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!

How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system

2»

Comments

  • @Noaani The way it has been described working is that there will be bounty boards in taverns that people will appear on as "missions." Just like other skill lines there will be points you can put into things like detection/map radius. None of the skill lines have been released, so that is pretty much the extent of the info so far unless someone else has a reference I missed.
    I'm fairly sure I've heard mention of range and accuracy fairly recently.

    I'll try to remember where I (think I) heard it and see what I can come up with later on.
  • Noaani said:
    Noaani said:
    I feel like you are just making up holes and putting no effort into filling them. You are making a lot of assumptions where most of us are trying to keep the concept at a high level.
    I have specifically said I believe it could be doable, just that I have not come up with a way myself.

    Other than that, all I have done is listed a few of the things I would try to avoid if it were me trying to come up with this particular system.

    Verra is supposed to be 30 times the size of the Skyrim map. With 10,000 concurent players per server, that means an average of 333 players per Skyrim-sized portion of Verra.

    That is a lot of room to hide if you have corruption, and a long way to travel if you are a Bounty Hunter trying to catch someone with corruption.

    While some may disagree, I look at the presence of Bounty Hunters in the game as a deterrent to gaining corruption. Players with a PvP mindset that are given tools to help hunt you down - and who actually progress their character by doing so - seem to me to be a good deterrent. That is, of course, unless you can reasonably assume that there are none close by due to them all being at the specific location where all the corrupt players have to gather to accept this corruption removing task.

    So by my thinking, giving Bounty Hunters a specific location to gather to best catch corrupt players is actually weakening a deterrent to gaining corruption - or put differently, reducing a deterrent to people interrupting the play of others for no good reason.

    ---

    If there are many points where a task to remove corruption can be acessed, then players will have no trouble doing this. If players can expect to find the encounters they need to complete this task within one node, then the entire system is ineffective. This is because it won't be hard at all to know the majority of the citizens of a node - especially if that node is a smaller one.

    Living in such a node - where you know the majority of players, where you have access to a task that removes corruption and where you can complete said task -, that basically gives you free range to kill any player at any time, with little consequences past a bit of time needed to perform said task.

    If it were implemented in this manner, it would actually - literally - break the game.

    In order for a task to remove corruption, my expectation would be that it would require the player to traverse at least 20% of Verra - or from one side of a metropolis ZoI to the other - at a minimum. It would have to require the player to venture in to parts of the world where they would not otherwise frequent.
    If a player kills someone and then has to stop to go clear their corruption then the system is still working. They have stopped killing, are spending time with an enhanced death penalty, and are losing time because of their actions. Just because they aren't experiencing the death penalty doesn't mean they didn't experience a risk because of their actions or were punished. As i said, they are vulnerable while doing these activities and at risk of gaining more corruption if attacked as people stay green when attacking them.

    The bounty hunter title gives you the ability to track down corrupted players. It doesn't matter how spread out or focused the anti-corrupted activity is as the bounty hunter can hunt the corrupted player either way. If you know where your target is you don't need to wait for them where they might show up, you can go straight to them.
    A working corruption system would be there to make the person think twice about killing that first person, not simply making them perform some arbitrary task before killing a second.

    The idea with corruption is that there is essentially no random PK'ing in Ashes because of it, not that it cuts random PK'ing in half.

    Unless the time spent to remove corruption is significantly - at least twice the time they took off the player they killed - then it isn't a deterrent. If there is a simple action that can be taken to remove corruption, one that can be done in a short amount of time, and without the need to travel far, then players will still look at PK'ing random players as a form of entertainment.

    Players killing random players for entertainment, rather than for specific reasons (access denial, personality clash etc), is a sign of a failed corruption system.

    ---

    Bounty Hunter gives you the ability to see corrupt players on your map, but only if they are in range. As far as I am aware, both range and accuracy of this location are determined by Bounty Hunter level (@UnknownSystemError may be able to help with this).

    What is for sure is that even as a Bounty Hunter, you will not *necessarily* know there is a corrupt player on the other side of the city you are in, let alone having the ability to hunt them down cross country in a world the size of Verra.

    If you are a Bounty Hunter, you will be thankful for any player that is able to point you in the direction of a corrupt character. If you know the general area they are in, then you stand a far greater chance of finding them than a non-Bounty Hunter, but that is it.
    You are still gaining corruption and putting yourself at risk. Even if you can work off that corruption without death doesn't mean it is without risk or penalty. With the risk still being there, people are still encouraged to not randomly pk. 

