Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
What is left of the game for a PvE player?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
See: OP's post immediately after yours. PVE flagging doesn't even exist in the first place.
Everyone is default flagged as PvE green.
And just to clarify, I meant that people cannot successfully convince anyone, using any sort of mental gymnastics, that they were unaware that entering a PVP zone will flag them for PVP. That does not mean people will not try to use mental gymnastics to convince others or whine about it.
It seems to me that your perspective has been somewhat shaped by your experiences in a second rate MMO, developed by a third rate developer. Ryzom was a game that had no initial overall vision, and it's acquisition history screwed it up so much that even if it had an initial vision it would never have been maintained.
What happened in that game - and how it happened - don't hold sway over other MMO's.
If you play Ashes, you will be killed on occasion. I don't think anyone that has read up about the game or read these forums would argue with that point.
What won't happen though, is players unwilling to PvP won't simply become fodder for other players. The corruption system does provide ample penalty in this regard - enough of a penalty that some PvP oriented players (who claim to not be PK'ers) have already quit the game over it being too hard to PvP at all.
If someone attacks you, and you don't fight back, you stand to lose some harvests, but they stand to lose the armor on their back, or the sword in their hand. As a penalty, this is heavily tipped in favor of the PvE player.
Once players understand the consequences of corruption, I would wager that the only time you would be attacked is if a PvP player happens upon you after you have strayed so far from populated area that he has a clean escape.
Caravans are a bit different. If you load up a caravan and head to another node without any form of escort, don't expect it to go well. On the other hand, if you take on an escort, friends or mercenaries, you will probably be fine.
PvP in Ashes is there to provide a bit of risk. In order for you to feel like you are at risk, you do need to occasionally be killed.
As long as it is only occasionally though, surely that is fine.
Most games progress to higher and higher levels. Ashes fluctuates between fully created and fully destroyed. There is constant change rather than constant progression.
Rest assured many PvP players would love competitive advantage. That can only come about through the tools that enabled it. Those tools can not come about without crafting and all its collaborator roles. Thise PvP players will need to protect their PvE built node to progress. The PvE players will need the PvP community to protect them from other nodes. Its a mutually beneficial relationship.
There absolutely will be people on both extreme ends of the spectrum that will be put off by this - the "I want to kill anyone, any time" people and the "I want to be immune from PvP" people - but this game isn't necessarily for those people.
It is absolutely true that players may not behave the way Intrepid think - in fact I guarantee we will not behave how they think we will in many situations. However, the one thing that stands out to me the most that Steven has said so far, when asked what Intrepid have learned from specific games, the first part of his answer was this...
Listening to the community and being real time in changes. I'm not talking about the creative vision of the project, I'm talking about specific practices that people don't like. Knowing the history of the game Steven had in mind when saying this, I'm quite aware that he means that if players get up to something that developers didn't think of or didn't expect, and the result is negatively impacting other players, Intrepid will step in as soon as they can.
Obviously, these are only words. You can chose to believe them, or you can chose to not believe them.
All of us have to make a choice. We chose to either believe Steven and Intrepid, or chose to not believe them.
If you chose to believe them, then you believe the above quote. if you believe that one quote, then rather than looking at the systems as they have been described, you look at what the intent behind the systems being put in place is. If Intrepid miss their intended mark - according to the above quote - they will re-aim and take another shot.
So it's totally up to you.
First of all, do you believe Intrepid. Second of all, are you able to accept the intention behind the PvP systems in Ashes?
Actually, for me, the main deterrent from accruing corruption is that they say it will affect your appearance negatively. Like hey, I might be ruthless, but I'm also vain.
This is a known fact about Ashes as of right now.
By purchasing, signing in, and playing you are consenting to PvP. You might not want to, but you consented when you decided to play the game. There is no non-consensual PvP in Ashes because by playing we all agree it might happen. We have consented to being subjected to PvP.
Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't always mean it's non-consensual. Many people agree to get vaccinated per injection even though they hate needles, that does not make it a non-consensual injection.
That's like saying that getting married is consenting to sex any time your spouse wants sex.
