Current PvP system: The worst of both worlds.

ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
edited August 2018 in Ashes of Creation Design
So... Non-combatants lose *more* than combatants, and then there's corruption. i.e. non-PvPers will be forced to do something they don't want, and punished for it if they don't, while PvPers will be punished for doing what they love. This is the worst of both worlds.

It makes no sense. Why can we not have the best of both worlds instead? non-combatants lose the same as combatants, and we still keep corruption, but there are certain nodes (e.g. militaristic nodes) where everyone is forced into combatant mode upon entering. Best of both. Or just make PvP friendly servers (what's the argument against this?). Then there will always be a territory where there is a greater sense of danger. That is what I, and many others love about in an MMO; the suspense, that there may be a rogue lurking around or an infamous mage. It is not true wilderness if there is no sense of danger. I highly doubt the environment will be able to cater to that sense of danger like players can.

Basically, I just wanted to voice my opinion to the devs, as I think the current system is ridiculous and think it will lose players; both PvPers and non PvPers alike.

I think it's a great system to have in place to have nodes where players can roam around without having to worry about being ganked, but having this in place for EVERY node is a mistake.

P.S. I have already read about battlegrounds & arenas, etc. While still fun, they do not at all compare to the suspense of open world PvP, since all of those things are expected PvP.
«1

Comments

  • I think you should clear up this a little but how exactly do non-combatants (as you call it) lose anything ?  Corruption is there so that you dont have a bunch of high level characters killing low level players, it's a stick without a carrot, players are not forced into the system either as long as they dont kill 'green' players it also adds a sense of danger to the world of the game, there is absolutely nothing to gain from being corrupted either. Unless I am somehow misunderstanding your entire post :3 
  • I think you should clear up this a little but how exactly do non-combatants (as you call it) lose anything ? 

    Also I'm not saying we should get rid of these penalties for attacking people, I'm saying there should just be zones/area's (typically higher level area's) where there everyone is forced into combatant mode. And everywhere else, non-combatants should lose the same as combatants. Then both non PvP'ers and PvP'ers will be happier.
  • I think you should clear up this a little but how exactly do non-combatants (as you call it) lose anything ?
  • Zukias said:
    I think you should clear up this a little but how exactly do non-combatants (as you call it) lose anything ?
    Ah sorry I just read up about it, well yeah you could say it's bad but then again you'd have to be really stupid to go around killing players in non-pvp zones so the danger of actually dying from another player outside of pvp designated areas wont be too high. personally I like this it adds a sense of danger and realism to the game. It will be tested in the later phases so there might be some changes :3
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    Ah sorry I just read up about it, well yeah you could say it's bad but then again you'd have to be really stupid to go around killing players in non-pvp zones so the danger of actually dying from another player outside of pvp designated areas wont be too high. personally I like this it adds a sense of danger and realism to the game. It will be tested in the later phases so there might be some changes :3
    Yes that's what I'd like, but at the moment there are no PvP zones unless a node is under siege. That's the point I'm making; I'd like PvP zones. And to benefit non PvPers as well, we should make it so outside of PvP zones, non-combatants lose the same amount as combatants. That way, PvPers can get their fix, and non-PvPers can go around the world without feeling punished for not fighting back.
  • Zukias said:
    Ah sorry I just read up about it, well yeah you could say it's bad but then again you'd have to be really stupid to go around killing players in non-pvp zones so the danger of actually dying from another player outside of pvp designated areas wont be too high. personally I like this it adds a sense of danger and realism to the game. It will be tested in the later phases so there might be some changes :3
    Yes that's what I'd like, but at the moment there are no PvP zones unless a node is under siege. That's the point I'm making; I'd like PvP zones. And to benefit non PvPers as well, we should make it so outside of PvP zones, non-combatants lose the same amount as combatants. That way, PvPers can get their fix, and non-PvPers can go around the world without feeling punished for not fighting back.
    Zukias said:
    Ah sorry I just read up about it, well yeah you could say it's bad but then again you'd have to be really stupid to go around killing players in non-pvp zones so the danger of actually dying from another player outside of pvp designated areas wont be too high. personally I like this it adds a sense of danger and realism to the game. It will be tested in the later phases so there might be some changes :3
    Yes that's what I'd like, but at the moment there are no PvP zones unless a node is under siege. That's the point I'm making; I'd like PvP zones. And to benefit non PvPers as well, we should make it so outside of PvP zones, non-combatants lose the same amount as combatants. That way, PvPers can get their fix, and non-PvPers can go around the world without feeling punished for not fighting back.
    Well we'll see how it will look when we actually get to test it, I do think that there should be pvp areas on the map where nobody gets punished for fighting in.
  • They are aware this is not a game for everybody. Who knows maybe it won't be good for either of the PvE extremists or the PvP extremists as you said in your first paragraph.

