Open World PVP Risk vs. Reward Suggestion

2

Comments

  • @Dygz the discussion of in-game brutality is not the issue. The problem arises when real world brutality (or racism or sexism etc.) is brought into the discussion. This is where the guidelines (set down by Steven himself) come into play. 

    The community guidelines center around encouraging conversation about Ashes of Creation while avoiding the pitfalls of real world issues, thus keeping this game within the realms of a fantasy RPG setting and not a real life simulator.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    It is the issue.
    Because the reason that people do not want to be subjected to non-consensual activities in a game is the same reason that people do not want to be subjected to non-consensual activities in the real world.
    And if people cannot comprehend the concept of why non-consensual activities in the game are problematic, real world examples are clear enough to drive the point home.
    You are censoring the discussion in order to support only one perspective.

    That does not encourage conversation.
  • @Dygz, anything that contravenes Steven's guidelines will be removed. It is eminently possible to have a civilized conversation about Ashes of Creation without resorting to talk of ****, racism, sexism or brutality. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    It is not possible to have a reasonable discussion about PvP combat in Ashes of Creation due to your censorship, specifically.
    That is fact.
    But you are the one with the power, so you get to do what you do.


  • lexmax said:
    @Dygz the discussion of in-game brutality is not the issue. The problem arises when real world brutality (or racism or sexism etc.) is brought into the discussion. This is where the guidelines (set down by Steven himself) come into play. 

    The community guidelines center around encouraging conversation about Ashes of Creation while avoiding the pitfalls of real world issues, thus keeping this game within the realms of a fantasy RPG setting and not a real life simulator.
    Also, they lost the moral high ground about not incorporating real world issues when they started selling MMMOGA hats in their official store, since these are seen by many as a racist dogwhistle and not the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" joke they have tried to spin it as.
  • I think a large problem is there seems to be an assumption that things that happen in a video game can be related to things that happen in real life.

    Just because forum members don't agree with the term 'non-consensual PvP' doesn't mean they don't understand all possible consequences to those types of actions in real life.

    Trying to dumb it down by using over the top graphic explanations does not help your cause.

    -Having something stolen from you, non-consensual. Nobody walks through life consenting to that.

    -Being fired due to a downsize and closure of your department. You probably won't consent to that.

    The fact that there seems to be a particular theme that some members keep jumping to is the only disturbing part here. Censorship is not the problem, over the top pointless examples are.
  • They are other ways to convey your ideals ... besides



    I thought everyone knew this  :p

    I am joking.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    @Szejm
    When you mentioned " Guards " ... i immediately thought of DarkScape/ RuneScape
    • Feel free to watch the whole thing if you want
    In short ... if Ashes is too PvP-centric , then the game could be a risk of shutting-down.
    Plus the cringe Cosmetic-only Cash Shop that could easily turn into P2W gimmicks if intrepid wanted to

    But i will optimistic in that it won't ever come to that ... but i won't be naive/dumbed-founded about it either  :/
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    There's no reason to be optimistic. But, there's also no reason to be pessimistic.
    Right now, we just have to wait to see if Corruption works out to the devs' satisfaction.
    If you're overly concerned that the game will be so PvP-centric that you won't want to play, perhaps save your money until you have sufficient evidence that Corruption works to your satisfaction.

    I invested in Ashes so that the devs have the opportunity to develop node mechanics and test whether meaningful conflict will mitigate non-consensual PvP combat.
    If I have to kill a bunch of players in order to ensure that my desired race contributes most to the progression of the node, I may not care whether the PvP is consensual and may not care about how much Corruption my alts gain. Especially if I have to ensure there is a Metropolis governed by my race on the server in order to complete my racial progression.

    But, people will have to actually play through the mechanics to determine whether the PvP combat mechanics, in general, are fun for players who are not hardcore PvPers.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    Azathoth said:
    I think a large problem is there seems to be an assumption that things that happen in a video game can be related to things that happen in real life.

    Just because forum members don't agree with the term 'non-consensual PvP' doesn't mean they don't understand all possible consequences to those types of actions in real life.

    Trying to dumb it down by using over the top graphic explanations does not help your cause.

    -Having something stolen from you, non-consensual. Nobody walks through life consenting to that.

    -Being fired due to a downsize and closure of your department. You probably won't consent to that.

