean that people have to group all the time to fulfill the purpose. MMORPGs are about interacting with other players and even those who plays as a solo are interacting with others all the time actively or passively, it depends what you are doing.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    nagash said:
    Do you understand that not everyone who is part of a node is an enemy? Attacking a nodes people just to bring it down is fine in war, but as part of everyday life it's just going to make people hate you and in some cases the game. If all you see is PvP or guild vs guild then you are the one who does not understand what this game is meant to be.

    Then despite your ridiculous level of posting on these forums, you exhibit a poor interpretation of design philosophy in this node system. If Node A levels up to 4, neighboring Node B will only get to stay locked at 3 and can't go any farther until Node A is knocked down to 3. Even if Node A gets knocked down to 3, who knows if another neighboring Node C, also at level 3, will quickly work its way to 4? Staying still in node progression means even PVE progression will come to a halt. There's nothing else even for PVE players to do if the node level is locked at 3, and hungry for content, they will leave to the level 4 node. The dozen-players-with-decent-gear-raid scenario I outlined was an unconventional 

    This system is deliberately designed to encourage Hobbesian conflict of all against all. It's frankly embarrassing on your part that for the amount of time you spend around these forums, you sound like someone who only just discovered this game two days ago. I genuinely feel embarrassed for you.
  • Ferryman said:
    Davlos said:
    Ferryman said: Even hardcore full loot PvP games has anti-zerging mechanics, so why on earth Ashes should not have any? You are clearly at wrong game.   
    What, Albion? I know where you borrowed that minimap ping from. Albion likes to think of itself as hardcore, but isn't hardcore enough. Hell, watch the public AOC Alpha Zero streams and you won't see any minimap to speak of.

    Come play Eve, join an established alliance, observe the infrastructure set up with intel channels where fellow members notify others of enemy movements and when to get safe + standing orders on how to get safe.

    That's the kind of emergent gameplay IS are gunning for with Node vs Node warfare and intrigue, and you shouldn't expect to be coddled by IS with mechanics to keep you safe.
    Yes i borrowed minimap idea from Albion, but i would prefer that you could actually hear larger group coming like in real life. And because in Alpha zero does not have minimap it automatically means there wont be one in full version? Right..

    Albion may not be hardcore enough to ultimate hardcore players, but it is still ten times more hardcore than Ashes. And thanks for inviting to take part of EvE, and even i love sandbox games, i dont like to fly with space rockets so i will pass. 
    If you won't expose yourself to what many developers consider to be the gold standard of the sandbox MMO which facilitates emergent gameplay, then you don't love sandbox games enough as you claim.
Sign In or Register to comment.