Open World PVP Risk vs. Reward Suggestion

ArchivedUser

I just want to start by saying that i'm in the pro open world PVP mindset and that i'm very much a PVX player, but I would propose a suggestion. Since it's been over a year now and we still have people that either don't like, don't know, or just don't understand that AoC has open world PVP. Would both PVP and PVE players be okay with a kind of risk vs. reward system? Such as where after a node has been developed it will have security around select areas. It's all still open world PVP but in secure areas NPC guards are all around to protect you from player killers. In a low security area you get better loot and crafting materials but in a high security area you can farm to your heart's content with little to no risk. Just some food for though.

ArchivedUser

Oh no. No no no please have mercy have we not suffered enough at the hands pvp on the forums. think of the children  

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

Oh no. No no no please have mercy have we not suffered enough at the hands pvp on the forums. think of the children  

Sorry if no one comments than I know not to bring it up again.. And since when does a Lich think of the children.

ArchivedUser

What's that you say? The children want to pvp??!!!  DILLY DILLY

ArchivedUser

I predict pages and pages of rage. Then an abrupt closing by a moderator.

ArchivedUser

NewPantheon said:

nagash said:

Oh no. No no no please have mercy have we not suffered enough at the hands pvp on the forums. think of the children  

Sorry if no one comments than I know not to bring it up again.. And since when does a Lich think of the children.

I help kids all the time

ArchivedUser

@Nagarash i wish i could give you two likes for that!

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

So are we talking EVE-esque security stuff?

ArchivedUser

Well.. just give me 2 things. 

1)Ability to fight back as a red. That include:

• U  can kill anyone who attacked u first without gaining more coruption(ofc for short period of time) look picture https://imgur.com/a/BEqDQ93
• U don't get debuff when highly corrupted(The more corupted u are the more bounty hunters will chase u anyway. What is the point in making a MASS hunt for a rabbit with gold if u break it's legs beforehand..)

2)Possibility to slowly lose coruption through grind(i hate meaningless and boring quests... like everyone I guesss)

with that small changes current risk vs reward would be balanced.

• (Just my little wet dream) Maaybyy item drops isss a bit too much mayby item downgrade instead would be better or item drop for everyone no matter green red violet. Hunting Zones without pvp restritions uhhh :DDD 
  
  

okey, im back to reality

btw. I like the idea with security zones

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

I predict pages and pages of rage. Then an abrupt closing by a moderator.

I’m sorry I didn’t mean to start a argument.

Loyheta said:

So are we talking EVE-esque security stuff?

Yes, I got the idea from EVE and Fallout Online.

ArchivedUser

Ah just what we needed, more pvp discussion I do like the idea of guards defending you from being killed though.

ArchivedUser

I'm sure there will be guards in and around built up nodes.

I'd like to see guard patrols between any node and it's dependent nodes, but in a game like Ashes rather than being a specific area that is high security, it should be more a case of "if a guard sees you, you're in trouble".

ArchivedUser

NewPantheon said:

I just want to start by saying that i'm in the pro open world PVP mindset and that i'm very much a PVX player, but I would propose a suggestion. Since it's been over a year now and we still have people that either don't like, don't know, or just don't understand that AoC has open world PVP. Would both PVP and PVE players be okay with a kind of risk vs. reward system? Such as where after a node has been developed it will have security around select areas. It's all still open world PVP but in secure areas NPC guards are all around to protect you from player killers. In a low security area you get better loot and crafting materials but in a high security area you can farm to your heart's content with little to no risk. Just some food for though.

Really, the problem is that many people, like the OP, don't understand that open world PvP just means PvP combat that is not in an instance.

NPC guards are not an answer to non-consensual PvP combat.
Meaningful conflict has the potential to make non-consensual PvP combat moot.
Better loot cannot make non-consensual PvP combat acceptable.
But, since we aren't allowed to discuss consent v non-consent, this discussion is pointless.

ArchivedUser

Really, another problem people seem to have is using the term non-consensual where they actually mean unwanted.

ArchivedUser

Right. Unlike consenting to play Ashes where PvP is a known thing, in your example she went to a bar. The difference is when she walked into that bar she didn't consent to having her ass grabbed even if was unwanted.

When you login to play Ashes you consent to PvP, even when it is unwanted.

ArchivedUser

And that is why there are going to be harsh penalties for it. 

