I have seen pvpers make more ppl quit a game more than what Trion could ever do. Every time something is in place to help or benefit someone takes advantage of it. Killing someone they are clearly are less skilled a 100 times over is just a dick move. The only thing he did was make that guy hate the game and he tells his friends and now they won't play. Day by day the community gets smaller and I am pvping effing cactus.
This is what I've seen happen in many games as well, and is my basis in any discussion in regards to any action that is able to have a negative impact on other players in a manner that can cause them to leave a game.
I'd love a game that is persistent, has worthwhile risk vs reward and also allows for meaningful open PvP.
The problem is, due to human nature when essentially anonymous, you can't have that. Games can pick any two out of those three - but all three together simply do not work.
I have seen pvpers make more ppl quit a game more than what Trion could ever do. Every time something is in place to help or benefit someone takes advantage of it. Killing someone they are clearly are less skilled a 100 times over is just a dick move. The only thing he did was make that guy hate the game and he tells his friends and now they won't play. Day by day the community gets smaller and I am pvping effing cactus.
This is what I've seen happen in many games as well, and is my basis in any discussion in regards to any action that is able to have a negative impact on other players in a manner that can cause them to leave a game.
I'd love a game that is persistent, has worthwhile risk vs reward and also allows for meaningful open PvP.
The problem is, due to human nature when essentially anonymous, you can't have that. Games can pick any two out of those three - but all three together simply do not work.
Which is why I am promoting an essential free for all dedicated zone,so these horrible monsters like me can attend. But I jest. I am not the boogie man who gets his kicks off greifing anyone. I tend to hunt bullies themselves. There is a grey area between what is or is not as far as pvp. Will I kill someone on another faction (yes) in a heartbeat. Nor would I hunt and kill said person to the point Of actually grief. Depending on there reaction. For example they said look man Injust want to plant some trees bro can you just pass by me? Well I can't kill him now morally I'd feel awful. This is where self control tak snover and far to often pvpers said (( this is a pvp zone if you don't like it quit)) Well by god they do congratulations.
However if he said you! ( beep) effing ( beep) ( beep) noob! Gonna be a real bad day for him. Even then I'd limit the kills. (( typically 3 is my max point)) key word max. Not gonna lie there are times when things were said wayyyyy to far I can't repeat. Involving my kids , wife whoever Let's put is this way they were not planting anything that day. However I could never killed my own it just felt wrong, so I never became a pirate.
so now comes along a game there Is no factions but there is conflict. In that segregated factions will evolve progressively within the game. Because of the prior actions of former pvpers I am being punished for something that I never abused. AGain I get it I understand the animosity even though I am not a pver. But there is a distinct difference between pvpers like me and pvpers like that. It gets old the ( oh you just want to greif ppl and kill lowbies and blah blah blah). Noooo I really am as I say I am and I just a fun open discourse of pvp that can make an environment thrilling not toxic ( key difference). I watched first hand the game I loved ranked as a top pvper ( ranked #1 yeah I'm bragging) CoH infinity server fire/tank DAMINION I am calling me out. Anyways I got it became a ghost town literally because they would not stop greifing the shit out of ppl. New person come in and boom he was dead before he got tot sir two steps. This is often why when you arena you see the same faces over and over. Everyone else gets wrecked so hard over and over the rest that's left is the hardcores. Every time someone new came I always made sure to help them. Sure enough it helped and I'd have me some new challenges.
I seriously doubt if I kill someone one time it's complete corruption. Also there is evidince it builds up. Maybe if I kill 3 ppl? Perhaps 50? We don't know.
Except we do know. If you kill a green character once, you will be flagged red and gain a Corruption Score. How high the Corruption Score will be depends on a number of factors - especially the level gap between you and your victim. How high a penalty you face when you are killed will depend on how high your Corruption Score is. "50" isn't really a measure of anything. Neither is "complete Corruption". The example Steven gave in From the Ashes Ep 42 is that if a Level 50 kills a Level 1 non-combatant that will be about the equivalent of killing ten Level 50s.
So, yes, you are correct that the Corruption Score builds up and that if you kill one non-combatant your own level, you Corruption Score will be minimal. But, I don't understand how that is intended to relate to your position on ganking or lawless zones.
My primary argument has been about having a lawless land like that of tatooine. The enticement being of course a pvper that can really take advantage of the Open world. Also receive non stat items that we can only attain from that area associated with pvp of course. In noway does a pver ever have to go there or associate with it.
If the lawless zone is in the open world, PvEers will go there and they will tell you that that does not equal giving consent to be attacked. Just like if I walk through Compton in California, I am not giving consent to be attacked.
The real issue here is that the different playstyles do not all agree on what is fair play and what constitutes griefing and what constitutes consensual PvP combat.
Hardcore PvPers tend to be offended by the concept of consensual PvP combat.
So... we would have to learn what Steven thinks about introducing that contention into his game.
Since Steven hasn't mentioned lawless zones, I doubt that will be a thing until after he sees how people react to the current game design during Alpha and Beta.
Some of you without saying it in so many words, simply do not want to be attacked..... like at all. The mere fact of a pvper jumps you ambush whatever it's a gank.
You keep making this false assertion and it's derailing us from having a constructive discussion about your topics. Don't put words into people's mouths.
People aren't saying that they don't want to be attacked at all because no one in this thread has that mindset.
The closest you get to that in this thread is people like me who want to have control over when we are attacked by other players: caravans and sieges and guild wars are fair play.
Which is why there's no Corruption associated with those forms of PvP attacks.
Everyone in this thread are all on board with being attacked by other players - sometimes.
The farther you get from the hardcore PvP playstyle the less people are going to agree on what is fair play when it comes to ganking. Which is why it's problematic to have hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers playing on the same server.
But, that's what we have to deal with in Ashes of Creation.
I like PvP sometimes, but I want to be able to choose when I engage in PvP combat and when I don't. In games like WoW and EQ, I typically play on PvE-only servers because, in my view, too many hardcore PvPers are disrespectful and treat players as if they are NPCs. I don't want other players choosing for me how much XP debt I accrue or whether or not I get a chance to finish my leveling goals for the night or my gathering goals for the night or whatever other goals I have for the night.
According to my moral standards, I expect other players to respect that. But, too many hardcore PvPers have poor sportsmanship, so I typically play on a PvE-only server even though I like to engage in PvP combat sometimes.
I enjoy the PvP in NWO precisely because it's instanced and I get to choose when I participate in PvP combat and when I don't. Other players cannot force me to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to do so.
That is not the same thing as not wanting to be attacked by other players at all.
And no one in this thread has stated that they don't want to be attacked by players at all.
Although, we will be playing on the same servers as players who don't want to be attacked at all. And they will consider being attacked by players when they don't want to be attacked by players as being ganked. I will also consider that to be ganking.
My definition of ganking is: To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort.
Which includes ambushing and killing non-combatants who don't want to fight you.
You can think that is ridiculous all you want, but that is why player characters who kill non-combatants will gain Corruption.
I'm not sure why you are obsessing over the terminology.
Regardless of what the behavior is called - if you kill non-combatants, you will gain Corruption.
[S]ome of you come of entitled and I am to ask permission if it's ok if I attack (smh). I really see no end to this dispute honestly. But I do know that pvpers are the under dog when it comes to this game.
It's basic common courtesy, player-to-player, rather than character-to-character.
If I'm minding my own business, playing kickball on a kickball field, it is not OK for someone to come along and force me to play baseball when I'm not in the mood to play baseball simply because the other person is capable of kicking my ass. It's not OK for the other person to punch me in the face to make me play baseball even if I can kick their ass. That is basic player-to-player respect.
If I am a photographer taking pics in a boxing ring, it is not OK for a boxer to punch me in the face simply because I am standing in the ring. It's not OK to punch the referee in the face simply because he is standing in the ring . It's not OK to punch another boxer in the face simply because he is standing in the ring.
There are rules governing when it is OK to punch someone in the face in a boxing ring.
If I want to fight in a boxing ring, I know when and how to do that - but it's never going to be a case of "Why are you standing in the ring if you don't want to get punched in the face?"
Yet, hardcore PvPers will commonly ask, "Why are you traveling through a zone where PvP combat is possible if you don't want to PvP?" The answer is -like the photographer or referee standing in a boxing ring, "Because there are other things to do here besides PvP combat."
You don't necessarily have to ask permission to attack. But, if I ask you player-to-player to leave me alone because I'm not interested in PvP combat right now, I expect you to back off. If you want to schedule confrontation/combat character-to-character at a later time, I'm happy to do that. That's a roleplaying thing -- character-to-character-- that is on a separate level of engagement than player-to-player.
Because I am old school - I play MMORPGs primarily to recreate the co-operative gameplay of table-top RPGs with masses of other players - not for competitive combat with other players. If I wanted to primarily engage in competitive combat with other players with very little roleplaying, I would play MOBAs or (MMO)FPSs.
I would greatly prefer to play on a separate server than hardcore PvPers because I generally find their playstyle to be morally offensive.
But, I have close friends who are hardcore PvPers and I would love for our characters to hang out in the game, mostly doing non-PvP stuff, but sometimes fighting together to defend our nodes and caravans.
So, sure, if Corruption allows us to all play comfortably on the same servers, great.
While I am highly skeptical that Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for hardcore PvPers attacking me when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm willing to check it out and see how the game actually feels.
Will caravans and node sieges and castle sieges and guild wars be prevalent enough to satisfy most hardcore PvPers? We don't know.
Seems to me that it should be sufficient, considering how important it is for caravans to successfully bring goods for castle defense and for node defense and growth - there will be tons of nodes on each server.
There's a chance that it won't be enough.
But, it's irrational to complain that those forms of PvP combat will not be sufficient for most PvPers when we haven't even had a chance to test it out yet.
Again, Lawless zone(s)? Maybe.