    The fact that there seems to be a particular theme that some members keep jumping to is the only disturbing part here. Censorship is not the problem, over the top pointless examples are.
    No. The fact that some people believe there is no such thing as non-consensual PvP is creepy and disturbing. As is the fact that some people believe that everyone who plays the game auto-consents to PvP combat.
    Which is why the example of marriage is brought up as the obvious example that nullifies that notion.
    Censoring the counter-argument, in support of the creepy claim that non-consensual PvP does not exist, is also highly disturbing.
  • I believe it exist, I just don't think it exist in a game that tells you before you start playing that you are not safe from PvP outside of very specific locations.

    Marriage only consents to love though, nowhere in the legal document that binds two people together does it say one consents to the other for anything but love. So that's not true. Sure, we might all believe that it's common in marriage or have religious beliefs that indicate a duty to produce children after marriage, but the actual legal contract of marriage doesn't say anything about it.

    Unless someone has a legal marriage license that somehow indicates otherwise..?

    The actual legal contract you have with Ashes does. Odd how such a small detail is so overlooked.
  • can you stop bringing in real life comparisons for pvp already its starting to get old 
  • The notion that someone could log in to a game that tells players that they are exposed to the potential for PvP and then consider any PvP in the game as non-consensual is odd to me.

    Without drawing any specific analogies, if you are told that action X opens you up to consequence Y, and you perform action X, you can not then complain about consequence Y.

    As long as there is direct causation between the two, you can fill action X and consequence Y in with what ever you want, and the statement holds true.
  • Intrepid could take the swg approach.

    Anyone could flag up for pvp instantly wherever they were at, and by default you weren't pvp flagged UNLESS: You attacked a factioned npc, attacked a pvp flagged player, or had a bounty on your from previous pvp interactions. 
  • Dygz said:
    Azathoth said:
    I think a large problem is there seems to be an assumption that things that happen in a video game can be related to things that happen in real life.

    Just because forum members don't agree with the term 'non-consensual PvP' doesn't mean they don't understand all possible consequences to those types of actions ....
    No. The fact that some people believe there is no such thing as non-consensual PvP is creepy and disturbing. As is the fact that some people believe that everyone who plays the game auto-consents to PvP combat.
    Which is why the example of marriage is brought up as the obvious example that nullifies that notion.
    Censoring the counter-argument, in support of the creepy claim that non-consensual PvP does not exist, is also highly disturbing.
    Dygz, 

    Why do you go to such lengths and mental gymnastics to prove Nagash correct when he said your a moron.

    Azathoth is spot on and dropping knowledge for you and your making me wonder if English is your second language and your just very talented with google translate.

    Your argument breaks down to the turtles in Mario bros. are non consensual attackers as long as you proclaim you didnt want to fight. And your still wrong b/c us non downys all acknowledge that your actual non consent is logging out, not botching nonsense.

    Your also wrong about waiting to "proove" this system. Lineage 2 has owpvp rules that are almost verbatim to AoC, only some 15 years old and with lots of data that frankly makes several of you look extraordinarily silly with what your worried about. Lol, I watched someone loose a $5,000 set of pants one time just by accidently going red, getting tricked actually. That's the key, anyone capable of anything will have to almost be tricked into going red cause not many people will risk that time sink.

    Now I have to say I am strongly against censorship of any kind. It makes the host look less capable and unopen to progress.

    That being said, few things are more annoying than hyperbolic over the top metaphors that honestly beyond being , at times,  horrific, are of no usefulness to the conversation at hand due to thier nature. The main reason being that this is a game, an artificial construct with completely different rules and cultures than the real life world we all live in. None of our laws or morals are subjectively built in by default. So it is almost understandable that content compelety unrelated to the theme and topics of this forum be removed for easier navigation.

    -CS
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018

    That being said, few things are more annoying than hyperbolic over the top metaphors that honestly beyond being , at times,  horrific, are of no usefulness to the conversation at hand due to thier nature. The main reason being that this is a game, an artificial construct with completely different rules and cultures than the real life world we all live in. None of our laws or morals are subjectively built in by default. So it is almost understandable that content compelety unrelated to the theme and topics of this forum be removed for easier navigation.

    -CS
    Hmm I can mostly agree but (ye ye there is always "but") more or less games resemble real Life. Ofc there are some sci fi/fantasy elements but our human perception of what is just or wrong still exists. We judge things based on our "human" values so even if it's just a game we can relate some rules to real life because that's how our brains work. If something is wrong in real life most likely it will also be wrong in game. e.g. murder, and there are some ways to justify  killing people like "war" or "fighting with terrorism" -"node or castle wars" ect.

    btw. how is my English becouse i havent practice it for quite a long time xd is it very obvious english is not my main language? im supposed to be c1 level haha xd my friend from USA once told me that i write like someonee* with dyslexia xD 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    Ashes is a video game - mass media entertainment.
    Mass media entertainment has repercussions on the real world - just as real world perspectives have impact on mass media.
    Why do people think xx is OK in the real world? Because mass media entertainment portrays xx as OK. Why does mass media need to include xx message? Because censoring yy sends the masses the message that yy is trivial or non-existent.
    Just look at how women are treated and portrayed in 1960s and 1970s TV shows. Star Trek: The Original Series being a prime example.