ArchivedUser

In most of the states there is law "Stand Your Ground": No duty to retreat from the situation before resorting to deadly force = if you are in danger you can even use deadly force to self defense e.g. guns and u dont need to run away.

Okey, in some states there is Duty to Retreat: Must retreat from the situation if you feel threatened (use of deadly force is considered a last resort).
So even in this few states where there is "duty to retreat" u would be allowed to use deadly force to self defence - u are inside a bar without a possibility to run away - they threten your life = u can fight back.  

"duty to retreat generally means that you can't resort to deadly force in self-defense if you can safely avoid the risk of harm or death (by running away, for example). If that is not an option, say if you were cornered or pinned down and facing serious harm or death, then you would be authorized to use deadly force in self defense."

ArchivedUser

Your whole rebuttal hinges on the fact that you were attacked first. You were not attacked first. By grabbing the girls ass you have committed assault. So the "stand your ground" defense could be used by her, in that she does not know you, and felt that you actually physically assaulting her person put her in fear for her life. You are not avoiding the penalty for being the aggressor no matter how much you want to plead "all i did was grab her ass, and then they beat me!"

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

But, since we aren't allowed to discuss consent v non-consent, this discussion is pointless.

Ha...so much for the whole livestream where they said that "censorship is not what we want to do for the community" I guess my non-consensual pvp equals sexual assault theme as a clarifying example has met the threshold of removal once again.

ArchivedUser

It's not avoiding responsibility, lol, she can sue you for sexual harrasment. But when other guys attack you it's noting more than "lynch rule" and you are free to fight back in self defence. You most likely will lose, but well, then u can sue them becouse they beat you. And it's actualy them who try to avoid responsibilty for assault with "oh he deserved this becosue he grabbed her..." btw. i studied law x)

What i mean this system treat "reds" like dogs not players. In this system when u grab this girls ass you suddenly stop being a player since that u are a dog and everyone can spit on u..

There is "censorship" becouse many players already "quit", before even launch, becouse of this douchebagfactory carebears pvp system. 
"whole bar can freely beat your ass for grabbing girls ass and suffer no qonsequences for that"

ArchivedUser

@Szejm
its sounds like you want something similar to " DarkScape " + " DarkFall " ?

ArchivedUser

Eragale said:

@Szejm
its sounds like you want something similar to " DarkScape " + " DarkFall " ?

Well mayby i don't know i would have to google it xd

but mayby tommorow, today i have no more power :<

ArchivedUser

Conversation relating to objectifying women must stop now. There is no need to resort to these kinds of extreme analogies when discussing the wonderful world of Verra.

ArchivedUser

Ok I see what they where saying. I thought this started off nice but now its going into weird analogies and metaphors.

ArchivedUser

Burying your head in the sand and stifling discussion because it disturbs you will not fix the image problem that Ashes has concerning pvp. The forums are peppered with posts by people saying "thanks, but no thanks" once they find out the plans for open world pvp. That is their choice. Overzealous moderation of views that you disagree with leads down that slippery slope to the Trion model where only positive posts that espouse the party line are acceptable and anyone that expresses any dissent is silenced and their account banned.

ArchivedUser

This has nothing to do with my opinion or any kind of reaction to dissent. This has to do with certain kinds of speech that not acceptable in the context of a gaming discussion on these forums. Specifically:



Please lets keep the conversation lighthearted and focused away from the things that divide and polarize a community  For more information please review our community guidelines:

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/6855/read-me-community-guidelines-code-of-conduct/p1

ArchivedUser

Roger, next time I will go gender neutral for the person assaulted.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

Roger, next time I will go gender neutral for the person assaulted.

Think you might have missed this.

ArchivedUser

Ahhh, but is discussing non-consensual pvp brutality? My example still stands, one person griefing another "because they can" is assault. I can dress it up any way that fits the guidelines. That is not going to change the depth of feeling that the action engenders in many players. This was used as a rebuttal for those calling for a watering down of the planned corruption system "because by logging on they agree to those anti-social actions!" Anti-social as described and defined by the big man himself.

ArchivedUser

Ashes of Creation is focused on brutally murdering all kinds of things, so a rule to not discuss brutality is inherently absurd and hypocritical.
But, those who have the power to censor unwanted points of view are the ones who get to obfuscate reality to fit their perspectives.

Placing hardcore PvPers on the same servers as casual PvPers and PvEers inherently foments contention and polarizes the community.
We should still be allowed to have civil conversations that present the conflicting perspectives.