We will very likely have to wait and see how the current game design actually feels, first.
I seriously doubt if I kill someone one time it's complete corruption. Also there is evidince it builds up. Maybe if I kill 3 ppl? Perhaps 50? We don't know.
Except we do know. If you kill a green character once, you will be flagged red and gain a Corruption Score. How high the Corruption Score will be depends on a number of factors - especially the level gap between you and your victim. How high a penalty you face when you are killed will depend on how high your Corruption Score is. "50" isn't really a measure of anything. Neither is "complete Corruption". The example Steven gave in From the Ashes Ep 42 is that if a Level 50 kills a Level 1 non-combatant that will be about the equivalent of killing ten Level 50s.
So, yes, you are correct that the Corruption Score builds up and that if you kill one non-combatant your own level, you Corruption Score will be minimal. But, I don't understand how that is intended to relate to your position on ganking or lawless zones.
My primary argument has been about having a lawless land like that of tatooine. The enticement being of course a pvper that can really take advantage of the Open world. Also receive non stat items that we can only attain from that area associated with pvp of course. In noway does a pver ever have to go there or associate with it.
If the lawless zone is in the open world, PvEers will go there and they will tell you that that does not equal giving consent to be attacked. Just like if I walk through Compton in California, I am not giving consent to be attacked.
The real issue here is that the different playstyles do not all agree on what is fair play and what constitutes griefing and what constitutes consensual PvP combat.
Hardcore PvPers tend to be offended by the concept of consensual PvP combat.
So... we would have to learn what Steven thinks about introducing that contention into his game.
Since Steven hasn't mentioned lawless zones, I doubt that will be a thing until after he sees how people react to the current game design during Alpha and Beta.
Some of you without saying it in so many words, simply do not want to be attacked..... like at all. The mere fact of a pvper jumps you ambush whatever it's a gank.
You keep making this false assertion and it's derailing us from having a constructive discussion about your topics. Don't put words into people's mouths.
People aren't saying that they don't want to be attacked at all because no one in this thread has that mindset.
The closest you get to that in this thread is people like me who want to have control over when we are attacked by other players: caravans and sieges and guild wars are fair play.
Which is why there's no Corruption associated with those forms of PvP attacks.
Everyone in this thread are all on board with being attacked by other players - sometimes.
The farther you get from the hardcore PvP playstyle the less people are going to agree on what is fair play when it comes to ganking. Which is why it's problematic to have hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers playing on the same server.
But, that's what we have to deal with in Ashes of Creation.
I like PvP sometimes, but I want to be able to choose when I engage in PvP combat and when I don't. In games like WoW and EQ, I typically play on PvE-only servers because, in my view, too many hardcore PvPers are disrespectful and treat players as if they are NPCs. I don't want other players choosing for me how much XP debt I accrue or whether or not I get a chance to finish my leveling goals for the night or my gathering goals for the night or whatever other goals I have for the night.
According to my moral standards, I expect other players to respect that. But, too many hardcore PvPers have poor sportsmanship, so I typically play on a PvE-only server even though I like to engage in PvP combat sometimes.
I enjoy the PvP in NWO precisely because it's instanced and I get to choose when I participate in PvP combat and when I don't. Other players cannot force me to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to do so.
That is not the same thing as not wanting to be attacked by other players at all.
And no one in this thread has stated that they don't want to be attacked by players at all.
Although, we will be playing on the same servers as players who don't want to be attacked at all. And they will consider being attacked by players when they don't want to be attacked by players as being ganked. I will also consider that to be ganking.
My definition of ganking is: To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort.
Which includes ambushing and killing non-combatants who don't want to fight you.
You can think that is ridiculous all you want, but that is why player characters who kill non-combatants will gain Corruption.
I'm not sure why you are obsessing over the terminology.
Regardless of what the behavior is called - if you kill non-combatants, you will gain Corruption.
[S]ome of you come of entitled and I am to ask permission if it's ok if I attack (smh). I really see no end to this dispute honestly. But I do know that pvpers are the under dog when it comes to this game.
It's basic common courtesy, player-to-player, rather than character-to-character.
If I'm minding my own business, playing kickball on a kickball field, it is not OK for someone to come along and force me to play baseball when I'm not in the mood to play baseball simply because the other person is capable of kicking my ass. It's not OK for the other person to punch me in the face to make me play baseball even if I can kick their ass. That is basic player-to-player respect.
If I am a photographer taking pics in a boxing ring, it is not OK for a boxer to punch me in the face simply because I am standing in the ring. It's not OK to punch the referee in the face simply because he is standing in the ring . It's not OK to punch another boxer in the face simply because he is standing in the ring.
There are rules governing when it is OK to punch someone in the face in a boxing ring.
If I want to fight in a boxing ring, I know when and how to do that - but it's never going to be a case of "Why are you standing in the ring if you don't want to get punched in the face?"
Yet, hardcore PvPers will commonly ask, "Why are you traveling through a zone where PvP combat is possible if you don't want to PvP?" The answer is -like the photographer or referee standing in a boxing ring, "Because there are other things to do here besides PvP combat."
You don't necessarily have to ask permission to attack. But, if I ask you player-to-player to leave me alone because I'm not interested in PvP combat right now, I expect you to back off. If you want to schedule confrontation/combat character-to-character at a later time, I'm happy to do that. That's a roleplaying thing -- character-to-character-- that is on a separate level of engagement than player-to-player.
Because I am old school - I play MMORPGs primarily to recreate the co-operative gameplay of table-top RPGs with masses of other players - not for competitive combat with other players. If I wanted to primarily engage in competitive combat with other players with very little roleplaying, I would play MOBAs or (MMO)FPSs.
I would greatly prefer to play on a separate server than hardcore PvPers because I generally find their playstyle to be morally offensive.
But, I have close friends who are hardcore PvPers and I would love for our characters to hang out in the game, mostly doing non-PvP stuff, but sometimes fighting together to defend our nodes and caravans.
So, sure, if Corruption allows us to all play comfortably on the same servers, great.
While I am highly skeptical that Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for hardcore PvPers attacking me when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm willing to check it out and see how the game actually feels.
Will caravans and node sieges and castle sieges and guild wars be prevalent enough to satisfy most hardcore PvPers? We don't know.
Seems to me that it should be sufficient, considering how important it is for caravans to successfully bring goods for castle defense and for node defense and growth - there will be tons of nodes on each server.
There's a chance that it won't be enough.
But, it's irrational to complain that those forms of PvP combat will not be sufficient for most PvPers when we haven't even had a chance to test it out yet.
Again, Lawless zone(s)? Maybe.
We will very likely have to wait and see how the current game design actually feels, first.
Ok first you have got to make these shorter. It's impossible for me to go back recheck things that were said on my tiny ( beep) phone screen.
Ok for the first part hed I know I have said as much and I am not disagreeing. We do not know and what you know is what I know. ( that was easy) keep in mind this is referencing to someone else's question. But we both have already had this discussion so I am really not sure if your telling me or asking? anyways
I brought up ganking because far to often I keep seeing terms used that were not ganking at all. So to clarify I just made a thread on it.
( annoying scrolling all the way up and down answering this huge page)
a lawless zone what's the question? In relation. Again this was in relation to a prior comment I believe. There is a lot of confusion as to what my intent is. Ppl assume typically I am this ganking greifing Agenda driven psychopath. So I try and clarify what I want, how,and why. Something my position on you are sure to be clear by this point.
onto your if your playing kickball minding your own business and the slew of other examples. We are not going to agree on this. Not just from me but I have already seen others explain it to you. So here's my take on the difference. You came to a Pvx game by your own choosing. Unlike your examples that's a well established standered well sense the begening of pvp. That you are going to be attacked because that's the very nature of the gameplay. The option is a pure pve game ( which you have). Also you use the term immersion a lot. To me that is part of the immersion in a dangerous world full of unforeseen circumstances only humans can provide. That in part is the allure. You don't mind it when it's npcs popping out of nowhere. If it's a human noooo that's where the line is drawn. What you envision seems far less immersive to me honestly. To me your dictating the when, where and how. If you work at a strip joint I expect those puppies to be out. Everyone who comes there is not gonna have a stripper tell them. ( hey just because I willing joined this do not expect me to bring the twins out) yes horrible analogy but you get the point. You are coming into a world that's always been that way and expected it to be. It's you who wants the rules to change and apply to you.
As far as hardcore pvpers no. That's the answer much less most regular pvpers. I have explained as much as to why in full detail. Senseless for me to go through it again l. I am sure you know my answers.
About the only thing we can agree on is you allow me to have my place separate from yours, vice versa. I am not out to take away from anyone. Just add something to an already pre exsisting world that's in noway effecting yours. Would I prefer no corruption sure. But it is what it is so be it
Dygz said: If the lawless zone is in the open world, PvEers will go there and they
will tell you that that does not equal giving consent to be attacked.
Just like if I walk through Compton in California, I am not giving
consent to be attacked.
The real issue here is that the different playstyles do not all agree on
what is fair play and what constitutes griefing and what constitutes
consensual PvP combat.
Hardcore PvPers tend to be offended by the concept of consensual PvP combat.
I missed this part on my phone while reading it . If a pver goes to a Lawless zone most Pvers will NOT say it does not give me the right for consent to attack. Who goes into a lawless zone ( hence lawless) and expects equal treatment. Thats the entire point of a Lawless zone. I am glad you brought Compton up, if you did go there and something happened no one gave a crap a bout your consent or not (( Thats the point)).
Walks down the middle of the night in the ghetto and you get robbed. I can see you say AHEM! SIR Get your hands of me! You sir do not have my permission you feeble minded wench! You Sir have no dignity! Now begone backs of which the hells gate you crawled out of peasant ( spits). The thug is like you know what, you are right after all. From now on I am going to change my ways and live a new clean life...................... Just as soon after you give me your wallet and the keys to the car.