    My analogy cannot break down to turtles in Mario not giving consent because turtles are not people and turtles are not able to give consent according to the current definitions of consent. Players are people. And people are capable of giving consent. Other people are capable of removing people's agency for consent. Which is why players in Ashes of Creation who remove that agency via killing a player through non-consensual PvP combat are penalized with Corruption.
    We could have a great discussion about players' unwarranted focus on killing non-combative animals in MMORPGs if we found that that gameplay style was somehow relevant to Ashes of Creation, sure. I'm a carebear.
    There is a great video about that:

    And then you would get to ridicule my argument if you think the argument is over the top hyperbolic.

    Stating that non-consensual PvP combat does not exist in MMORPGs and that players auto-consent by logging into Ashes of Creation is a hyperbolic claim - which is why it garners a hyperbolic counter-argument.

    It's fine for you to think that xx argument is hyperbolic.
    That can be part of a healthy discussion. There is nothing wrong with that.
    Censoring the hyperbole is disturbing and problematic...and wrong.
    And that's the last I plan to say about that in this particular thread.
    So that we can return to the actual topic of this thread, rather than continue the derail.
  • Szejm said:

    That being said, few things are more annoying than hyperbolic over the top metaphors that honestly beyond being , at times,  horrific, are of no usefulness to the conversation at hand due to thier nature. The main reason being that this is a game, an artificial construct with completely different rules and cultures than the real life world we all live in. None of our laws or morals are subjectively built in by default. So it is almost understandable that content compelety unrelated to the theme and topics of this forum be removed for easier navigation.

    -CS
    Hmm I can mostly agree but (ye ye there is always "but") more or less games resemble real Life. Ofc there are some sci fi/fantasy elements but our human perception of what is just or wrong still exists. We judge things based on our "human" values so even if it's just a game we can relate some rules to real life because that's how our brains work. If something is wrong in real life most likely it will also be wrong in game. e.g. murder, and there are some ways to justify  killing people like "war" or "fighting with terrorism" -"node or castle wars" ect.

    btw. how is my English becouse i havent practice it for quite a long time xd is it very obvious english is not my main language? im supposed to be c1 level haha xd my friend from USA once told me that i write like sometime with dyslexia xD 
    Your English was great!!
  • Ok, do you agree that you consent to pvp when you load into a pvp battleground or in ashes of creation, join a caravan or siege? By pressing the join battleground button, you are consenting to people attacking you in that battleground.

    Take that idea of a pvp battleground and expand it to the whole MMOs game map where when you log into ashes of creation, you are logging into a massive pvp battleground. When you press log in, it's the same as pressing join battleground.

    Yes, there is a corruption mechanic in the ashes game world because they don't want the game to be a crazy slaughter fest but the ashes of creation game world is technically a giant pvp battleground.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    PvP combat is the entire purpose of a PvP battleground.
    That is like entering a moba or an FPS.

    PvP combat is just one activity among many in an MMORPG.
    PvP combat is not the entire purpose or only activity in Ashes of Creation.
    In Ashes of Creation, sieges and caravan raids are consensual PvP combat.
    If you don't want to participate in battlegrounds PvP combat, you can go do something else in the game and avoid those battlegrounds.
    If someone kills you via non-consensual PvP combat, they will be penalized with Corruption.

    In Ashes of Creation, the entire game is not a battleground. Steven has specifically stated which forms of PvP combat are battlegrounds and which are not. And also stated why killing non-combatants is penalized with Corruption.
    So, it is absurd and irrational to extend battlegrounds to the whole world of an MMORPG - that would really be more of an MMOFPS. And we know that battlegrounds do not inherently extend to the whole world in Ashes of Creation, specifically.
    It's not rocket science.

    And, yeah, the problem is that some gamers can't comprehend the gameplay differences between an RPG an FPS and a MOBA.
    They want to play all MMORPGs as if they are an MMOFPS.
  • Dygz said:
    PvP combat is the entire purpose of a PvP battleground.
    That is like entering a moba or an FPS.