    As i said before, it won't be a simple task. It will take time, I think the time should be  close to corruption negative exp penalty. 

    When it comes to bounty hunters you are talking about stuff we don't have the details on. Not only do we not know the specifics but it's also something that can be adjusted if needed so making claims of it's effectiveness atm is a little silly. 

    Yes, bounty hunters can be thankful to players who call out corrupted players and the victims can be thankful to bounty hunters for hunting down their attacks. I think that kind of communication is a good thing. Part of the reason I think we need a system like this is to encourage people to chase corrupted players instead of letting them eventually be punished. When someone gives a player corruption, i want to spread the word of the target to not only get them punished but to also alert other people who might be farming in the area.

  • Even if you can work off that corruption without death doesn't mean it is without risk or penalty.
    If you can work off corruption without death, it is a drastic change to the paradigm.

    Currently, as we understand it, if you gain enough corruption to have a drop chance applied to gear, that drop chance WILL eventually be triggered.

    It is a massive change to shift this to where that drop chance MAY be triggered.

    Removing corruption without triggering that drop chance is literally a get-out-of-jail card. The drop chance is the only real penalty to corruption, and any addition to the game that allows players to circumvent it needs to be very carefully considered.

    I've said I don't consider it to be something that can't be added to the game, I just can't see "how" it could be added to the game. I'll actually take that one step further now and say that I don't believe it should be in the game at release - but rather should e considered post launch if the corruption system needs major fixing.

  • Strykerz said:
    nagash said:
    "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
    Your line of thought with your comment is to NOT promote discussion and/or new ideas. Yeah, cuz that has worked so well with other mmos previously.(Sarcasm) Hence why the huge disappointment with mmos over the past many years. No, the mmo community doesnt have faith in devs cuz we have been burnt soo many times.

    Secondly, I dont appreciate your condescending comments. I dont care who you are or how many fan boys you have or whatever position you think you have in this forum. Dont come into a forum thread and try and tell other ppl what they can or can not talk about. We all want this game to succeed and do well and bring hope back to mmos. If you have an issue with the IDEA, how about you be constructive and think of ways to improve that idea of the op instead of being an elitist jerk and tell ppl what they can and cant say. 

    That is all
    Actually this subject has been beaten to death many times over.  No need for your sarcasm. It is not appreciated by anyone. 

    That is all.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Strykerz said:
    nagash said:
    "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
    Your line of thought with your comment is to NOT promote discussion and/or new ideas. Yeah, cuz that has worked so well with other mmos previously.(Sarcasm) Hence why the huge disappointment with mmos over the past many years. No, the mmo community doesnt have faith in devs cuz we have been burnt soo many times.

    Secondly, I dont appreciate your condescending comments. I dont care who you are or how many fan boys you have or whatever position you think you have in this forum. Dont come into a forum thread and try and tell other ppl what they can or can not talk about. We all want this game to succeed and do well and bring hope back to mmos. If you have an issue with the IDEA, how about you be constructive and think of ways to improve that idea of the op instead of being an elitist jerk and tell ppl what they can and cant say. 

    That is all
    You are right I am not here to promote this thread. When you have read the same posts in over ten different thread made by people who can't use the search function it become rather monotonous. Every thread always ends in the same back, and forth agreements and counter-arguments, and it gets tiresome quickly. In reality, nothing we say or do on this forum will affect what intrepid studios will do. In the end, they are making the game, and we have no power over that.

    I have no problem with you discussing the game but calling me an elitest jerk is as far from the truth as you can get. I'm here to have fun that all I have ever wanted to do, that's why I don't get involved in these types of arguments anymore as it's always the same.

  • I'm hoping there are dark themed quests that require a certain level of corruption to obtain. Something like an npc that doesn't talk very much but starts to open up if you have a corruption score. Aside from whatever reason you may have had to kill a green, Something else that gives incentive to being corrupted and not just a system that discourages remaining corrupted as a whole.
    Sorry to remove that hope, but we do have the statement Steven made 10 days ago that there will be "no carrot incentive for pkers."
    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/260403378##
    QQ  #CrushedDreams  :'(
  • Noaani said:
    Even if you can work off that corruption without death doesn't mean it is without risk or penalty.
    If you can work off corruption without death, it is a drastic change to the paradigm.