You wouldn't go to down Compton just as much as no one is forcing to go to a lawless land which is even worse cause its a (LAWLESS LAND) get it law less. You keep talking about fair and moral, dignity and so on. All of which has zero to do with open world pvp. Thats a choice not a pre requiem dictated upon others they have to adhere to. Consensual Pvp that even sounds boring Jesus.
Hey honey lets go play in this lawless land with open world pvp with consensual pvp. Oh yeah I can see you are excited about it. It was consensual the moment you stepped foot in it.
Last but not least. A mmo rpg as far as immersion is more akin to the real life Medieval times vs the modern day society we have today. There was Tyranny, wars raging, back stabbing bandits, death, mayhem, ****, heads chopped of due to differing beliefs, and just plain evil people. Dying was common place. You didnt dare go from one place to another without the fear of being jumped, robbed, or even worse.
[S]o now comes along a game there are no factions but there is conflict. In that segregated factions will evolve progressively within the game. Because of the prior actions of former pvpers I am being punished for something that I never abused. Again, I get it I understand the animosity even though I am not a pver. But there is a distinct difference between pvpers like me and pvpers like that. It gets old the ( oh you just want to greif ppl and kill lowbies and blah blah blah).
In Ashes, there are no hard-coded factions. Rivalries and alliances will form and dissipate as players interact with each other rather than be predetermined by the devs.
Which will allow us to have a greater RPG experience than in previous MMORPGs.
We will have less "Everyone of the opposite faction is kill on sight! RAWR!!" "I kill all Elves!! RAWR!!"
We will have more, "We need to siege that node so that we can grow our own node into a city!" And, "CopperRaven! Remember that Tavern you burned down in the Verdant Village last week? That was my Freehold!! Prepare to die!!" And, "CopperRaven! We were enemies in the past, but now we must band together in order to defeat the Frost Wyvern and her brood, else both of our cities will be frozen in this endless winter forever."
And those won't just be some stories we made up as excuses to PvP. They will be actual situations we lived through in the game.
PvP combat will have more meaning than, "I love PvP, so I should be able to attack anyone I see in the game any time I want to! RAWR!!" That kind of gameplay is really more of an FPS experience; not an RPG experience.
You aren't being punished for something you never abused.
Features are being set into place to give PvP combat and conflict more meaning and more value than players fighting other players just because they love the challenge of fighting other players rather than fighting limited AI.
Features are being implemented that will restrict killing players simply because killing other players is fun. Instead, players will be killing players as they strive to build and protect their own cities and gather the resources they need for the gear and abilities they want to acquire.
Even though I rarely join guilds, maybe I will be motivated to join a guild so I can siege a castle because I don't like how the current owners of a Castle are influencing the region I live in. When I log into the game, I know I need devote some time to making sure I destroy their caravans that allow the castle defenders to build up the defenses of the 3 military nodes. I need to ensure each week that the defense node being built up does not reach the village stage.
And, when I do that, not only will the PvP combat be more meaningful than killing greens because they are easy to find and I love PvP combat, I also have no risk of gaining Corruption as I work to improve the current living conditions for myself and those I care about in the region where I live.
Everyone in this thread is either a hardcore PvPer or a casual PvPer... as far as I can tell.
There is no animosity towards PvPers in this thread because we are all PvPers.
The debate here is not between people who want more PvP combat in Ashes and people who want no PvP at all.
The debate here is between those people who believe that Ashes will have plenty of meaningful PvP combat via caravans, castle sieges, node sieges, guild wars, arenas and monster coin events that gaining Corruption for killing random greens won't be much of an issue because there will be plenty of opportunity to participate in PVP combat where Corruption is disabled...
And those people who believe that caravans, castle sieges, node sieges, guild wars, arenas and monster coin events will not provide enough opportunities to engage in PvP combat without gaining Corruption.
The response from the first group is, "If you are so upset about the concept of gaining Corruption for killing non-combatants who are unwilling or unable to fight back against your attack, when the game design has sooooo many options to engage in meaningful PvP combat without gaining Corruption - you really just want to PK."
We haven't even played the game yet, so it is irrational to presume that the 6 paths to engage in PvP combat without gaining Corruption will not be sufficient to fulfill the desires of hardcore PvPers.
If we discover during Alpha and Beta that it is the case that it's too difficult to find a caravan attack or siege or guild war or monster coin event when we log in hoping to engage in PvP combat during our play sessions - that will be the time to petition for something like a lawless zone.
Lawless zone might be OK if it's "necessary". But, at the moment, it seems from the game design that there will already be plenty of opportunities for PvP combat with no risk of gaining Corruption.
And it's impossible to convince people there won't be sufficient opportunities for non-Corruption PvP combat with the current game design since it's impossible to provide evidence to support the claim.
You came into the Elephant thread making up a lot of excuses for why none of the options for PvP combat where Corruption is disabled will be sufficient for you.
Starting with, "I can not log on and immediately go to where a caravan may or may not be taking place. I work nights ( late nights) and I often solo. So even if I found one it would be impossible to take on a guarded unit."
That is just a paranoid presumption on your part. There is absolutely no way for you to know that you will not be able to log on and immediately go to where a caravan is.
You can defend or attack a caravan. You can be solo and still choose to attack or defend the caravan. If all you want to do is fight other players, it shouldn't matter how many players are there as long as there are a couple of players for you to fight.
The way you presented your argument, you make it sound as though you are only interested in PvP combat if you can have an advantage over people who are unwilling to fight you back. You seem to only want to engage in PvP combat if you are sure that you can win.
Otherwise, you wouldn't worry about whether you are solo when you arrive at the caravan. You would just jump in and fight some players. Especially since it would be easy enough to choose to fight alongside the "faction" that has the most players.
Stealing goods is not the only reason to engage in caravan PvP combat.
The excuses you came up with for why the options for non-flagged PvP combat currently offered by the game will not be sufficient for are not reasonable.
It's impossible for you to give reasonable, convincing arguments for why those options will be insufficient for you because it's impossible for you to have evidence that will support your assertions.
Trying so hard to make up excuses for why the many options the game design provides for non-flagged PvP cobat will be insufficient for you makes you sound like a desperate, paranoid PKer rather than someone interested in meaningful PvP combat.
This is often why when you arena you see the same faces over and over. Everyone else gets wrecked so hard over and over the rest that's left is the hardcores. Every time someone new came I always made sure to help them. Sure enough it helped and I'd have me some new challenges.
The reason you see the same faces over and over in arenas is because the people who enjoy arena combat represent a relatively small niche in the MMORPG community.
Lots of people who play MMORPGs aren't interested in PvP combat.
Lots of people who are interested in PvP combat prefer objective-based PvP combat.
Arena combat is a specific playstyle so, of course, you will mostly just see the people who enjoy that playstyle.
onto your if your playing kickball minding your own business and the slew of other examples. We are not going to agree on this.
I'm not expecting you to agree.
I am simply pointing out to you one of the main disconnects between hardcore PvPers and non-hardcore PvPers.
We are never going to agree on what is fair play.
You came to a Pvx game by your own choosing. Unlike your examples that's a well established standered well sense the begening of pvp. That you are going to be attacked because that's the very nature of the gameplay.
From my perspective, it's only standard because hardcore PvPers are disrespectful assholes. Which is why Corruption is a necessary feature on servers where non-hardcore PvP players are sharing space with hardcore PvP players.
What you are saying is that I should accept that it's OK for photographers and referees to get punched in the face for standing in a boxing ring if the people who punch them are never punished for their actions. Everyone should then know that they might get punched in the face if they step into the ring.
So, don't step into the ring to take photos or referee unless you are willing to get punched in the face because, you know, no one is going to stop anyone from punching you in the face if you have the audacity to step into the ring.
It's like saying don't live in New York unless you are willing to get mugged.
"Why did you walk into that bar wearing that dress??!!"
We aren't going to agree on that.
But that is precisely my point.
To me you're dictating the when, where and how. If you work at a strip joint I expect those puppies to be out. Everyone who comes there is not gonna have a stripper tell them. ( hey just because I willing joined this do not expect me to bring the twins out) yes horrible analogy but you get the point.
Even if I work at a strip club, I get to dictate when, where and how my puppies are out.
You do not get to decide that for me!
If I am off the stage and have my puppies covered, you are psychopathic if you think it's OK for you to reach up and expose my puppies simply because I work at the club.
You don't get to choose when my puppies are exposed. I get to choose that.
If you don't like when and where and how I expose my puppies - spend your money elsewhere. But, even in a strip club, you do not have the right to choose when I expose my puppies.
That, again, is just basic common courtesy. Working at a strip club is not consent for you to do whatever you want to me.
Thinking that you get to force on me when I expose my puppies in a strip club is psychopathic.
Sorry.
About the only thing we can agree on is you allow me to have my place separate from yours, vice versa. I am not out to take away from anyone. Just add something to an already pre exsisting world that's in noway effecting yours.
I'm not sure we quite agree on that.
You have a positive stance. I have a neutral stance.
I'm not convinced it's necessary for you to have a lawless zone that is a "separate place from mine."
Ashes is open world, so there really is no "separate place from mine" if we are playing on the same server and we're talking about zones.
If Steven chose to include a lawless zone, I might be OK with that, depending on how it's implemented.
I'm not convinced it would not negatively affect the server community, but I also don't know that it would, so... I would certainly need more details regarding how it might affect the overall design (details which you incapable of providing) in order to meaningfully assess the possible boons and defects.
CopperRaven said: I am glad you brought Compton up, if you did go there and something happened no one gave a crap a bout your consent or not (( Thats the point)).
I have lived in Compton. No one walked up to me and punched me in the face. No one tried to mug me. Because the threat of punishment is still a huge deterrent. "Lawless PvP combat" is really the gameplay of a MOBA or FPS; not an RPG. And Steven wants to bring his MMORPG back to being closer to table-top RPGs. So, it's unlikely that there will be a lawless zone because it doesn't fit his vision for his world. Just as there are no lawless zones in the US. That's my point.
