Early backer feedback - non-consensual griefing and "caravan PVP" is a hard NO for me

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

mcjenkins

The idea is that no player will be "Overpowered" compared to another player, unlike AA where if u have 500 more gear score you are miles ahead of the other player, and keep in mind this is an mmo it's important to have some sort of friction on your day to day basis, otherwise whats the point of playing the game??

Lincoln Hawk

Caravans are consensual, you dont have to take part at all, I also think alot of you guys are overestimating just how many players are going to be ganking everyone they see, the risk of losing your gear will far outweigh the benefit of ganking for no reason.

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.

HazardNumberSeven

yokai wrote: »

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.

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.

Nagash

well that's up to you

unknown

This content has been removed.

Caeryl

Ashes is a PvX game, learn to handle some PvP or this game won’t be for you

HazardNumberSeven

Tsukasa wrote: »

Lincoln Hawk wrote: »

I also think alot of you guys are overestimating just how many players are going to be ganking everyone they see.

Wrong, Caravans create PvP zone, where players automatically become combatants. There is absolutely nothing to lose from attacking a caravan. NO CORRUPTION.
Hate? Guild drama? Bring it on.

It sounds horrible but in Archeage, trade runs were the main source of gold. It's a joke, because you can choose to do it without risks or PvP!

Repeating boring trade runs for their efficiency was one of the reasons I quit Archeage.

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.

Nagash

Kill them all and leave me the bodies

yokai

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

Nagash

yokai wrote: »

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

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.

U5urPator

I know, where the complaint is coming from. Idm the caravan PvP, but I see the risk with the flagging system, too. For me personally it was a huge down turner to get constantly killed by better geared players whilest trying to farm for better gear in BDO and the game had an anti grief system in place aswell. I don't like the fact that you have to compete over resources all the way. Would it just be bosses or gatherable resources or EXP or loot, okay. But all together is always a pain in the arse. Especially, for players who just reached max lvl or the soft cap, but can still get easily farmed by more experienced players without any more punishment.

Lafi

Nagash wrote: »

yokai wrote: »

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

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.

Lincoln Hawk

Do you drop equipped items in BDO?? Ive played mainly full loot games so it doesnt bother me, but I dont plan to gank indiscriminately, I think most ppl who have played any number of MMO's usually find someone they genuinely dislike, so it will have its purposes but if you think that this game is going to be straight open pvp absolutely everywhere you are underestimating just how much people are attached to their pixels.

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.

unknown

This content has been removed.

HazardNumberSeven

yokai wrote: »

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

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.

Lazyactor

here come the never PvPer's. "Anti pvper's definition: The anti pvper defines griefing as any act of hostility that can result in lost time or progression. They might try and cover up what they mean or claim they only want to a fair and balanced system etc, but at heart they simply dont want pvp at all. Using the term and the fear of griefing as a platform to base their arguments over."

"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."

HazardNumberSeven

Tsukasa wrote: »

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

Tsukasa wrote: »

Lincoln Hawk wrote: »

I also think alot of you guys are overestimating just how many players are going to be ganking everyone they see.

Wrong, Caravans create PvP zone, where players automatically become combatants. There is absolutely nothing to lose from attacking a caravan. NO CORRUPTION.
Hate? Guild drama? Bring it on.

It sounds horrible but in Archeage, trade runs were the main source of gold. It's a joke, because you can choose to do it without risks or PvP!

Repeating boring trade runs for their efficiency was one of the reasons I quit Archeage.

innocents (non-combatants) .

Caravan riders are not non-combatants!
Players near the caravan are all combatant, it becomes a PvP zone where there is no risk of corruption.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Open_world_battlegrounds
and yes people would attack everyone they see, if defending doesn't reward them.

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.

Lazyactor

yokai wrote: »

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

man if only there was an entire section of the market that catered to people like that....

wArchAngel

Why people keep repeating that the "Caravan system" is made out from archeage, when in reality those are fundamentally different features. The Caravan system in Ashes is much closer to the System from Silk road, where you could start up a transport caravan, hire up protectors for gold, and get ambushed by attackers while delivering from Point a to Point b.
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".

Aardvark

Nagash wrote: »

yokai wrote: »

I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.

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.

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

Child Item