    PvP combat is just one activity among many in an MMORPG.
    PvP combat is not the entire purpose or only activity in Ashes of Creation.
    In Ashes of Creation, sieges and caravan raids are consensual PvP combat.
    If you don't want to participate, you can go avoid those battlegrounds.
    If someone kills you via non-consensual PvP combat, they will be penalized with Corruption.
    The entire game is not a battleground. Steven has specifically stated which forms of PvP combat are battlegrounds and which are not. And also stated why killing non-combatants is penalized with Corruption.
    So, it is absurd to extend battlegrounds to the whole world of an MMORPG - that would really be more of an MMOFPS. And we know that battlegrounds do not inherently extend to the whole world in Ashes of Creation.
    It's not rocket science.

    And, yeah, the problem is that some gamers can't comprehend the gameplay differences between an RPG an FPS and a MOBA.
    They want to play all MMORPGs as if they are an MMOFPS.
    Yes, but like a moba or fps pvp combat is allowed in the whole world in ashes. In some ways, you can probably look at ashes like a massive moba in the sense that it's a massive map with resources that you can fight over. Just because there are more activities to do in the game doesn't change the fact that the whole world is, in some ways, a pvp battleground. Yes, the ashes is not a battleground in the same way steven defines his battlegrounds but it is in the sense that pvp is allowed in the whole world.

    Why does every MMO have to be the same? Is it really that crazy that a MMO could take it's massive map and turn it into a massive battleground? In some way ashes has done that, they have added their flagging system so there can be some stability but technically the whole map is a massive pvp battleground. Instead of having flags or capture points, we have pve activities.

    I'm not trying to scare you with this. While in some ways it's technically a pvp battleground, there are other things to do in the game. The corruption system is there to encourage players to have a reason before attacking you in the open world. If you are serious about exploring and never give players a good reason to attack you then I don't think pvp would be a big deal for you.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    McStackerson said:
    Yes, but like a moba or fps pvp combat is allowed in the whole world in ashes. In some ways, you can probably look at ashes like a massive moba in the sense that it's a massive map with resources that you can fight over. Just because there are more activities to do in the game doesn't change the fact that the whole world is, in some ways, a pvp battleground. Yes, the ashes is not a battleground in the same way steven defines his battlegrounds but it is in the sense that pvp is allowed in the whole world.
    That's like saying "like a squirrel, humans have four limbs so humans should live their lives just like squirrels do".
    The whole world in Ashes of Creation is not "in some ways a PvP battleground".

    You are not scaring anyone. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with being "scared".
    Ashes of Creation includes battlegrounds that occur under specific conditions.
    Ashes of Creation is not "technically a battlegrounds".
    Which is why killing non-combatants via non-consensual PvP combat is penalized with Corruption and killing combatants in batlegrounds - where everyone is literally auto-flagged as a combatant - is not penalized with Corruption.
    The Corruption mechanic is designed specifically to penalize and minimize non-consensual PvP combat.
    Having reduced death penalties as a reward for flagging as a combatant is the mechanic that encourages players to fight back when attacked rather than remain a non-combatant.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    Ashes is a pvp battleground in the sense that the whole map is open to pvp, like how pvp battlegrounds are open to pvp. Just because there is a penalty for killing people who don't fight back doesn't change the fact that the whole map is open for pvp similar to a pvp battleground.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    If Ashes of Creation was intrinsically a battlegrounds, we would be permanently auto-flagged as combatants the moment we logged into the game. And there would be no way to flag as a non-combatant.

    Ashes of Creation is in no sense intrinsically a battlegrounds.
    Which is why everyone is a non-combatant by default when we log into the game - rather than being a combatant by default.
    And also why killing non-combatants is penalized with Corruption.

    Ashes of Creation includes specific conditions under which battlegrounds appear.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    Dygz said:
    If Ashes of Creation was a battlegrounds, we would be permanently auto-flagged as combatants the moment we logged into the game. Ashes of Creation is in no sense intrinsically a battlegrounds.
    Which is why everyone is a non-combatant by default when we log into the game - rather than being a combatant by default.
    Not necessarily, if you think of a battleground as a place that is open to pvp then ashes fits that. I don't think the penalty for defeating non-combatants changes that. It curves player behavior but doesn't change the underlying truth that the whole map is open to pvp, just like pvp battleground.

    If you really want a word for it, maybe call it a softcore battleground? Like a battleground, it's open to pvp but there is a penalty.
  • Ashes of creation is not any kind of battlegrounds.
    That's like saying the state of Maryland is a softcore school because the state contains some schools. Just because the state has some schools and the people in the state become students under certain conditions does not mean that it's OK for students to force non-students to attend school.
    And students who do force non-students to attend school against their will, will face penalties.
    Similarly, in Ashes of Creation combatants who kill non-combatants via non-consensual PvP combat will be penalized with Corruption.