CopperRaven said: Walks down the middle of the night in the ghetto and you get robbed.
I have been ganked many times within a span of months while minding my own business in MMORPGs and was never accosted once while walking down the street in the middle of the night in the ghetto in the year I lived there.
20 years of living all over LA and walking down the street at any time of night and no one has ever come close to attacking me. Because it's generally not worth the risk of the penalties of attacking someone minding their own business.
If I was a member of some rival gang, I would likely be attacked and/or killed while walking down the street at night.
Because even violent gang members typically have some scruples and only attack people who are in actual conflict with them. Objective-based attacks, rather than - "I'm a kill any fool who walks by, 'cause I love to fight!"
If you such a straight up gangsta, why you whining about Corruption?
Gangstas who kill folk ain't worried about punishment.
They bold enough to kill folks anyway.
Consensual PvP is boring? I bet.
I guess consensual sex is boring, too.
CopperRaven said: Last but not least. A mmo rpg as far as immersion is more akin to the real life Medieval times vs the modern day society we have today. There was Tyranny, wars raging, back stabbing bandits, death, mayhem, ****, heads chopped of due to differing beliefs, and just plain evil people. Dying was common place. You didnt dare go from one place to another without the fear of being jumped, robbed, or even worse.
1: No! An MMORPG, as far as immersion goes, is intended to be like fantasy novels; not like real life at all.
2: More specifically, MMORPGs are intended to be like playing table-top D&D in a virtual online world. Table-top D&D is about 95% co-op against NPCs. PvP combat is exceedingly rare. And, while Ashes will have considerably more PvP combat opportunities than D&D, Steven is trying to make his MMORPG more closely resemble table-top D&D by greatly reducing lawless, "mindless" PvP combat and placing a greater emphasis on providing meaningful, objective-based motivations for PvP combat.
3: PvEers don't necessarily have a problem with dying, so I dunno why you bring that up. Rather PvErs are better able to manage the challenges of NPC AI than they are the challenges of human players.
Casual PvPers and PvErs tend to be casual challenge players rather than hardcore challenge players.
I am a casual challenge player. I don't mind partaking in hardcore challenges sometimes. But, I want to be able to choose when I do and when I don;t rather than have some other player dictate when I do and when I don't.
4: Ashes is designed to provide plenty of content for hardcore PvPers while also providing a deterrent for hardcore PvPers forcing casual challenge players to engage in hardcore challenges when they are not in the mood.
5: No one is forcing hardcore PvPers to kill non-combatants.
That truly is your choice. And if you make that choice, you gain Corruption.
That is not an intrinsically unfair mechanic.
Ganking is the process in which a group of characters gang up on one or
more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one
high levelplayer does the same action to a player WAY below his or her own level.
Using Urban Dictionary to make a point is no different to using Wikipedia.
"To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort."
That is a far better description of ganking.
Your definition was first coined (according to your own sources) in early 2005. It was coined at a time when the majority of MMO players (the WoW population of the time) had never even been max level in an MMO, and so didn't (couldn't) take in to account things like gear gap.
As we all now know, gear gap is a thing - the definition needed to evolve just as all language evolves with time.
The definition that I have supplied above is a far more accurate definition to ganking as it pertains to the MMO genre.
It is ganking if you kill a player that is afk. It is ganking if you kill a player that is well below your level. It is ganking if you kill a player with significantly worse ping than you. It is ganking if you kill a player with significantly worse gear than you. It is ganking if you kill a player with greater numbers on your side. It is ganking if you kill a player while they are engaged in combat with someone/something else.
....aaaaand this is spot on.
Gear must have an impact or crafting would be pointless. For crafting to have depth, crafting gear should be just appropriate as combat gear or gathering gear or even processing gear. Someone who is wearing combat gear, must therefore be way more OP than someone who is wearing gathering, crafting or processing gear. Therefore a PvP player geared out in full combat attire, who is by default way more OP than a gatherer would be ganking said gatherer, crafter, processor out in the wild.
The only valid defense I have seen of this, is the how can you tell the difference between those ready for combat and those that are not. And the simple answer should be....combat gear, crafting gear, gathering gear and processing gear should be easily identifiable and easy to differentiate.
If you in full combat attire, attack someone who is wearing non-combat attire, than you are a derp if you think its not ganking.
Ganking is the process in which a group of characters gang up on one or
more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one
high levelplayer does the same action to a player WAY below his or her own level.
Using Urban Dictionary to make a point is no different to using Wikipedia.
"To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort."
That is a far better description of ganking.
Your definition was first coined (according to your own sources) in early 2005. It was coined at a time when the majority of MMO players (the WoW population of the time) had never even been max level in an MMO, and so didn't (couldn't) take in to account things like gear gap.
As we all now know, gear gap is a thing - the definition needed to evolve just as all language evolves with time.
The definition that I have supplied above is a far more accurate definition to ganking as it pertains to the MMO genre.
It is ganking if you kill a player that is afk. It is ganking if you kill a player that is well below your level. It is ganking if you kill a player with significantly worse ping than you. It is ganking if you kill a player with significantly worse gear than you. It is ganking if you kill a player with greater numbers on your side. It is ganking if you kill a player while they are engaged in combat with someone/something else.
....aaaaand this is spot on.
Gear must have an impact or crafting would be pointless. For crafting to have depth, crafting gear should be just appropriate as combat gear or gathering gear or even processing gear. Someone who is wearing combat gear, must therefore be way more OP than someone who is wearing gathering, crafting or processing gear. Therefore a PvP player geared out in full combat attire, who is by default way more OP than a gatherer would be ganking said gatherer, crafter, processor out in the wild.
The only valid defense I have seen of this, is the how can you tell the difference between those ready for combat and those that are not. And the simple answer should be....combat gear, crafting gear, gathering gear and processing gear should be easily identifiable and easy to differentiate.
If you in full combat attire, attack someone who is wearing non-combat attire, than you are a derp if you think its not ganking.
...aaaaaand here was the rebuttal I just copied and pasted I will try to cover some of the basics I have read when it comes to
dispute. The urban dictionary reference to discredit what the basic
ganking definition is. Ganking was defined long before 2005, not that
its relevant. But it goes to show it's been around along time. That is
an overall consensus of how basic ganking is viewed. Here's an example
Wikipedia: . Ganking (short for gang killing)
is a type of PKing in which the killer has a significant advantage over
his victim, such as being (( PART OF A GROUP )), being a (( HIGHER LEVEL)), or
attacking the victim while they are at low health.
Let me guess Wikipedia is wrong too.
It is is
pretty much the same sentiment of the what I have already said. Except
for the ( player is at low health) I feel that is still pvp personally.
It the fact remains I could pull it straight from the websters
dictionary and still that won't be good enough.
Also I keep
seeing the corruption this and it's tied into lore and so on. Again I
say to what extent nobody knows yet. I seriously doubt if I kill someone
one time it's complete corruption. Also there is evedince it builds up.
Maybe if I kill 3 ppl? Perhaps 50? We don't know.
My primary
argument has been about having a lawless land like that of tatooine. The
enticement being of course a pvper that can really take advantage of
the Open world. Also receive non stat items that we can only attain from
that area associated with pvp of course. In noway does a pver ever have
to go there or associate with it.
Some of you without saying it
in so many words, simply do not want to be attacked..... like at all.
The mere fact of a pvper jumps you ambush whatever it's a gank. To even
go so far as ping difference being Ganking. Is that an issue sure it is,
but so many types of things mentioned are unavoidable and honestly
abit silly. To the point some of you come of entitl d and I am to ask
permission if it's ok if I attack (smh). I really see no end to this
dispute honestly. But I do know that pvpers are the under dog when it
comes to this game. As long as some of you are willing to argue. It will
inadvertently help keep the topic going and be a force of consideration
on the devs part. So for me this is all net and I am willing to keep it
going as long as the nay Sayers are too.
For now i am playing robocraft before i hit the sack
CopperRaven said: Last but not least. A mmo rpg as far as immersion is more akin to the real life Medieval times vs the modern day society we have today. There was Tyranny, wars raging, back stabbing bandits, death, mayhem, ****, heads chopped of due to differing beliefs, and just plain evil people. Dying was common place. You didnt dare go from one place to another without the fear of being jumped, robbed, or even worse.
1: No! An MMORPG, as far as immersion goes, is intended to be like fantasy novels; not like real life at all.
2: More specifically, MMORPGs are intended to be like playing table-top D&D in a virtual online world. Table-top D&D is about 95% co-op against NPCs. PvP combat is exceedingly rare. And, while Ashes will have considerably more PvP combat opportunities than D&D, Steven is trying to make his MMORPG more closely resemble table-top D&D by greatly reducing lawless, "mindless" PvP combat and placing a greater emphasis on providing meaningful, objective-based motivations for PvP combat.
3: PvEers don't necessarily have a problem with dying, so I dunno why you bring that up. Rather PvErs are better able to manage the challenges of NPC AI than they are the challenges of human players.
Casual PvPers and PvErs tend to be casual challenge players rather than hardcore challenge players.
I am a casual challenge player. I don't mind partaking in hardcore challenges sometimes. But, I want to be able to choose when I do and when I don;t rather than have some other player dictate when I do and when I don't.
4: Ashes is designed to provide plenty of content for hardcore PvPers while also providing a deterrent for hardcore PvPers forcing casual challenge players to engage in hardcore challenges when they are not in the mood.
5: No one is forcing hardcore PvPers to kill non-combatants.
That truly is your choice. And if you make that choice, you gain Corruption.
That is not an intrinsically unfair mechanic.