    I think it will be good for those in between those two extremes. Or maybe it will even be good for those extremists; we won't know until we get the hands-on experience and start getting real hands-on feedback from both extremes. But if you ask me my personal opìnion I would tell you, the community is better off without either of those extremes.

    It will nurture a community that can have fun when they have to PvP together in order to achieve a goal and also have fun when they have to PvE together in order to achieve another goal.
  • I believe we should just test the system they have in place where it brings both PvE and PvP players together. If you are going to suggest having PvP zones with no penalties then you need to counter it with PvE zones where people can not be attacked. The whole point of Intrepids system is to avoid this separation. 
  • Just what was needed, another "I don't want to be punished for ganking!" thread, with predictions of catastrophic failure of the game it their wishes aren't granted. As the newest addition to a topic that has been beat to death, clarified, and is coming no matter how much boo-hooing that is generated, I will wait in anticipation for the guaranteed descent into exhortations of "carebear" and "snowflake", and the eventual closing of the thread. If you don't like the corruption system because it punishes you, good, working as intended.
  • I think the current system is not optimized for maximum players but I also don't think that's what Steven is or should be going for. The business model of "lets please everyone" is not always a winning strategy. 

    We are lucky we get a chance to play a true "art house" MMO without the influences of marketing and managers who try and recast the vision of the game to maximize profit by making a game that appeals to as many people as possible. I'd much rather play Ashes for what it is and decide to stay if its for me.

  • Actually the system is very well balanced and optimized.   

    “A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”

                                                                                                                                                              - Larry David


    Fighting back when you get attacked is the expected behavior, this is why you lose what we will call the standard amount (consumables, xp, stats, etc.) when you die as a combatant.  

    Not Fighting back when you get attacked is a choice.  You can choose to remain a non-combatant when you are attacked.   When you make this choice you decide that 
        - you are ok with losing more than the standard amount
        - in exchange for that you know you are giving corruption to your attacker

    Attacking and then following through and killing someone who does not fight back is also a choice.  After all the corruption comes from the kill, not the attack.  If you choose to kill someone who has yet to fight back you decide that
         - you want that higher percentage of dropped consumables from a non-combatant
         - in exchange you accept the corruption and you know you are getting x3-x4 the              standard amount of loss

    I just finished a video that breaks down all the meaningful PvP activities that you can take part in.  You can view that here () if you haven't seen it or you don't know about the seven or so "meaningful" PvP activites


    Now as far as open world ganking.

    Intrepid had to make two decisions

    1:  Do we allow open world ganking?
         
             If Yes, we make PvPers happy but they may turn it into a gankbox
             If No, we make Carebears happy but we turn off our PvPers

    So they decided to allow open world ganking, which brings up question number 2

    2:   How do we stop the game from becoming a gankbox?

          And thus, the corruption system was born.

    Everyone seems to want to glaze over the fact that if you are attacking an opponent that has at least a 50/50 chance of beating you, they are going to fight back because they don't want to take that higher than standard penalty for death.

    Will there be a slim minority of people who dodge PvP by not fighting back?   Of course there will.  And guess what?   Stop killing them at 20%.   If you don't kill them, you don't get corruption.  Or kill them and take that corruption and deal with it.  That is after all your choice in this game of emergent game-play.  

    Now, if you ask why should you stop at 20%, then that means you weren't really looking for a meaningful PvP encounter, you were looking for a gank, and you are a gank artist and thus the system was designed specifically to counter people like you.

    If you say what happens if you kill them before you can stop at 20%, that means you are picking on someone who is far weaker than you, and again the gank artist brand on your left butt cheek applies.

    If someone is dodging PvP using the mechanic, guess what, they are using the mechanic.  They are using a game mechanic in the same way a rogue is using stealth.  It is a known mechanic that they have chosen to employ.