    Just because it's possible to have combat in a location does not mean the location is a battlegrounds.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    I disagree, Ashes of creation has open pvp, like a pvp battleground, you can't deny that and the corruption penalty doesn't change that. 

    There is a penalty to try to encourage players to only pvp in certain situations but as i said, that does not change the fact that there is open pvp....like a pvp battleground.

    Maybe we can break this down. If they removed the corruption system and allowed pvp everywhere with no penalty then you would agree that ashes is a battleground. That's cool but they don't really want people attacking each other at every turn but still want that pvp freedom to a degree so they add in the corruption system. They still have the open pvp of a battleground but now there is a penalty to encourage players to only use it in situations where it's worth it.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    I disagree, Ashes of creation has open pvp, like a pvp battleground, you can't deny that and the corruption penalty doesn't change that. 

    There is a penalty to try to encourage players to only pvp in certain situations but as i said, that does not change the fact that there is open pvp....like a pvp battleground.

    Maybe we can break this down. If they removed the corruption system and allowed pvp everywhere with no penalty then you would agree that ashes is a battleground. That's cool but they don't really want people attacking each other at every turn but still want that pvp freedom to a degree so they add in the corruption system. They still have the open pvp of a battleground but now there is a penalty to encourage players to only use it in situations where it's worth it.
    Ashes of Creation has PvP combat that is restricted by the penalty of Corruption.
    The penalty is in place specifically to minimize non-consensual PvP combat.
    Ashes of Creation has PvP combat that occurs in a non-instanced, open world.
    In a PvP battleground, everyone is a combatant by default.
    In Ashes of Creation, everyone is a non-combatant by default so it is not a PvP battleground. PvP battlegrounds appear under specific conditions.
    Even without the Corruption mechanic, Ashes of creation would not be a battlegrounds by default because everyone is a non-combatant by default and because Ashes of Creation is an MMORPG; not an MMOFPS or a MOBA.

    We agree that Ashes of Creation includes PvP combat that occurs in an open world setting. But that does not meet the criteria for the game itself or its world to be a battlegrounds.
    You can disagree all you want, but...
    Facts are facts.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited July 2018
    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.
    Anyway... back to reality and the OP.

    I think one of the issues that would arise from the concept of high security areas is that hardcore players love the challenge of killing city/security guards. Which, if possible, would make those seeking protection from PvP combat even more irate if the guards were killable. And, probably make other players irate if the guards were unkillable.

    EQNext had a great example of meaningful conflict in their game design which mitigates some of the concerns about non-consensual PvP combat.
    In the EQNext design, Dark Elves in Kithicor Forest would be killing Dryads in order to siphon their Nature magic and convert it into Shadow magic. Shadow magic also increases Stealth. Unbeknownst to the Dark Elves, if too much Nature magic is drained from Kithicor Forest, the shackles restraining the legendary Shadow Demons will fall away and they will rampage through the region destroying all Life... including the Dark Elves. So, the Dark Elves -at that point- would likely have to ally with the rest of the people in the region to end the threat of the rampaging Shadow Demons.
    If my Rogue needed to kill some Dryads in order to maximize Stealth, I might have to kill any player characters who are protecting the Dryads. I'm going to seek that reward regardless of any risk from other players.
    If my Druid has to kill some player Rogues because their actions will release Shadow Demons that will destroy the towns and cities we've built, I guess I will kill some player Rogues.
    With meaningful conflict like that, risk becomes moot and consent becomes moot.
    From the Rogue perspective, if you leave me in peace while I farm the Dryads, I will leave you be. Of course, the Druids might not do so, since over-farming the Dryads negatively impacts the whole region, potentially destroying their towns and cities.
    From the Druid perspective, if the Rogue agrees to stop farming the Dryads, I will leave the Rogue be.

    Since Ashes has a lot of EQ devs on the team, that's the kind of meaningful conflict I'm expecting to see in this game. And, I suspect completing racial progression might be one of the conflicts - by way of there needing to be a Metropolis dominated by your race on the server in order to complete racial progression.

    If I'm a Vek and there needs to be a Vek Metropolis in order for me to complete Vek racial progression, I will likely do whatever it takes to ensure their is a Vek Metropolis - including racking up Corruption on my alts.
    Risk and consent would be moot concepts for me in that scenario.
  • @Dygz ; @McStackerson @Eragale
    Mayby we should ask some questions concerning open world pvp during live stream to make things clear :D?
Sign In or Register to comment.