1. I don't really like this argument but i want to bring up there are such a thing as dark fantasy novels and others that take place in a more dystopian setting. Characters aren't always on the same team.
2. This i definitely disagree with this. Coop games are for forcing everyone on the same team, not MMOs. I find this kind of silly for you to try to apply to ashes as you know that conflict between players is a big part of the game. Pretty sure you don't team up to defeat monsters and then siege down each others cities next session in dnd.
5. There are situations where people feel like the should have the option to fight and some worry that corruption will deny them that option or at least punish them too much for taking it.
1: Which might be a great argument for a dark dystopian MMORPG setting - which Ashes is not. AFAIK. There are also Steampunk settings. Which Ashes is not. And sci-fi settings. Which Ashes is not.
2: Table-top D&D did not force people to be on the same teams. And I didn't say anything about MMORPGs forcing players to be on the same team. What I said is that a major part of the MMORPG player base is more interested in PvE co-operative play than competitive PvP combat because the genre that MMORPGs are based on --table-top RPGs and even single-player PC RPGs-- are primarily PvE vs NPCs. And that is the experience those players want to recreate, alongside masses of other people. MMORPGs allow for more playstyles than just the one. Which is fine. But, really MMORPGs are rarely intended to be free-for-all PvP combat. That is the purview of MOBAs and MMOFPSs. Which is why we have so many complaints about hardcore PvPers not finding MMORPGs designed for their playstyle in the past decade.
5: The Ashes game design provides numerous opportunities for player characters to fight other player characters with Corruption disabled, so... That remains an irrational and unreasonable fear.
1. I wouldn't say this world is full on dark fantasy but it also isn't happily skipping through the fields together. The world isn't about good vs evil. We don't have a big evil faction we all need to team up on. We are invading a world and re-claiming it. When we wake up a dragon and it attacks us, it's not because the dragon is evil. With us all existing in a kind of grey area, the world encourages us to draw the lines and choose our side. Some sides have conflicting ideals.
2. What is your argument here? So because previous MMOs catered to a more pve playerbase this one has to as well? Can there not be a pvp MMO playerbase?
Ashes is a FFA pvx game. We can, for the most part, attack anyone, anywhere. There is a corruption system so we aren't encouraged to attack everyone on sight but you aren't 100% safe from players when you are out picking daisies or diving into a dungeon.
That said, while this system allows pvp conflict in the open world, other systems encourage players to also work together. With the limited fast travel and localized markets, not only does attacking people will affect who you will play with and against you but also affects the goods you have access.
We talk about what the corruption system allows a player to do but never bring up how the other systems will affect a players choices. Yes we have a FFA system but because of other systems it shouldn't be the wild west....at least everywhere.
1: The Ashes world is not about good v evil. Verra is about Corrupt v Non-Corrupt. Verra is a world in constant conflict. Not necessarily constant combat. Most importantly, on the world of Verra, murdering non-combatants results in gaining Corruption. Returning to Verra is not invading. Invading a dragon's lair is invading, sure. I'm not sure what that has to do with someone getting ganked by a player while harvesting.
2: My point is that Steven is designing his MMORPG with more of a focus on the RPG - more in-line with table-top D&D. So, while Ashes will have an ample amount of meaningful PvP combat, he is purposefully implementing a mechanic intended to greatly curtail the mindless killing of non-combatants. Ashes is not really an FFA PvX game. It is a PvX game with Corruption implemented as a restriction. If Ashes were FFA, hardcore PvPers would not be complaining about Corruption... or asking to have lawless zones introduced into the game.
Ganking is the process in which a group of characters gang up on one or
more players that do not have a chance to defend themselves, Or when one
high levelplayer does the same action to a player WAY below his or her own level.
Using Urban Dictionary to make a point is no different to using Wikipedia.
Wikipedia: . Ganking (short for gang killing)
is a type of PKing in which the killer has a significant advantage over
his victim, such as being (( PART OF A GROUP )), being a (( HIGHER LEVEL)), or
attacking the victim while they are at low health.
It's not the best rebuttal when it has been refuted before you even make it. It also doesn't help that the wikipedia page offers no references *at all* in the entire "Player Killing" section - and as a Wikipedia article is only as good as it's sources, it stands to reason that a Wikipedia article that sources nothing is good for nothing.
However, if you want to take Wikipedia seriously, there is still a major flaw in the argument...
Wikipedia: . Ganking(short for gang killing)
is a type of PKing in which the killer has a significant advantage over
his victim, such as being part of a group, being a higher level, or
attacking the victim while they are at low health.
The article is giving some examples of situations that are ganking - not an exhaustive list of all such situations.
Please, if you are going to use an Urban Dictionary or Wikipedia article in a debate, at least audit the sources the information is pulled from.
Without sources, these websites are literally just *some guy on the internet's opinions*, and that doesn't make for good debate.
1. No it's not corrupt vs non-corrupt. Currently, our goal is to re-discover verra. We will probably have to defeat a lot of corrupted because they are hostile but currently I don't see that as the primary goal. We are also not all on the same team. We will be competing with each other for resources and land. We haven't inhabited Verra in a long time and there are new locals, I'm pretty sure it can be considered invading.
2. He has the goal to give us a lot of tools so there is something for everyone. While it does include tools for rping, that doesn't mean the game is designed to play like a table top rpg in a controlled environment.
I consider calling it a "FFA MMO with a corruption system" is a better description then "MMO with a corruption system" as most people are familiar with faction based MMOs but that's just me.
1: What it certainly is not is Good v Evil. The closest we can get to that is Corrupt v Non-Corrupt since we will frequently be objectively dealing with that while in Ashes, Good v Evil will be completely subjective. I didn't say anything about a primary goal and this discussion really has nothing to do with primary goal in the game. The discussion is about ganking and why Corruption exists as a game mechanic for Ashes. We won't be fighting each other due to perceiving each other as invaders from another world.
1. This part of our argument has kind of gone in a weird direction. Point i was initially trying to make is that this isn't a story where we all play on the same side and work towards a mutual goal.
2. All he is talking about there is creating systems for players to explore which is what i said. Maybe i'm miss interpreting you but i don't see this as a argument against pvp or supports the idea of this being about a coop pve adventure. I play in a campaign every week, doesn't mean i also don't play pvp games. You listen later into the video he talks about his favorite experience in a MMO is him getting in a pvp dispute at a hunting spot and it sparking an 8 hour pvp battle.
1: In Ashes, we don't all play on the same side and work towards the same goal.
2: I'm not arguing against PvP. If you think I have been, you certainly are confused. No one in this thread has been arguing against PvP combat. Nor did I say that Ashes is a co-op PvE adventure.
What I said is that a major portion of the fan base for MMORPGs are coming from table-top RPG were the gameplay is 95+% co-op PvE v NPCs. And that the reason Ashes has the Corruption mechanic is to greatly curtail mindless, FFA PvP combat so the PvE folk can co-op PvE mostly in peace if they wish while they focus on eking out a classic RPG experience. Steven wants to put more of the RPG back into his MMORPG. In addition to that, Ashes will have ample opportunities for people to engage in PvP combat without killing non-combatants and risking Corruption.
I'm not convinced you really have an opposing view.
I dont even know what this thread is about cuz it sounds pretty dumb to me that someone would not know what ganking is in 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3hikEFjv0A This is open world ganking, you arent looking for a fair fight, you have a small group of players trying to quickly kill someone, and escape, hence the direwolf mounts which are the fastest mounts(at the time) in the game.
You dont need a healer to go ganking, you dont need a tank to go ganking, but you do need them for open world PvP, thats the main difference.
Open world pvp means that you are looking for a fight, fair numbers and all, you wont be running away from it unless the numbers are just obscene.
You can solo open world pvp, looking for all 1v1's, that isnt ganking since its a 1v1 and therefor fair fight.
Ganking usually means having some sort of advantage on a person, as well as what gear you bring, such as it only being optimal for small skirmishes and not having much AOE and not looking for a fair fight due to your spec being bursty trying to support your agenda which is ganking.
Here is an open world PvP fight that is not ganking, its just open world interaction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpDPw65HD_M I suggest all carebears to watch this one, they will love it. Open world is a great environment and keeps people in it long after you maxed everything out.
Open world PvP means that PvP combat takes place in the open world rather than in an instance. Sandbox means that the players have extensive freedom to do whatever they wish with minimal guidance and restrictions from the devs. But, Ashes is a themebox; not a sandbox.
Open world PvP means that PvP combat takes place in the open world rather than in an instance. Sandbox means that the players have extensive freedom to do whatever they wish with minimal guidance and restrictions from the devs. But, Ashes is a themebox; not a sandbox.
ganking is a form of open world PvP, open world PvP is a broad definition of PvP.
Ganking is a different category as ive already explained. How you do it can differentiate from game to game, but the emphasis on the objective stays the same.
Ganking in the gaming world covers a broad area of agreement and disagreement. I used the most basic form that is typically agreed upon overall. The argument it is a Urban definition. Well of course it is there is no real definitive answer to it. It in itself is Urban but you can get an overall idea of what is or is not in terms of ganking.
its essentially when a player vs indefensible odds. Gear is difference is not adequate because we are able to attain the gear to be competetive.
I can go on with each thing stated stated as ganking. I am still blown away that a ping difference is ganking, just wow. Or basically you get attacked unprepared ( in a world where pvp happens)
I would like to make another thread. However every time I do all hell breaks loose. Apparently the narrative is do not talk about Pvp. But that's about the only thing I know. ........ The impenetrable Safety Pin. Where pvers can hook it in there lapel and remove any negative effects. Creates a safe space barrier where boo boo words and bad ppl can't enter. Lol jking I am just being an ass
Comments
I'd love a game that is persistent, has worthwhile risk vs reward and also allows for meaningful open PvP.
