Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Early backer feedback - non-consensual griefing and "caravan PVP" is a hard NO for me
yokai
Member
Just feedback from someone who backed you early. I never signed up for non-consensual PvP griefing. I never signed up for "caravan PvP". How on Earth could you be repeating these fundamental mistakes from earlier MMOs? The caravan PvP system in ArcheAge, for example, drove thousands of us away (or kept us away in the first place). And the various karma/corruption/etc. systems to somehow limit non-consensual open world griefing? It NEVER works. It is ALWAYS gamed by certain players. It RUINS the experience of PvE players.
No thanks. It's your game, you can do what you want, but I'm out. And you are setting yourself up to fail in the marketplace.
No thanks. It's your game, you can do what you want, but I'm out. And you are setting yourself up to fail in the marketplace.
2
Comments
Its a big choice to make to become a pk, and ppl who take it lightly are more than likely going to regret that choice as there will be other people on the opposite end of the spectrum who want to protect and be the good guys, it all adds to the game/choices which is only a good thing.
Actually, the tradepack system in ArcheAge is famously one of their most celebrated features and greatest accomplishments.
Also, non-consensual pvp isn't griefing.
You don't get to be just a PvE player in this game, and if you did your research you should have known that. I've also been following from very early (only backed recently) and PvX/PvP was always a core element of the game design.
Caravans aren't non-consensual, griefing or even really ganking. I think that's more the message Lincoln was trying to get across, and also that randomly killing innocents (non-combatants) isn't going to be a prevalent as some carebears seem to think it will be, because there is corruption in those cases.
But yes, caravans are awesome .. and tradepacks were sick too, except the ability to do them without risk that suuuuucked.
then don't play. I really don't see the problem here they have said since day one ashes is PvX and if don't like that then just move on.
preach it.
On the topic of caravans Im pretty sure you have to sign up to take part as attackers/defenders and have the choice to completely ignore it. Maybe the pvp zone only applies to people who are actually partaking in the event.
So don't play, then. The people that do enjoy those systems will. A very common-theme with the anti-PvP crowd seems to be a painfully poor understanding of what griefing and exploits are. Non-consensual PvP isn't griefing.
If players don't want PvP, don't play a game with PvP in it? This game is designed around PvP and it cannot be removed from the game.
Nearly every other mainstream title caters to the PvE crowd, I don't understand the obsession of PvE-exclusive players, coming to PvP titles and demanding it be changed. The entitlement is just mind-boggling and there's so much of it!
You don't get to dictate to anyone how they make their game. The creator wants his game to have PvP as a key component. That's it. Simple as that.
"It is important to define griefing and griefers to prevent the extremes of definitions. Anti PvP arguments crop up and gain traction under the guise of other definitions. People who do not want PvP in any shape or form in a game do not care that you do. They dont care that there are thousands of other games that cater to them. They never have and never will. As far as they are concerned you can go play Call of duty if you want to pvp."
Why am I quoted in this? I know. I just said that.
You seem to have mistakenly quoted Lincoln previously too, pretty sure you're agreeing with both of us, but I'm confused because you're presenting it in a way as if you're ... not.
man if only there was an entire section of the market that catered to people like that....
And just like that, you dont have to take a part in any of that if you dont like it, no one is forcing you to run caravans, no one is forcing you to attack or defend one, and if it "auto-flags" you, which i am not sure about, since there was an info that when you enter the caravan zone of influence, you have a pop-up to "attack" "defend" or "ignore", so if it actually force-flags you, just step away a few meters from your grinding zones and let it pass without any forced actions.
I dont see whats the whole issue is built around, just another meaningless outcry to "remove forced pvp because its bad".
I agree it’s known pvx I think the make or break will be if they manage to get meaningful pve in there or just some sprinkles of pve. Also the corruption system final details are important. But no I don’t think anyone should be shocked that there will be some pvp I this game
New world seems to be suiting better to your preferences.
Aren't we all sinners?
You do not automatically become a combatant, you can choose to attack the caravan, defend it or pass on the free of corruption PvP (which IMO is the most boring choice, but that's just me).
Relax bro. The game isnt even out yet. There is still a LOT of room for change. If the corruption system turns out to be abused by griefers, the developers will adjust it accordingly. They listen to community feedback. No one likes being griefed by higher level players so you're not alone. Steven doesn't want to force pvp. He just wants to create some soft friction in the world, that's all.
Also when a player commits a pk, it tpes them to elsewhere on the map. Because distance matters in this game, this prevents them from pking u repeatedly. So this sets AoC apart from BDO and ArcheAge in that regard and might be enough to prevent griefing to some extent.
It was very original and creative!
First time I see a person backing a game financially without paying attentions to the games details.
I hear what you are saying. The system being proposed is similar to the Lineage 2 model. This largely worked.
There were occasionally players that abused the system, as there will be in an game. Those players ran large risks and some fell very hard when karma came around. Having "villans" in the game sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes an annoyance.
But there were times that the system was useful, even for the most passive pve groups.
Take for example, you take 20-30min to assemble your party, you then take 20-30min to venture deep into a dungeon with the plan to XP for a few hours. Then 10min in, another group starts playing in the same spot. Do you keep playing together at half the potential the space will benefit. Do you suspend your playing until the group goes away, waiting 2-3hrs by which time most of your own party wants to log off. Do you engage in endless dialogue to no avail. Or do you decide as a team, after all else has failed, to kill them so you can keep playing?
How about the raid on a signifincant boss. Your groups have been fight for close to an hour and the boss is about to die and another group come in to take the kill and potentially all the loot.
How about the player that for what ever reason just come along to annoy you, killing every mob just as you were about to for the sport of the irate chat conversation they might elicit.
These are where I see the corruption system benefits even the most die hard PVE`er.
Just a thought
Or do you make high end dungeons an instance so that won’t be an issue at all