    Remember, that mechanic ONLY works in open world.   Sure, guy is gathering mushrooms he can only carry so many of them.  He eventually has to transfer them to a caravan to move them from one part of the world to another, and guess what:  Caravans don't come with corruption.
  • The corruption system seems like a very good feature. If you dont want to get ganked you dont fight back and corrupt the other player. The corrupted person will have possibility to drop gear among other penalties.
    This encourages people to fight with those who are willing to fight back.
    In addition to this I can see a lot of ahole players harassing people to fight back which players can then report and thus community gets rid of that kind of attitude.
  • Lets make sure we all understand how this works in the simplest way

    You only gain corruption if you kill a non-combatant - a player who refuses to fight back
    So if you kill someone who fights back you're fine no corruption gained.

    A non combatant does indeed suffer more penalties if they die because in result of their death the pking player has gained corruption.
    To balance that out so both sides are not abused - Corruption stacks with each death of a non-combatant ultimately making the pker unable to fight effectively + other penalties.
    Non-Combatants could abuse this and allow themselves to be murdered and make the pker accumulate more corruption until they stop or lose fighting effectiveness. 
    So to give incentive for mutual pvp-
    • Combatants gain normal penalties upon death + no corruption
    • Non-combatants receive double the penalties of a combatant in return they give corruption to their attacker.
    • Corrupted players gain corruption that stacks with each following death of a non-combatant and penalties 3 to 4 times the rate of a non-combatant.

      In my opinion this system sounds very fair, however testing will be needed to see how effective/punishing it will actually be in game.
      As for why we wont have PvP/PVE/RP only servers Intrepid has stated they do not want to separate these as they all have an important role to play in Ashes of Creation.

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    Im getting PTSD here...

    Man says Pvpers get punished for what they love then claims that its the worst of both. <Contradiction dont you think?

    Non-combatants get punished for not defending themselves. Simple to understand yes? Why wouldn't you want to defend yourself in the first place? You're not getting attacked for nothing (or at least the corruption system deters that) so to not want to Pvp and getting punished is 'unfair' argument is whats ridiculous. If you're getting attacked there is most likely a reason. You don't like pvp? dont give others a reason to attack you. You want that super rare resource that theres a limited amount of? prepare for competition and don't whine when you lose. Simple yes? We've been going through this argument for a year now and still people refuse to understand. It boggles my mind.

    Edit: Thank you @Alluring and @Jahlon for explaining it better than me. If your points don't get across i don't know what will 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    Dragnon said:
    I think the current system is not optimized for maximum players but I also don't think that's what Steven is or should be going for. The business model of "lets please everyone" is not always a winning strategy. 

    We are lucky we get a chance to play a true "art house" MMO without the influences of marketing and managers who try and recast the vision of the game to maximize profit by making a game that appeals to as many people as possible. I'd much rather play Ashes for what it is and decide to stay if its for me.

    But my impression is that they are trying to please everyone with the current system, and my argument is that I think it's a rubbish idea which is actually the worst of both worlds.
  • I think trying to please everyone would be them dividing the servers into pve, pvp, rp etc. The very fact that there are quite a few threads arguing about the whole pve/pvp/corruption thing is proof enough. 

    Complaining about an in-game system when it has not even been tested is also a fools errand, I mean we haven't even tried it out yet xD
  • if you don't like how the game is being built then don't play it. Its really that simple
  • The game is being designed to include a wealth of PvE and PvP activities that can cater to everyone. The game's open world is being designed in such a way as to create ample opportunities for OWPvP and to allow that PvP to have an impact on the development of the world.

    As such, Intrepid Studios seeks to encourage PvP competition over: caravans (caravan assault/defense); resources (contested areas); as well as nodes and castles (sieges). People seeking more PvP in the open world can probably do so by starting guild and node wars. Alternatively, they can go to the arenas (which will hopefully have more interesting rule-sets than just 'deathmatch').

    If the game is as well designed as I think it will be, then I suspect there will be no shortage of PvP to satisfy PvP players. If your thrill is ganking weaker players, however, the game might not be for you.

    Similarly, PvE players will have plenty of areas in which they can PvE with no fear of PvP. Once they venture out from the security of their nodes, they should do so with a few guildies for defense or risk death by PvP or PvE (my hope is that they make the open world fairly menacing via PvE as well).