The problem is, due to human nature when essentially anonymous, you can't have that. Games can pick any two out of those three - but all three together simply do not work.
awful. This is where self control tak snover and far to often pvpers said (( this is a pvp zone if you don't like it quit)) Well by god they do congratulations.
However if he said you! ( beep) effing ( beep) ( beep) noob! Gonna be a real bad day for him. Even then I'd limit the kills. (( typically 3 is my max point)) key word max. Not gonna lie there are times when things were said wayyyyy to far I can't repeat. Involving my kids , wife whoever Let's put is this way they were not planting anything that day. However I could never killed my own it just felt wrong, so I never became a pirate.
so now comes along a game there Is no factions but there is conflict. In that segregated factions will evolve progressively within the game. Because of the prior actions of former pvpers I am being punished for something that I never abused. AGain I get it I understand the animosity even though I am not a pver. But there is a distinct difference between pvpers like me and pvpers like that. It gets old the ( oh you just want to greif ppl and kill lowbies and blah blah blah). Noooo I really am as I say I am and I just a fun open discourse of pvp that can make an environment thrilling not toxic ( key difference). I watched first hand the game I loved ranked as a top pvper ( ranked #1 yeah I'm bragging) CoH infinity server fire/tank DAMINION I am calling me out. Anyways I got it became a ghost town literally because they would not stop greifing the shit out of ppl. New person come in and boom he was dead before he got tot sir two steps. This is often why when you arena you see the same faces over and over. Everyone else gets wrecked so hard over and over the rest that's left is the hardcores. Every time someone new came I always made sure to help them. Sure enough it helped and I'd have me some new challenges.
If you kill a green character once, you will be flagged red and gain a Corruption Score.
How high the Corruption Score will be depends on a number of factors - especially the level gap between you and your victim.
How high a penalty you face when you are killed will depend on how high your Corruption Score is.
"50" isn't really a measure of anything. Neither is "complete Corruption".
The example Steven gave in From the Ashes Ep 42 is that if a Level 50 kills a Level 1 non-combatant that will be about the equivalent of killing ten Level 50s.
So, yes, you are correct that the Corruption Score builds up and that if you kill one non-combatant your own level, you Corruption Score will be minimal.
But, I don't understand how that is intended to relate to your position on ganking or lawless zones.
The real issue here is that the different playstyles do not all agree on what is fair play and what constitutes griefing and what constitutes consensual PvP combat.
Hardcore PvPers tend to be offended by the concept of consensual PvP combat.
So... we would have to learn what Steven thinks about introducing that contention into his game.
Since Steven hasn't mentioned lawless zones, I doubt that will be a thing until after he sees how people react to the current game design during Alpha and Beta.
People aren't saying that they don't want to be attacked at all because no one in this thread has that mindset.
The closest you get to that in this thread is people like me who want to have control over when we are attacked by other players: caravans and sieges and guild wars are fair play.
Which is why there's no Corruption associated with those forms of PvP attacks. Everyone in this thread are all on board with being attacked by other players - sometimes.
The farther you get from the hardcore PvP playstyle the less people are going to agree on what is fair play when it comes to ganking. Which is why it's problematic to have hardcore PvPers, casual PvPers and non-PvPers playing on the same server.
But, that's what we have to deal with in Ashes of Creation.
I like PvP sometimes, but I want to be able to choose when I engage in PvP combat and when I don't. In games like WoW and EQ, I typically play on PvE-only servers because, in my view, too many hardcore PvPers are disrespectful and treat players as if they are NPCs.
I don't want other players choosing for me how much XP debt I accrue or whether or not I get a chance to finish my leveling goals for the night or my gathering goals for the night or whatever other goals I have for the night.
According to my moral standards, I expect other players to respect that.
But, too many hardcore PvPers have poor sportsmanship, so I typically play on a PvE-only server even though I like to engage in PvP combat sometimes.
I enjoy the PvP in NWO precisely because it's instanced and I get to choose when I participate in PvP combat and when I don't. Other players cannot force me to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood to do so.
That is not the same thing as not wanting to be attacked by other players at all. And no one in this thread has stated that they don't want to be attacked by players at all.
Although, we will be playing on the same servers as players who don't want to be attacked at all. And they will consider being attacked by players when they don't want to be attacked by players as being ganked.
I will also consider that to be ganking.
My definition of ganking is: To kill, ambush, or defeat with little effort.
Which includes ambushing and killing non-combatants who don't want to fight you. You can think that is ridiculous all you want, but that is why player characters who kill non-combatants will gain Corruption. I'm not sure why you are obsessing over the terminology. Regardless of what the behavior is called - if you kill non-combatants, you will gain Corruption.
If I'm minding my own business, playing kickball on a kickball field, it is not OK for someone to come along and force me to play baseball when I'm not in the mood to play baseball simply because the other person is capable of kicking my ass. It's not OK for the other person to punch me in the face to make me play baseball even if I can kick their ass. That is basic player-to-player respect.
If I am a photographer taking pics in a boxing ring, it is not OK for a boxer to punch me in the face simply because I am standing in the ring. It's not OK to punch the referee in the face simply because he is standing in the ring . It's not OK to punch another boxer in the face simply because he is standing in the ring.
There are rules governing when it is OK to punch someone in the face in a boxing ring.
If I want to fight in a boxing ring, I know when and how to do that - but it's never going to be a case of "Why are you standing in the ring if you don't want to get punched in the face?"
Yet, hardcore PvPers will commonly ask, "Why are you traveling through a zone where PvP combat is possible if you don't want to PvP?" The answer is -like the photographer or referee standing in a boxing ring, "Because there are other things to do here besides PvP combat."
You don't necessarily have to ask permission to attack. But, if I ask you player-to-player to leave me alone because I'm not interested in PvP combat right now, I expect you to back off. If you want to schedule confrontation/combat character-to-character at a later time, I'm happy to do that. That's a roleplaying thing -- character-to-character-- that is on a separate level of engagement than player-to-player.
Because I am old school - I play MMORPGs primarily to recreate the co-operative gameplay of table-top RPGs with masses of other players - not for competitive combat with other players. If I wanted to primarily engage in competitive combat with other players with very little roleplaying, I would play MOBAs or (MMO)FPSs.
I would greatly prefer to play on a separate server than hardcore PvPers because I generally find their playstyle to be morally offensive.
But, I have close friends who are hardcore PvPers and I would love for our characters to hang out in the game, mostly doing non-PvP stuff, but sometimes fighting together to defend our nodes and caravans.
So, sure, if Corruption allows us to all play comfortably on the same servers, great.
While I am highly skeptical that Corruption will be a sufficient deterrent for hardcore PvPers attacking me when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm willing to check it out and see how the game actually feels.
Will caravans and node sieges and castle sieges and guild wars be prevalent enough to satisfy most hardcore PvPers? We don't know.
Seems to me that it should be sufficient, considering how important it is for caravans to successfully bring goods for castle defense and for node defense and growth - there will be tons of nodes on each server.
There's a chance that it won't be enough.
But, it's irrational to complain that those forms of PvP combat will not be sufficient for most PvPers when we haven't even had a chance to test it out yet.
Again, Lawless zone(s)? Maybe.
We will very likely have to wait and see how the current game design actually feels, first.
Ok
for the first part hed I know I have said as much and I am not disagreeing. We do not know and what you know is what I know. ( that was easy) keep in mind this is referencing to someone else's question. But we both have already had this discussion so I am really not sure if your telling me or asking?
anyways
I brought up ganking because far to often I keep seeing terms used that were not ganking at all. So to clarify I just made a thread on it.
( annoying scrolling all the way up and down answering this huge page)
a lawless zone what's the question? In relation. Again this was in relation to a prior comment I believe. There is a lot of confusion as to what my intent is. Ppl assume typically I am this ganking greifing Agenda driven psychopath. So I try and clarify what I want, how,and why. Something my position on you are sure to be clear by this point.
onto your if your playing
kickball minding your own business and the slew of other examples. We are not going to agree on this. Not just from me but I have already seen others explain it to you. So here's my take on the difference. You came to a Pvx game by your own choosing. Unlike your examples that's a well established standered well sense the begening of pvp. That you are going to be attacked because that's the very nature of the gameplay. The option is a pure pve game ( which you have). Also you use the term immersion a lot. To me that is part of the immersion in a dangerous world full of unforeseen circumstances only humans can provide. That in part is the allure. You don't mind it when it's npcs popping out of nowhere. If it's a human noooo that's where the line is drawn. What you envision seems far less immersive to me honestly. To me your dictating the when, where and how. If you work at a strip joint I expect those puppies to be out. Everyone who comes there is not gonna have a stripper tell them. ( hey just because I willing joined this do not expect me to bring the twins out) yes horrible analogy but you get the point. You are coming into a world that's always been that way and expected it to be. It's you who wants the rules to change and apply to you.
As far as hardcore pvpers no. That's the answer much less most regular pvpers. I have explained as much as to why in full detail. Senseless for me to go through it again l. I am sure you know my answers.
About the only thing we can agree on is you allow me to have my place separate from yours, vice versa. I am not out to take away from anyone. Just add something to an already pre exsisting world that's in noway effecting yours. Would I prefer no corruption sure. But it is what it is so be it
Walks down the middle of the night in the ghetto and you get robbed. I can see you say AHEM! SIR Get your hands of me! You sir do not have my permission you feeble minded wench! You Sir have no dignity! Now begone backs of which the hells gate you crawled out of peasant ( spits).
The thug is like you know what, you are right after all. From now on I am going to change my ways and live a new clean life...................... Just as soon after you give me your wallet and the keys to the car.
You wouldn't go to down Compton just as much as no one is forcing to go to a lawless land which is even worse cause its a (LAWLESS LAND) get it law less.
You keep talking about fair and moral, dignity and so on. All of which has zero to do with open world pvp. Thats a choice not a pre requiem dictated upon others they have to adhere to. Consensual Pvp that even sounds boring Jesus.