    Currently, as we understand it, if you gain enough corruption to have a drop chance applied to gear, that drop chance WILL eventually be triggered.

    It is a massive change to shift this to where that drop chance MAY be triggered.

    Removing corruption without triggering that drop chance is literally a get-out-of-jail card. The drop chance is the only real penalty to corruption, and any addition to the game that allows players to circumvent it needs to be very carefully considered.

    I've said I don't consider it to be something that can't be added to the game, I just can't see "how" it could be added to the game. I'll actually take that one step further now and say that I don't believe it should be in the game at release - but rather should e considered post launch if the corruption system needs major fixing.

    Corruption is still doing what it's supposed to do. Adding a risk to pking and preventing players from going on killing sprees. As i said before, just because you avoided the maximum possible punishment doesn't mean you aren't being punished or suffering a risk. If the risk and punishment is still there then the system isn't being circumvented. It's hard to tell how this will shift things as giving a way to escape corruption gives the corrupted player a reason to run away instead continuing to harass players until death.

    As i keep saying, they are still at risk and just because they can escape the drop chance doesn't mean they always will. If you are going to use the gambler's fallacy to say that players will eventually drop gear in the current system then you can use it to say players will eventually catch the corrupted player and make them drop gear.

    No one said this is something needed right away as we don't know.
  • Strykerz said:
    nagash said:
    "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
    Your line of thought with your comment is to NOT promote discussion and/or new ideas. Yeah, cuz that has worked so well with other mmos previously.(Sarcasm) Hence why the huge disappointment with mmos over the past many years. No, the mmo community doesnt have faith in devs cuz we have been burnt soo many times.

    Secondly, I dont appreciate your condescending comments. I dont care who you are or how many fan boys you have or whatever position you think you have in this forum. Dont come into a forum thread and try and tell other ppl what they can or can not talk about. We all want this game to succeed and do well and bring hope back to mmos. If you have an issue with the IDEA, how about you be constructive and think of ways to improve that idea of the op instead of being an elitist jerk and tell ppl what they can and cant say. 

    That is all
    Actually this subject has been beaten to death many times over.  No need for your sarcasm. It is not appreciated by anyone. 

    That is all.
    ... I appreciated it. More to come.
  • Corruption is still doing what it's supposed to do. Adding a risk to pking and preventing players from going on killing sprees.
    That isn't what corruption is in the game for. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Noaani said:
    Corruption is still doing what it's supposed to do. Adding a risk to pking and preventing players from going on killing sprees.
    That isn't what corruption is in the game for. 
    I might not have worded that the best as i can see it might look like i'm implying the risk is only there to prevent killing sprees which was not my intent. 

    The corruption system is there to promote meaningful conflict by adding a risk to pking. What i meant by the second part(preventing killing sprees) is on top of the added risk, as you gain corruption, your (pvp) combat efficacy goes down so you can't kill forever. I realize i didn't need to add this but it was on my mind at the item so i wrote it.


  • The corruption system is there to promote meaningful conflict by adding a risk to pking. 
    That is part of it - it is there to discourage meaningless PK'ing as well.

    While these kind of seem like the same thing - they aren't.

    A corruption system where you can circumvent the only actual penalty (even if only a chance to do so exists) seriously degrades the effectiveness of corruption to discourage meaningless PK'ing.

    Once again, I am not saying I don't think such a thing is possible, as I do think it could be added eventually.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Noaani said:

    The corruption system is there to promote meaningful conflict by adding a risk to pking. 
    That is part of it - it is there to discourage meaningless PK'ing as well.

    While these kind of seem like the same thing - they aren't.

    A corruption system where you can circumvent the only actual penalty (even if only a chance to do so exists) seriously degrades the effectiveness of corruption to discourage meaningless PK'ing.

    Once again, I am not saying I don't think such a thing is possible, as I do think it could be added eventually.
    I feel like we already established that they are not circumventing the system as they are still risking their gear when they gain corruption. As pointed out in a previous post, they will not always get away and will sometimes drop their gear. The chance to drop their gear is a number and if it's felt that gear dropping is not happening enough, that number can be increased.
  • I feel like we already established that they are not circumventing the system as they are still risking their gear when they gain corruption.
    Noaani said:

    A corruption system where you can circumvent the only actual penalty (even if only a chance to do so exists) seriously degrades the effectiveness of corruption to discourage meaningless PK'ing.
    A player that successfully removes corruption via this method is a player that has circumvented the penalty for corruption. The players he killed still suffered their fate at his hand, but he escaped his own.

