High Security Low Security No Security

So anyone familiar with EVE Online will know the terms Hi-Sec, Low-Sec and Null-Sec. Three regions of space that determine what consequences there are in game mechanics that take place when PVP happens. In Null there are no consequences. In Low your standings will be impacted (equivalent of corruption) and the local NPC factions take a limited response (kill someone near a jump gate and the gate defences will shoot at you). In High your standings take a beating impacted much more than Low and the reaction from the NPC's is much more severe. High and Low security also has a scale the lower the number the more the effect increases. For example High security is scaled 1.0 through to 0.5 and Low 0.4 though to 0.1. This scale also determines what resources are found in those areas.

Going back to Ashes we know it is confirmed there will be areas where PVP is switched off completely. I am not sure if these areas have been specifically confirmed by Intrepid as yet, but it is confirmed there will be parts of the map as no PVP zones. The rest will be PVP activated and the corruption system in place.

I would love to see the PVP areas broken up with a more granular approach like EVE and the corruption applied not just on a personal level dependant on who you have killed or how many, but also scaled depending on the level of security in these areas. This would allow for completely lawless areas where corruption does not have much of an effect if at all. On the flip side areas close to the no PVP zone would have increased effect discouraging camping of bottlenecks between the inactive PVP zone and the PVP active zone.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jahlon

Going back to Ashes we know it is confirmed there will be areas where PVP is switched off completely.

There are only a few places where PvP is switched off completely. Freeholds and some instanced dungeons (mainly story dungeons)

Wandering Mist

Given how the mobs will apparently get higher level the further away from a node you go, it would also make sense for the corruption debuff to get weaker and weaker the further away from a node you go. If they did decide to have variable levels of open world PvP this is how I would structure it.

I don't think having fixed low security and high security areas would really work in Ashes as the game world will constantly be changing.

Azathoth

In the OP example I think those areas would be constantly changing. As a node levels and the effects it has on the surrounding area spread out, the different PvP scaled zones mentioned would be altered.

It would make more sense if it was scaled from most to least corruption possible from closest to an established node to furthest from an established node.

This could lead to areas where there are only campsites (level 0 nodes I guess) being low corruption and high PvP areas. This could prevent more PvE focused players moving in, potentially favoring PVPers in establishing new nodes.

I think in EVE this idea has a lot more merit than in Ashes. If this was added to the game I think it would change the way servers play out, possibly making it more interesting and decrease 'urban sprawl.'

I, however, am not a fan of implementing methods to reduce or remove corruption gained because of where you are.

I think the corruption mechanic is in place to show how Verra and the Gods respond to acts they deem worthy of punishment (gaining corruption). Having places where it appears murder* (killing a PC that doesnt fight back in Ashes) is punished less does not make sense to me.

*I don't think it is legit murder. I just think that is one of the philosophies behind why killing players that don't fight back leads to gaining corruption. Didnt know what else to call it.

Damokles

I think that save zones should only be possible in level 4 nodes or higher, and even then only in specific areas.
It would be really cool to try out a jack the ripper kind of stile player event.

Viymjr

I don't think i was clear enough in my OP I was not implying fixed areas, but a more granular approach to the corruption system. I was just using EVE Online as an example. I do like the concept of corruption it is a good mechanic to deal with player griefing. With the dynamic nature of the Ashes node system it might not work and maybe just not necessary.

grisu

In principle I suppose it could make sense to have more sever consequences killing someone near a city or something, but that should be the extend of it. The moment it ties into "ressources only drop here now because it's far enough away and the penalties are low so you should totally kill everyone on sight" na thanks

Noaani

I personally have always liked the idea of a set corruption penalty for killing another player, and then an increased penalty if an NPC guard witnesses it. Obviously there would be guards in cities, but they could also set the game out so that guards patrol the roads between nodes and their vessels.

I kind of also like the idea of not getting any corruption if you kill all witnesses, but that is far too easily exploited.

Karthos

This discussion is dangerously close to the "corruption free" PvP zone discussion that people flamed me for defending OP on.

But in reverse.

Dygz

I will never play EvE.
And I doubt I would play Ashes if it had EvE mechanics.

Azathoth

@karthos, I tried really hard not to go that route here. Especially at the mention of 'completely lawless areas' in the OP. Although, I am inclined to believe that might have been the goal of the thread. I could be wrong.

Karthos

azathoth wrote: »

@karthos, I tried really hard not to go that route here. Especially at the mention of 'completely lawless areas' in the OP. Although, I am inclined to believe that might have been the goal of the thread. I could be wrong.

I mean, I totally get that different people want different things because of different interests.

My problem is, with an exception of a very small group, most people around here think since an idea has no value to them, then it has no value at all.

I don't personally enjoy flavored rum, but I'm not advocating we do away with it, because some people do enjoy it.

My opinion is consistent with PvP zones in games. Not everyone is going to PvP, but does that mean we should do away with it? Hamper it? Water it down?

Azathoth

I agree, I think the way PvP in Ashes is being described by IS it is worth a shot.
If PvP doesn't occur after release for any reason, they should rethink their position on it.
If PKing becomes rampant, I also think they should rethink their corruption system.

Hopefully all this can be hammered out proper in the 4 testing phases.

Viymjr

azathoth wrote: »

@karthos, I tried really hard not to go that route here. Especially at the mention of 'completely lawless areas' in the OP. Although, I am inclined to believe that might have been the goal of the thread. I could be wrong.

The goal of the thread was to create a discussion, nothing more nothing less. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a more granular approach to corruption and how could be applied. It is confirmed there will be some ares where PvP is switched off completely. In the need for balance that would dictate there should areas where PvP is switched on completely. A "lawless" area as I put it.

There will still be plenty of opportunities for corruption free PvP via the Caravan system, Guild Wars, Castle and City sieges and the various Arenas. So as I personally enjoy PvP with my guild I will have plenty of events to get my fix

We should respect everyone's opinion. and certainly not be flamed because it is different.

Dygz

Area where PvP is always on sounds like Castles and arenas.
Which would be around the same scope as freeholds and instanced dungeons, where PvP is turned off.

Viymjr

PvP without corruption would only be "on" when there is a castle siege so strictly not always on.

To be fair Arenas yes very comparable to the no PVP freeholds and dungeons.

Azathoth

Well, Freehold PvP is on *after successful* sieges, so it is not strictly PvP safe either.
I think the comparison fits well, but I am biased.

*EDIT

Dygz

Child Item