Hey honey lets go play in this lawless land with open world pvp with consensual pvp. Oh yeah I can see you are excited about it.
It was consensual the moment you stepped foot in it.
Last but not least. A mmo rpg as far as immersion is more akin to the real life Medieval times vs the modern day society we have today. There was Tyranny, wars raging, back stabbing bandits, death, mayhem, ****, heads chopped of due to differing beliefs, and just plain evil people. Dying was common place. You didnt dare go from one place to another without the fear of being jumped, robbed, or even worse.
Which will allow us to have a greater RPG experience than in previous MMORPGs. We will have less "Everyone of the opposite faction is kill on sight! RAWR!!" "I kill all Elves!! RAWR!!"
We will have more, "We need to siege that node so that we can grow our own node into a city!" And, "CopperRaven! Remember that Tavern you burned down in the Verdant Village last week? That was my Freehold!! Prepare to die!!" And, "CopperRaven! We were enemies in the past, but now we must band together in order to defeat the Frost Wyvern and her brood, else both of our cities will be frozen in this endless winter forever."
And those won't just be some stories we made up as excuses to PvP. They will be actual situations we lived through in the game.
PvP combat will have more meaning than, "I love PvP, so I should be able to attack anyone I see in the game any time I want to! RAWR!!" That kind of gameplay is really more of an FPS experience; not an RPG experience.
You aren't being punished for something you never abused.
Features are being set into place to give PvP combat and conflict more meaning and more value than players fighting other players just because they love the challenge of fighting other players rather than fighting limited AI.
Features are being implemented that will restrict killing players simply because killing other players is fun. Instead, players will be killing players as they strive to build and protect their own cities and gather the resources they need for the gear and abilities they want to acquire.
Even though I rarely join guilds, maybe I will be motivated to join a guild so I can siege a castle because I don't like how the current owners of a Castle are influencing the region I live in. When I log into the game, I know I need devote some time to making sure I destroy their caravans that allow the castle defenders to build up the defenses of the 3 military nodes. I need to ensure each week that the defense node being built up does not reach the village stage.
And, when I do that, not only will the PvP combat be more meaningful than killing greens because they are easy to find and I love PvP combat, I also have no risk of gaining Corruption as I work to improve the current living conditions for myself and those I care about in the region where I live.
Everyone in this thread is either a hardcore PvPer or a casual PvPer... as far as I can tell. There is no animosity towards PvPers in this thread because we are all PvPers.
The debate here is not between people who want more PvP combat in Ashes and people who want no PvP at all.
The debate here is between those people who believe that Ashes will have plenty of meaningful PvP combat via caravans, castle sieges, node sieges, guild wars, arenas and monster coin events that gaining Corruption for killing random greens won't be much of an issue because there will be plenty of opportunity to participate in PVP combat where Corruption is disabled...
And those people who believe that caravans, castle sieges, node sieges, guild wars, arenas and monster coin events will not provide enough opportunities to engage in PvP combat without gaining Corruption.
The response from the first group is, "If you are so upset about the concept of gaining Corruption for killing non-combatants who are unwilling or unable to fight back against your attack, when the game design has sooooo many options to engage in meaningful PvP combat without gaining Corruption - you really just want to PK." We haven't even played the game yet, so it is irrational to presume that the 6 paths to engage in PvP combat without gaining Corruption will not be sufficient to fulfill the desires of hardcore PvPers.
If we discover during Alpha and Beta that it is the case that it's too difficult to find a caravan attack or siege or guild war or monster coin event when we log in hoping to engage in PvP combat during our play sessions - that will be the time to petition for something like a lawless zone.
Lawless zone might be OK if it's "necessary". But, at the moment, it seems from the game design that there will already be plenty of opportunities for PvP combat with no risk of gaining Corruption.
And it's impossible to convince people there won't be sufficient opportunities for non-Corruption PvP combat with the current game design since it's impossible to provide evidence to support the claim.
You came into the Elephant thread making up a lot of excuses for why none of the options for PvP combat where Corruption is disabled will be sufficient for you. Starting with, "I can not log on and immediately go to where a caravan may or may not be taking place. I work nights ( late nights) and I often solo. So even if I found one it would be impossible to take on a guarded unit."
That is just a paranoid presumption on your part. There is absolutely no way for you to know that you will not be able to log on and immediately go to where a caravan is. You can defend or attack a caravan. You can be solo and still choose to attack or defend the caravan. If all you want to do is fight other players, it shouldn't matter how many players are there as long as there are a couple of players for you to fight. The way you presented your argument, you make it sound as though you are only interested in PvP combat if you can have an advantage over people who are unwilling to fight you back. You seem to only want to engage in PvP combat if you are sure that you can win.
Otherwise, you wouldn't worry about whether you are solo when you arrive at the caravan. You would just jump in and fight some players. Especially since it would be easy enough to choose to fight alongside the "faction" that has the most players. Stealing goods is not the only reason to engage in caravan PvP combat.
The excuses you came up with for why the options for non-flagged PvP combat currently offered by the game will not be sufficient for are not reasonable.
It's impossible for you to give reasonable, convincing arguments for why those options will be insufficient for you because it's impossible for you to have evidence that will support your assertions.
Trying so hard to make up excuses for why the many options the game design provides for non-flagged PvP cobat will be insufficient for you makes you sound like a desperate, paranoid PKer rather than someone interested in meaningful PvP combat.
The reason you see the same faces over and over in arenas is because the people who enjoy arena combat represent a relatively small niche in the MMORPG community. Lots of people who play MMORPGs aren't interested in PvP combat.
Lots of people who are interested in PvP combat prefer objective-based PvP combat. Arena combat is a specific playstyle so, of course, you will mostly just see the people who enjoy that playstyle.
I am simply pointing out to you one of the main disconnects between hardcore PvPers and non-hardcore PvPers.
We are never going to agree on what is fair play.
From my perspective, it's only standard because hardcore PvPers are disrespectful assholes. Which is why Corruption is a necessary feature on servers where non-hardcore PvP players are sharing space with hardcore PvP players.
What you are saying is that I should accept that it's OK for photographers and referees to get punched in the face for standing in a boxing ring if the people who punch them are never punished for their actions. Everyone should then know that they might get punched in the face if they step into the ring.
So, don't step into the ring to take photos or referee unless you are willing to get punched in the face because, you know, no one is going to stop anyone from punching you in the face if you have the audacity to step into the ring.
It's like saying don't live in New York unless you are willing to get mugged.
"Why did you walk into that bar wearing that dress??!!"
We aren't going to agree on that.
But that is precisely my point.
Even if I work at a strip club, I get to dictate when, where and how my puppies are out.
You do not get to decide that for me!
If I am off the stage and have my puppies covered, you are psychopathic if you think it's OK for you to reach up and expose my puppies simply because I work at the club.
You don't get to choose when my puppies are exposed. I get to choose that. If you don't like when and where and how I expose my puppies - spend your money elsewhere. But, even in a strip club, you do not have the right to choose when I expose my puppies.
That, again, is just basic common courtesy.
Working at a strip club is not consent for you to do whatever you want to me.
Thinking that you get to force on me when I expose my puppies in a strip club is psychopathic.
Sorry.
I'm not sure we quite agree on that.
You have a positive stance. I have a neutral stance.
I'm not convinced it's necessary for you to have a lawless zone that is a "separate place from mine."
Ashes is open world, so there really is no "separate place from mine" if we are playing on the same server and we're talking about zones.
If Steven chose to include a lawless zone, I might be OK with that, depending on how it's implemented.
I'm not convinced it would not negatively affect the server community, but I also don't know that it would, so... I would certainly need more details regarding how it might affect the overall design (details which you incapable of providing) in order to meaningfully assess the possible boons and defects.
No one tried to mug me. Because the threat of punishment is still a huge deterrent.
"Lawless PvP combat" is really the gameplay of a MOBA or FPS; not an RPG.
And Steven wants to bring his MMORPG back to being closer to table-top RPGs.
So, it's unlikely that there will be a lawless zone because it doesn't fit his vision for his world.
Just as there are no lawless zones in the US.
That's my point.
I have been ganked many times within a span of months while minding my own business in MMORPGs and was never accosted once while walking down the street in the middle of the night in the ghetto in the year I lived there. 20 years of living all over LA and walking down the street at any time of night and no one has ever come close to attacking me. Because it's generally not worth the risk of the penalties of attacking someone minding their own business.
If I was a member of some rival gang, I would likely be attacked and/or killed while walking down the street at night.
Because even violent gang members typically have some scruples and only attack people who are in actual conflict with them. Objective-based attacks, rather than - "I'm a kill any fool who walks by, 'cause I love to fight!"
If you such a straight up gangsta, why you whining about Corruption?
Gangstas who kill folk ain't worried about punishment.
They bold enough to kill folks anyway.
Consensual PvP is boring? I bet.
I guess consensual sex is boring, too.
1: No! An MMORPG, as far as immersion goes, is intended to be like fantasy novels; not like real life at all.
2: More specifically, MMORPGs are intended to be like playing table-top D&D in a virtual online world. Table-top D&D is about 95% co-op against NPCs. PvP combat is exceedingly rare. And, while Ashes will have considerably more PvP combat opportunities than D&D, Steven is trying to make his MMORPG more closely resemble table-top D&D by greatly reducing lawless, "mindless" PvP combat and placing a greater emphasis on providing meaningful, objective-based motivations for PvP combat.
3: PvEers don't necessarily have a problem with dying, so I dunno why you bring that up. Rather PvErs are better able to manage the challenges of NPC AI than they are the challenges of human players.
Casual PvPers and PvErs tend to be casual challenge players rather than hardcore challenge players.
I am a casual challenge player. I don't mind partaking in hardcore challenges sometimes. But, I want to be able to choose when I do and when I don;t rather than have some other player dictate when I do and when I don't.