    While I am a fan of the macro approach, and looking at the overall systems, I am also a fan of keeping an eye on the micro - taking in to account the individual,

    This is perhaps the best way to explain why I have trouble finding what I consider an acceptable way to implement something like this. From a macro perspective it's easy - if players have a 50% chance to complete the task, then doubling the drop chance for items with corruption and then the overall number of items dropped (aka, the total penalty for all PK'ers) should remain about the same.

    However, this approach doesn't at all fit the micro view. The player with top quality gear stands to lose far more time and effort than the player with low quality gear, the player that lives closer to where this task could be obtained or completed stands a better chance of successful completion. The player that opted to not fight back in order to see to it that their attacker gained corruption would have every right to feel let down if that attacker then completed a simple task to wipe said corruption.

    A system that only works when looked at in a macro perspective is a poor system - and I just can't get the micro to work.
  • Noaani said:
    I feel like we already established that they are not circumventing the system as they are still risking their gear when they gain corruption.
    Noaani said:

    A corruption system where you can circumvent the only actual penalty (even if only a chance to do so exists) seriously degrades the effectiveness of corruption to discourage meaningless PK'ing.
    A player that successfully removes corruption via this method is a player that has circumvented the penalty for corruption. The players he killed still suffered their fate at his hand, but he escaped his own.

    While I am a fan of the macro approach, and looking at the overall systems, I am also a fan of keeping an eye on the micro - taking in to account the individual,

    This is perhaps the best way to explain why I have trouble finding what I consider an acceptable way to implement something like this. From a macro perspective it's easy - if players have a 50% chance to complete the task, then doubling the drop chance for items with corruption and then the overall number of items dropped (aka, the total penalty for all PK'ers) should remain about the same.

    However, this approach doesn't at all fit the micro view. The player with top quality gear stands to lose far more time and effort than the player with low quality gear, the player that lives closer to where this task could be obtained or completed stands a better chance of successful completion. The player that opted to not fight back in order to see to it that their attacker gained corruption would have every right to feel let down if that attacker then completed a simple task to wipe said corruption.

    A system that only works when looked at in a macro perspective is a poor system - and I just can't get the micro to work.
    That is like saying a player who dies but gets lucky and doesn't lose a piece of gear has circumvented the corruption system. With or without an active way to remove corruption a corrupted player is at a risk. Gear isn't the only penalty of the corruption system and as unknown said, it might not even be a part of it at lower corruption levels. 

    Part of the reason I'd like an active system is so that a person who doesn't fight back actually has to see to it that their attacker be punished instead of the punishment happening inevitably. Instead of them staying quiet, they need to engage other players and get them moving. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    That is like saying a player who dies but gets lucky and doesn't lose a piece of gear has circumvented the corruption system.
    Not really.

    The more corruption a character gains, the higher the chance of dropping an item (or multiple items). However, the chance of being able to complete the task to remove corruption remains fixed.

    We've been told that the game will treat players with corruption as NPC's, but we don't know how far this will go. It could simply be that guards will attack you on sight - in which case it isn't much of a penalty for most players. On the other hand, it could mean that you can't group with people, can't talk in chat channels, can't talk to NPC's, can't progress quests, can't change gear - there is a whole range of things player characters do in games that non-player characters don't do.

    If it turns out that the list of things corrupt players can't do is actually fairly significant, then that's all good. Thing is, in the context of the quote I've seen on the matter, it seemed to me to be specifically in regards to how guards will react to corrupt players - and nothing more. Without further comment, that is what I'm assuming will be the case - and that is no real punishment in itself.

    The combat penalties are PvP only, so only a penlaty if you intend to carry on killing other players. Since the corruption system is designed to make you not want to kill players in the first place - without reason at least - this is not really a penalty either.

    However, since all of these things go away the second you lose all of your corruption - they aren't penalties at all. Gear loss is permanent, and thus a real penalty. Since it is the only potential permanent penalty, it is the only one that matters.