In Ashes, when non-consensual PvP combat results in the death of the non-combatant, the attacker is punished with Corruption.
If you remain in the PvP zone of a caravan or a siege, you are consenting to PvP combat.
Ashes doesn't provide such a mechanism in its design. But it could if the devs chose to implement it.
We will all just have to experience the Corruption mechanic to know how much of a deterrent it will be for non-consensual PvP combat.
At the end of the day you are going to be killed and you can label as you see fit. I am still going to kill you, and the more you bitch about it. The more pvpers are going to kill you based on your reactions. I will wait until I am sure you have things of value at least.
Typically, the players who force PvP combat on other players are segregated to their own servers. While players concerned about non-consensual PvP combat are on PvE-Only servers.
MMORPGs with FFA PvP combat are niche.
In Ashes, at the end of the day, player characters who kill non-combatants will be punished with Corruption. Regardless of the label one uses to refer to such characters.
Waiting until i have things of value will be meaningless since all that is lost at death for non-combatants and combatants is resources. And their will be no way for you to know whether I am carrying valuable resources - if you could even find me in the game.
Uh huh you are still in a game that allows it to happen, and it will happen. Lets pretend all I can do is kill you once (which it will be more) There are still thousands of others who can kill you once. Corruption can still be removed and you will be the same lvl as most. Even with that there will be less points and we still do not know to what extent. However you are still entering a pvx game where you can and will be jumped. So stop pretending you are not joining something you are not fully aware of the consequences. Is it a deterrent? Well of course it is, but it will still happen way more than you are probably going to like.
Having said all that. Stop comparing a game within any vicinity of real life ****.Its an obvoius over extended agenda to push a point. ( that no one is buying) But someone just may come on here and read your bs and probably not something they expect about a effing game.
What matters is whether the Corruption mechanic is a significant deterrent to make the game enjoyable for the devs target number of PvEers and casual PvPers.
I will make whatever comparisons I wish to make.
Especially ones that are apt comparisons.
The mods can remove those posts if they wish.
I am a huge advocate of free speech so you absolutely have the right. Which in turn make your more strident agreeable people turn against you. Also no there is zero comparison to a game to real life ****. Not apt not kinda not a little bit just no.
All im asking is that
A. do your homework, if you don't have time then feel free to ask a question.
B. Answerers should answer appropriately without seeming condescending
C. Stop fucking drawing your own conclusions and trashing things without knowing everything.
Does the game allow for PvP players to attack you even if you don't want to be attacked? Yes.
Are you aware of this fact prior to joining the game? Yes.
Do you still agree to play the game under those expectations? Yes.
You have consented to being attacked by PvP players. You're not asking for it, you may not want it, but you did consent.
As for your absurd example. Instead of corruption, in RL, peeps would/should have to deal with the law. The depth of your chosen comparison is so beyond the means of this forum I don't really suspect you wanted anyone to argue with you or present a counterpoint. That is not good conversation. Many here claim your comparisons are off the wall or your logic is circular in general. For the most part I think you present your cases well and use solid examples. Your comparison, this time, let me down.
But, you said open world PvP it cannot promise a completely safe environment to PvE oriented players.
I'm just making it clear that while it can, Ashes of Creation, specifically, does not.
If I am attacked when I'm green and minding my own business, the attacker is a griefer, especially if the attacker continues to attack when i don't flag purple.
How annoyed I feel about that will depend on how often that occurs in any given week or month.
Whether or not the attacker is on the same level as me is completely irrelevant.
Based on your reactions and the things you have addressed in part with Pvp in general. I suspect it wont take much to annoy you as far as pvp. You use words like consent in a game that allows pvp to happen ( irregardless of the penalty). Said it is griefing even if attacked one time, and you have on several occasions compared pvp to ****...so yeah its not hard to imagine It would not take much.
The points contribute higher lets say I attack a green lvl 10 vs a 50. So clearly I can attack you more as the same lvl because we are considered on more equal footing. Now it is possible I am wrong about that, but thats how it was explained to me.
There's dozens of Single Player RPG games that dont require you to PvP at all. Yet, carebears ALWAYS find their ways to the games PvP'ers flock to.