    But as others have mentioned, we have a year yet to work out the kinks in the system, find out what works, and fix what doesn't.
  • Nefelia said:
    If the game is as well designed as I think it will be, then I suspect there will be no shortage of PvP to satisfy PvP players. If your thrill is ganking weaker players, however, the game might not be for you.
    Came here to pretty much say this, at some point, even as a solo player, you'll be forced into some sort of event where you'll have to engage in some PvP.

    The way it seems you're describing/envisioning the system is is basically someone PK'ing to PK, which with all the world events, you'd be going out of your way to PK randoms, IMO.
  • Zukias said:
    So... Non-combatants lose *more* than combatants, and then there's corruption. i.e. non-PvPers will be forced to do something they don't want, and punished for it if they don't, while PvPers will be punished for doing what they love. This is the worst of both worlds.

    It makes no sense. Why can we not have the best of both worlds instead? non-combatants lose the same as combatants, and we still keep corruption, but there are certain nodes (e.g. militaristic nodes) where everyone is forced into combatant mode upon entering. Best of both. Or just make PvP friendly servers (what's the argument against this?). Then there will always be a territory where there is a greater sense of danger. That is what I, and many others love about in an MMO; the suspense, that there may be a rogue lurking around or an infamous mage. It is not true wilderness if there is no sense of danger. I highly doubt the environment will be able to cater to that sense of danger like players can.

    Basically, I just wanted to voice my opinion to the devs, as I think the current system is ridiculous and think it will lose players; both PvPers and non PvPers alike.

    I think it's a great system to have in place to have nodes where players can roam around without having to worry about being ganked, but having this in place for EVERY node is a mistake.

    P.S. I have already read about battlegrounds & arenas, etc. While still fun, they do not at all compare to the suspense of open world PvP, since all of those things are expected PvP.
    What it seems to me that you are doing, is taking observed player behavior from a game with a different system, and assuming that same player behavior will transplant itself undisturbed into Ashes.

    The corruption system is not designed as a punishment system, it is a deterrent system.

    A player - even a dedicated PvP player - usually has no reason to attack some random player they come across out in the world. In a game like Archeage, that player will likely attack anyway as there is no reason not to. In Ashes, that PvP player simply won't attack this player.

    The corruption system takes open world PvP from being something that people do just because, and turns it in to something people will only do if they have a reason. That reason may simply be that you saw the player in question harvesting for a while, and so know you stand to gain a lot if you kill them - or it could be a more far reaching reason to do with server politics or player personalities.

    The kind of PvP many dedicated PvP players want will only really be found in Ashes in regards to things like Caravans. Fortunately for them, in this content, corruption isn't a concern.
  • There's really no sense getting bend out if if sh about a system that's not even fully understood yet. 

    Let's come back to this after it's been tested, shall we?
  • I just wanted to say, this was a great thread and answered some of my questions. My only concern is that this is mainly built around PVE. Ganking should be part of the game to a degree, i understand the corruption system as a deterrent but the consequences shouldn't affect your stats, it should affect your affect on the world. It should introduce bounties on specific players who become reds or limit the gear you can have on. 

    IDK, as a PvP from UO ( and yes i know this is not UO), that gave the game edge and grit where it also influenced the markets, areas, loot and how you went about your resource farming. At first it was rough but they added in Felicua for PVPers but the loot was more available because only the people who wanted to take the risk entered there and thus made it worth more for their time.

    Ahhh, this game has got me hyped! Cant wait!
  • its whats in archeage with trade runs but you loss the lot if you get kill in archeage.
     i like this way with aoc if it works like that.. its not care bear / farmville and you do get fk for killing people but then its a game when you can get your guild / mates to help you run packs what adds more content and you might get a lot of gold for it 


    If you take no risks, you will suffer no defeats. But if you take no risks, you win no victories.
  • Dumb, dumb, dumb, everyone of these posts is dumb. Not the poster, the poster is just simply not researched enough to have even began this discussion. 

    Karthos said:
    There's really no sense getting bend out if if sh about a system that's not even fully understood yet. 

    Let's come back to this after it's been tested, shall we?

    This system is fully understood and tested, and highly unlikely to change. It's not new, but it is badass.

    I wish people would not start these threads without having first spent some time in a game with this system already in place. Then come and comment with something worth talking about.

    ...fing pvp servers....get outa hereeee. At least read up on AoC more. Or at the VERY least scroll down and read some existing theeads.