    A week after killing a player, you aren't going to lament over your inability to get in to town to do some crafting or look through the market, but you will lament the loss of a raid level item.

    As far as I'm concerned, if it is something that a player has completely forgotten about a week later, it isn't a penalty.

    It should never be the burden of a player that has been attacked to see to it that the player that attacked them is punished. That player has already been inconvenienced by the player in question, and should not need to be further inconvenienced. The entire system is designed from the perspective of THIS player, not of the player that attacked this player.

    It is the attacked player that needs to be considered first, not the attacker.
  • Alright, I read everything.

    I am new to the forums, but I don't have much to add. Truth is we need to see this working and test before we bash it. The concept of the corruption system looks promising, and the idea of punishing random and meaningless ganking (especially of lower level characters) is noble.

    The specifics need more context. We can find lots of "holes" now, but it seems that way because the picture is incomplete. If these problems remain throughout alpha and beta then I think we should talk about them extensively. Right now all we are doing is finding problems in the hypothetical scenarios of each other...
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Noaani said:
    That is like saying a player who dies but gets lucky and doesn't lose a piece of gear has circumvented the corruption system.
    Not really.

    The more corruption a character gains, the higher the chance of dropping an item (or multiple items). However, the chance of being able to complete the task to remove corruption remains fixed.

    We've been told that the game will treat players with corruption as NPC's, but we don't know how far this will go. It could simply be that guards will attack you on sight - in which case it isn't much of a penalty for most players. On the other hand, it could mean that you can't group with people, can't talk in chat channels, can't talk to NPC's, can't progress quests, can't change gear - there is a whole range of things player characters do in games that non-player characters don't do.

    If it turns out that the list of things corrupt players can't do is actually fairly significant, then that's all good. Thing is, in the context of the quote I've seen on the matter, it seemed to me to be specifically in regards to how guards will react to corrupt players - and nothing more. Without further comment, that is what I'm assuming will be the case - and that is no real punishment in itself.

    The combat penalties are PvP only, so only a penlaty if you intend to carry on killing other players. Since the corruption system is designed to make you not want to kill players in the first place - without reason at least - this is not really a penalty either.

    However, since all of these things go away the second you lose all of your corruption - they aren't penalties at all. Gear loss is permanent, and thus a real penalty. Since it is the only potential permanent penalty, it is the only one that matters.

    A week after killing a player, you aren't going to lament over your inability to get in to town to do some crafting or look through the market, but you will lament the loss of a raid level item.

    As far as I'm concerned, if it is something that a player has completely forgotten about a week later, it isn't a penalty.

    It should never be the burden of a player that has been attacked to see to it that the player that attacked them is punished. That player has already been inconvenienced by the player in question, and should not need to be further inconvenienced. The entire system is designed from the perspective of THIS player, not of the player that attacked this player.

    It is the attacked player that needs to be considered first, not the attacker.
    I'm not sure what you mean by fixed. As we have been talking about, they are still at risk of suffering the death penalty associated with the corruption they have accrued. I'd like to reiterate that the system for removing corruption would be harder and/or more time consuming based off the amount of corruption they have.

    Yes, we don't know the specifics of the corruption system so there is no point in assuming what it is. Not only do we not have the details, it is not set set in stone. I feel like this talk about an alternative way to remove corruption should focus around that. If you don't like it and think that everyone who gains corruption should suffer a death from it then cool. If you like the idea of giving corrupted players a goal to remove their corruption but think the penalty of corruption should be increase or altered then that's also cool. Trying to predict what the corruption system will be and then basing your opinion off that is silly.

    Penalties don't have to be permanent to mean something. I disagree with the idea that the corruption penalty needs to be as punishing as you claim. You don't need to give someone a punishment that they will feel for weeks because they killed someone, wasting 10-30 minutes of the victims time. That is a little over kill don't you think? As you said, it can be that punishing if the attacker decides to risk something extremely rare but i don't think every person who gains corruption needs to feel that way.

    The system is there to promote meaningful conflict. I don't think it is designed for players who don't want to pvp. They might like it because it decreases the overall pvp and allows them to punish their attackers but it's not designed for them. Just like the system punishes the attacker, it is designed to also punishes them with an increased death penalty for not fighting back.
  • McStackerson said:
    If you like the idea of giving corrupted players a goal
    Corruption as a state is a pure punishment, there should never be a goal associated with it.