4: Ashes is designed to provide plenty of content for hardcore PvPers while also providing a deterrent for hardcore PvPers forcing casual challenge players to engage in hardcore challenges when they are not in the mood.
5: No one is forcing hardcore PvPers to kill non-combatants.
That truly is your choice. And if you make that choice, you gain Corruption. That is not an intrinsically unfair mechanic.
Gear must have an impact or crafting would be pointless.
For crafting to have depth, crafting gear should be just appropriate as combat gear or gathering gear or even processing gear.
Someone who is wearing combat gear, must therefore be way more OP than someone who is wearing gathering, crafting or processing gear.
Therefore a PvP player geared out in full combat attire, who is by default way more OP than a gatherer would be ganking said gatherer, crafter, processor out in the wild.
The only valid defense I have seen of this, is the how can you tell the difference between those ready for combat and those that are not. And the simple answer should be....combat gear, crafting gear, gathering gear and processing gear should be easily identifiable and easy to differentiate.
If you in full combat attire, attack someone who is wearing non-combat attire, than you are a derp if you think its not ganking.
...aaaaaand here was the rebuttal I just copied and pasted
I will try to cover some of the basics I have read when it comes to dispute. The urban dictionary reference to discredit what the basic ganking definition is. Ganking was defined long before 2005, not that its relevant. But it goes to show it's been around along time. That is an overall consensus of how basic ganking is viewed. Here's an example
Wikipedia: . Ganking (short for gang killing) is a type of PKing in which the killer has a significant advantage over his victim, such as being (( PART OF A GROUP )), being a (( HIGHER LEVEL)), or attacking the victim while they are at low health.
Let me guess Wikipedia is wrong too.
It is is pretty much the same sentiment of the what I have already said. Except for the ( player is at low health) I feel that is still pvp personally. It the fact remains I could pull it straight from the websters dictionary and still that won't be good enough.
Also I keep seeing the corruption this and it's tied into lore and so on. Again I say to what extent nobody knows yet. I seriously doubt if I kill someone one time it's complete corruption. Also there is evedince it builds up. Maybe if I kill 3 ppl? Perhaps 50? We don't know.
My primary argument has been about having a lawless land like that of tatooine. The enticement being of course a pvper that can really take advantage of the Open world. Also receive non stat items that we can only attain from that area associated with pvp of course. In noway does a pver ever have to go there or associate with it.
Some of you without saying it in so many words, simply do not want to be attacked..... like at all. The mere fact of a pvper jumps you ambush whatever it's a gank. To even go so far as ping difference being Ganking. Is that an issue sure it is, but so many types of things mentioned are unavoidable
and honestly abit silly. To the point some of you come of entitl d and I am to ask permission if it's ok if I attack (smh). I really see no end to this dispute honestly. But I do know that pvpers are the under dog when it comes to this game. As long as some of you are willing to argue. It will inadvertently help keep the topic going and be a force of consideration on the devs part. So for me this is all net and I am willing to keep it going as long as the nay Sayers are too.
For now i am playing robocraft before i hit the sack
2. This i definitely disagree with this. Coop games are for forcing everyone on the same team, not MMOs. I find this kind of silly for you to try to apply to ashes as you know that conflict between players is a big part of the game. Pretty sure you don't team up to defeat monsters and then siege down each others cities next session in dnd.
5. There are situations where people feel like the should have the option to fight and some worry that corruption will deny them that option or at least punish them too much for taking it.
2: Table-top D&D did not force people to be on the same teams. And I didn't say anything about MMORPGs forcing players to be on the same team.
What I said is that a major part of the MMORPG player base is more interested in PvE co-operative play than competitive PvP combat because the genre that MMORPGs are based on --table-top RPGs and even single-player PC RPGs-- are primarily PvE vs NPCs. And that is the experience those players want to recreate, alongside masses of other people.
MMORPGs allow for more playstyles than just the one. Which is fine. But, really MMORPGs are rarely intended to be free-for-all PvP combat. That is the purview of MOBAs and MMOFPSs.
Which is why we have so many complaints about hardcore PvPers not finding MMORPGs designed for their playstyle in the past decade.
5: The Ashes game design provides numerous opportunities for player characters to fight other player characters with Corruption disabled, so...
That remains an irrational and unreasonable fear.
2. What is your argument here? So because previous MMOs catered to a more pve playerbase this one has to as well? Can there not be a pvp MMO playerbase?
Ashes is a FFA pvx game. We can, for the most part, attack anyone, anywhere. There is a corruption system so we aren't encouraged to attack everyone on sight but you aren't 100% safe from players when you are out picking daisies or diving into a dungeon.
That said, while this system allows pvp conflict in the open world, other systems encourage players to also work together. With the limited fast travel and localized markets, not only does attacking people will affect who you will play with and against you but also affects the goods you have access.
We talk about what the corruption system allows a player to do but never bring up how the other systems will affect a players choices. Yes we have a FFA system but because of other systems it shouldn't be the wild west....at least everywhere.
Verra is a world in constant conflict. Not necessarily constant combat.
Most importantly, on the world of Verra, murdering non-combatants results in gaining Corruption.
Returning to Verra is not invading. Invading a dragon's lair is invading, sure.
I'm not sure what that has to do with someone getting ganked by a player while harvesting.
2: My point is that Steven is designing his MMORPG with more of a focus on the RPG - more in-line with table-top D&D.
So, while Ashes will have an ample amount of meaningful PvP combat, he is purposefully implementing a mechanic intended to greatly curtail the mindless killing of non-combatants.
Ashes is not really an FFA PvX game. It is a PvX game with Corruption implemented as a restriction.
If Ashes were FFA, hardcore PvPers would not be complaining about Corruption... or asking to have lawless zones introduced into the game.
However, if you want to take Wikipedia seriously, there is still a major flaw in the argument...
Please, if you are going to use an Urban Dictionary or Wikipedia article in a debate, at least audit the sources the information is pulled from.
Without sources, these websites are literally just *some guy on the internet's opinions*, and that doesn't make for good debate.
2. He has the goal to give us a lot of tools so there is something for everyone. While it does include tools for rping, that doesn't mean the game is designed to play like a table top rpg in a controlled environment.
I consider calling it a "FFA MMO with a corruption system" is a better description then "MMO with a corruption system" as most people are familiar with faction based MMOs but that's just me.
I didn't say anything about a primary goal and this discussion really has nothing to do with primary goal in the game.
The discussion is about ganking and why Corruption exists as a game mechanic for Ashes.
We won't be fighting each other due to perceiving each other as invaders from another world.
2: I think you should listen to more quotes from Steven.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=00h39m53s
It's objectively impossible to be FFA PvP combat if there is a penalty in place specifically designed to restrict/reduce FFA PvP combat.
2. All he is talking about there is creating systems for players to explore which is what i said. Maybe i'm miss interpreting you but i don't see this as a argument against pvp or supports the idea of this being about a coop pve adventure. I play in a campaign every week, doesn't mean i also don't play pvp games. You listen later into the video he talks about his favorite experience in a MMO is him getting in a pvp dispute at a hunting spot and it sparking an 8 hour pvp battle.
2: I'm not arguing against PvP. If you think I have been, you certainly are confused.
No one in this thread has been arguing against PvP combat.
Nor did I say that Ashes is a co-op PvE adventure.
What I said is that a major portion of the fan base for MMORPGs are coming from table-top RPG were the gameplay is 95+% co-op PvE v NPCs.
And that the reason Ashes has the Corruption mechanic is to greatly curtail mindless, FFA PvP combat so the PvE folk can co-op PvE mostly in peace if they wish while they focus on eking out a classic RPG experience. Steven wants to put more of the RPG back into his MMORPG.
In addition to that, Ashes will have ample opportunities for people to engage in PvP combat without killing non-combatants and risking Corruption.
I'm not convinced you really have an opposing view.
If undead knights are killing someone isn't it like them trying to reproduce? They are just trying to make friends.
This is open world ganking, you arent looking for a fair fight, you have a small group of players trying to quickly kill someone, and escape, hence the direwolf mounts which are the fastest mounts(at the time) in the game.
You dont need a healer to go ganking, you dont need a tank to go ganking, but you do need them for open world PvP, thats the main difference.
Open world pvp means that you are looking for a fight, fair numbers and all, you wont be running away from it unless the numbers are just obscene.
You can solo open world pvp, looking for all 1v1's, that isnt ganking since its a 1v1 and therefor fair fight.
Ganking usually means having some sort of advantage on a person, as well as what gear you bring, such as it only being optimal for small skirmishes and not having much AOE and not looking for a fair fight due to your spec being bursty trying to support your agenda which is ganking.
Here is an open world PvP fight that is not ganking, its just open world interaction
I suggest all carebears to watch this one, they will love it. Open world is a great environment and keeps people in it long after you maxed everything out.
Sandbox means that the players have extensive freedom to do whatever they wish with minimal guidance and restrictions from the devs.
But, Ashes is a themebox; not a sandbox.
Ganking is a different category as ive already explained. How you do it can differentiate from game to game, but the emphasis on the objective stays the same.
Ganking is one activity that is possible in a game that has open world PvP.
Open world PvP is not a broad definition. It specifically refers to PvP combat that happens in the open world rather than in an instance.
its essentially when a player vs indefensible odds. Gear is difference is not adequate because we are able to attain the gear to be competetive.
I can go on with each thing stated stated as ganking. I am still blown away that a ping difference is ganking, just wow. Or basically you get attacked unprepared ( in a world where pvp happens)
I would like to make another thread. However every time I do all hell breaks loose. Apparently the narrative is do not talk about Pvp. But that's about the only thing I know. ........ The impenetrable Safety Pin. Where pvers can hook it in there lapel and remove any negative effects. Creates a safe space barrier where boo boo words and bad ppl can't enter. Lol jking I am
just being an ass