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    IDK, as a PvP from UO ( and yes i know this is not UO), that gave the game edge and grit where it also influenced the markets, areas, loot and how you went about your resource farming.

    The issue is not "AoC is not UO" so much as the fact that the market has changed greatly since UO.

    There are so many game options for PvE players. An AoC that features regular ganking is an AoC that will see its PvE players leave in droves.

    No one wants to see that.

    Intrepid Studios is seeking to give PvP players a way to engage in PvP in meaningful ways without destroying the PvE population that the game will depend on to run the economy and populate the world. Hopefully the combination of the corruption system and engaging PvP (non-ganking) PvP activities will allow that goal to be accomplished.
  • Just a thought that came to me that I found was pretty cool; This design is very much like the "stuck in a video game" anime's. The way their game worlds are designed is much like this with both PVP and PVE content equally allowed. Players may ambush others out of greed, players may defend things, fight for resources, and do all the other big PVE things on top of it without the separation.

    The design promotes a much more realistic, interesting, and dynamic world. You actually get more of a sense of living in it rather than just visiting a half baked shell of a world without the actual industry and self interactions actually going on all over the place.

    The only problem is usually solving the fact they in a game you do not fear death, so trolling and risk less actions are prominent. That is why they add the corruption system.

    I love the direction we are going. My only fear is the risk of losing all your shit constantly to caravan robberies cause that is the main way to get good pvp... Lose everything constantly would be annoying and turn off from doing those crafts.
  • I don't think you will lose "everything" in a caravan just a percentage.  It may be a large percentage, though.  <opinion>
  • Just a thought that came to me that I found was pretty cool; This design is very much like the "stuck in a video game" anime's. The way their game worlds are designed is much like this with both PVP and PVE content equally allowed. Players may ambush others out of greed, players may defend things, fight for resources, and do all the other big PVE things on top of it without the separation.

    The design promotes a much more realistic, interesting, and dynamic world. You actually get more of a sense of living in it rather than just visiting a half baked shell of a world without the actual industry and self interactions actually going on all over the place.

    The only problem is usually solving the fact they in a game you do not fear death, so trolling and risk less actions are prominent. That is why they add the corruption system.

    I love the direction we are going. My only fear is the risk of losing all your shit constantly to caravan robberies cause that is the main way to get good pvp... Lose everything constantly would be annoying and turn off from doing those crafts.

    I totally agree with you! Also, in addition need to consider:
    - population count - being outnumbered
        (not everyone is online at the same time)
        (does that mean players need to lose stuff over and over again, or can't move around, defend, etc. until more people come online?) idk
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2018
    The only thing I object to is the idea that if someone is a non-combatant and gets attacked and decides not to fight back, they’re abusing the system and deserve to be punished.

    That’s one of the most BS arguments I’ve ever heard on these forums (and that’s sure saying a lot).

    If you don’t want to PvP and someone forces it on you, you’re not abusing anything.  You don’t want to participate and choose not to.  You’re doing absolutely nothing wrong.

    I’m not necessarily objecting to the system itself.  My first thought is that it seems a bit backward to be punitive to a player who doesn’t want to engage in that play.  But I’d like to see it in action first before I make any judgment on it.  I just object very strongly to the notion that somehow doing nothing is “abuse”.  I have to wonder what’s wrong with a person that thinks that way.

    Anyway, I would definitely at least like to see two exceptions to the “double penalty for non-action” consequence.

    One would be if there’s a severe power disparity between the attacker and the victim.  A very low-level character with weak gear gets jumped by the experienced, powerful gank-monkey getting his rocks off, and might not even be able to try to fight back (maybe he’s literally getting one-shotted or stun-locked).  That should definitely not have an extra penalty.  Or if a player has to go AFK for a while or is disconnected but still left in the game, they can’t possibly fight back (and there is usually some in-game indication of that situation in most MMOs).  A helpless non-combatant should definitely not be given extra punishment when a ganker decides to take advantage of an enemy they know can’t fight back.

    With those two exceptions I can see that the system might help bring a little balance between the two worlds and I’d like to give it a chance before deciding if I hate it or not.
  • You guys pretty much nailed the why i haven't dropped any money on this yet. I still think its going to be archeage2 . Bascially players will find workarounds for the karma system and insta gankfeast is born. I hope i'm wrong but i'm waiting to see if im not.
Sign In or Register to comment.