Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Current PvP system: The worst of both worlds.
ArchivedUser
Guest
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.
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.
0
Comments
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.
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.
“A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied”
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 (
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.
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.
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-
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Let's come back to this after it's been tested, shall we?
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!
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.
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.
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
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.