    If giving corrupt players a "goal" is even a part of the idea of adding something like this, then I'd be 100% against it.

    Meaningful PvP in Ashes is provided for via caravans, guild wars and sieges. Corruption based PvP is not meaningful, for the most part it is petty. When Intrepid talk about PvP being meaningful, they are not referring to open PvP like this, they are referring to the systems above.

    A corruption system doesn't promote meaningful PvP anyway - it doesn't "promote" PvP at all. It discourages PvP - and nothing else.

    To people that are going to attack a given player, it adds some weight to their decision. That doesn't make it meaningful PvP though, as there is no actual meaning to the whole thing.

    The system absolutely is designed for the player that doesn't want PvP. This is a 100% certain fact. I mean, corruption will never - EVER - get applied to a character unless they fight someone that literally doesn't fight back.

    Players have to literally refuse to PvP - even when it is forced upon them - in order for this system to even be in effect. Yet somehow you don't think this system is for players that don't want to PvP?
  • I'm hoping there are dark themed quests that require a certain level of corruption to obtain. Something like an npc that doesn't talk very much but starts to open up if you have a corruption score. Aside from whatever reason you may have had to kill a green, Something else that gives incentive to being corrupted and not just a system that discourages remaining corrupted as a whole.
    Sorry to remove that hope, but we do have the statement Steven made 10 days ago that there will be "no carrot incentive for pkers."
    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/260403378##
    Since we have come back to this again just a few days later, and I am too lazy to type out a separate response, here is the latest thinking on carrot/stick for pkers. It is all stick.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    Noaani said:
    McStackerson said:
    If you like the idea of giving corrupted players a goal
    Corruption as a state is a pure punishment, there should never be a goal associated with it.

    If giving corrupt players a "goal" is even a part of the idea of adding something like this, then I'd be 100% against it.

    Meaningful PvP in Ashes is provided for via caravans, guild wars and sieges. Corruption based PvP is not meaningful, for the most part it is petty. When Intrepid talk about PvP being meaningful, they are not referring to open PvP like this, they are referring to the systems above.

    A corruption system doesn't promote meaningful PvP anyway - it doesn't "promote" PvP at all. It discourages PvP - and nothing else.

    To people that are going to attack a given player, it adds some weight to their decision. That doesn't make it meaningful PvP though, as there is no actual meaning to the whole thing.

    The system absolutely is designed for the player that doesn't want PvP. This is a 100% certain fact. I mean, corruption will never - EVER - get applied to a character unless they fight someone that literally doesn't fight back.

    Players have to literally refuse to PvP - even when it is forced upon them - in order for this system to even be in effect. Yet somehow you don't think this system is for players that don't want to PvP?
    By goal i did not mean incentive to pvp and gain corruption but something to focus on once they have become corrupted instead of waiting for death. Not a reward.

    All pvp systems are intended to promote meaningful pvp in the game. As you said, corruption adds weight to pvp so people are encouraged to have a reason to pk. Not all world pvp that uses the flagging system will be pointless ganking. There will be things (resources/land) to fight for that don't fall into a battleground and the flagging system is there to allow us to fight if we feel it's needed.

    The flagging system is there so we aren't always attacking each other on sight because we can but still allow us to fight if we ever think it's worth the risk. As i said, people who don't like pvp might like the system because it decreases pvp and they can use it to punish everyone who attacks them but they are not the reason for the flagging system.


  • Well there are really good games out there that are based on open world pvp and  have tens of millions of subsribers.  Just in Ashes of Creation the open world will be mostly be pve, but it would be really easy to have both right now we have neither. I guess this is the part were the devs say we have a pvx server.  

    Think what really is happening open world pvp will be hampered and so will open world pve (everyone can attack every one maechanic with exceptions)  so really you will not have either thus Ashes is just shootting themselvevs in the foot.

    It would be really easy for them to  have both open world pvp and no open world pvp if they left it up to the players to flagg themselves as a pvp world.  Do not feel there is a need for me to type pages and pages on how to do this.  

    And just as a follow up for those people that think resource loss is not a real pvp deterent.  Well think just about every one been at the point were they literally cannot pvp cause they do have the resources to (unless you never played that type of game..   Even if you keep everything in the bank there will still be a durability loss and like I said you will more often in pvp than pve so....... 



Sign In or Register to comment.