No, you have not been open minded. you have not listened to a single reason why this isn't a big deal, why there are counterweight systems to keep it from becoming extreme, or why most people are ok with this aspect. Your entire argument has been i don't like this, and look at this other game.
This is why you have been repeatedly referred to as a troll.
On the off chance that you aren't, i do agree with the point that having your things be taken or destroyed while you aren't there sucks (in the situation it's over night) I have played full pvp games with this, and while it does indeed add a tension and adrenaline rush that other games without it just can't touch, it isn't a good move for long term server health. However. in the case of ashes, at the very least, you are given a 3 day warning, an event that will occur during a set time that should be your optimal free time, and a protection should you succeed so you don't get siege spammed. In addition, this can't be started willy nilly, there is actual cost.
Real life happens, and if you're trying to put together a game that has memorable, awesome, player driven events, some people are going to miss some things. People have jobs, kids, relationships, and other pursuits they want to follow, and that's how it always is. If you are living in a metro, and it comes under siege, and you don't log on or have communications with guild or other contacts for more than 5 days in an mmo, then you have to be honest with yourself and admit you aren't that invested in the game. Which is fine, but also your choice.
All in all there are only 2 aspects of the current pvp system that concern me, but i'll hold those till we can get our hands on them to test. Everything else seems to have balance and counter balances, and is just fine.
And last note, if anyone is regretting their backing, then they listened to nothing and turned every bit of information into only what they wanted to hear, which is on them. IS has been clear on the tone of this game from day 1.
5
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would have to agree with this IF and I mean a big IF the area you happen to be in is another enemy faction territory. Then yes, you should be attacked, as that is defending your "turf" I will admit I am not versed in how they plan to do open-world PVP, but if it is via factions, then I am all for that. I am not however for just plain old open-world PVP, and if they do that, it won't be long after before they open PVE servers due to the outrage it will cause. Mark my words, I do not care how "firm" a stance the Devs may have on it right now. I know other games that had this type of stance bend when it came to pride over money.
AGAIN. First off, i haven't seen you around so welcome to the forums and the game. Second, before assuming Ashes says it's going to do something, and you throw up the disapproval because you played this one game one time, actually look into the game systems and wait till you have a complete picture to judge it for yourself. I would strongly suggest you check out the wiki and Ashes101.com, both great resources.
To give you some broad stroke info, there are no solid factions, so no Horde v Alliance if you're a wow player. As people do anything; explore, gather, kill mobs etc., exp is gathered in the area. Eventually, as we all play, the areas will grow into centers of civilization, from a crossroad, to a camp, to a village, a town, and finally a metropolis. These are called Nodes, and eventually, bigger nodes tie smaller nodes to them, in effect creating a country of sorts. You may become a citizen of these places at the village level on up, at which point this is your "Faction". You may leave, and join another cluster of nodes, or switch to another node in your cluster if you have the capacity. If i am walking in my node clusters area of control, or ZOI (zone of influence) and i see a guy mining or fishing, I'm not going to mess with him. He is actively growing my home, and i want my home to be the biggest and best it can be (there are many bonuses to this). However if someone from another node group comes in and starts messing with that gathering guy, i'm going to hunt the intruder down so my node isn't being slowed.
This is the central pillar of Ashes, and you really should look into it if you are interested in the game. It's way more detailed than i can explain here typing.
I am sorry if you got the impression that I was a brand new soon to be player. Been with it since the day one Kickstarter. I just have not been following closely. I should have been more specific, I understand how the "faction/node) works. My statement stands on the part about total open-world PVP. It brings NOTHING but headaches. And from the sound of it the nodes will connect which could cause strife as each side tries to grow their side, which I called a "faction" for lack of better terms.
There is a post a few up from this where a guy is serious/joking about him griefing another poster over the thoughts on theft. Joking or no, this is exactly what I am talking about. It will happen, a lot. These types of PVP vs PVE arguments happen in every game, but in the end, it turns into a stalemate until the game developers either change the system to accommodate both sides in a fair way or the game tanks. Show me any MMO that has true open-world PVP that is not a toxic mess. Heck, the only big-named one I can think of off the top of my head is Black Desert. I played that, and it is full of toxic nasty people. Like I said I have been around the block on this stuff. Been playing since 1996. Some things don't change. If there is an opportunity to grief it will happen and run rampant.
Now let's talk about the PVP system. The way it is set up right now favors the PVP players, as they will go around and kill non PVP players for loot and giggles. To lose the "corruption" you get you to die or quest. What about the guy who was killed and lost his loot? They get nothing but lost time and goods or whatever they drop. How long do you think it will be before a guild runs whatever they need to run to get around these penalty rules? The guild makes bounty hunters, they go after their guildie kill them and return their stuff, and maybe split the profit from the bounty should there be one. Again, what does the PVE player get out of this? A vicious circle of grief. When this first came out in Kickstarter, I did not do enough research, because had I, I would not have backed it. Now I am stuck, should it be the open-world PVP game that is taking shape with an over one thousand dollar account that I at this point don't even want, and no way to legally get my money back. The rest of the game I love the ideas, but open world PVP will ruin it all. My 2 cents.
Different strokes for different folks.
The open pvp is the reason I backed the game. Listening to the Proxy explain the system is what got me following the project. I don't get this attitude of thinking that no game should ever be allowed to have open pvp. If you don't like it then cool and please express that opinion but I find it messed up when you take it a step farther and say it doesn't belong in any MMOs.
A lot of MMOs fail. It's not like every PvE MMO that comes out is successful. We haven't had a successful MMO in a while, which is probably the reason we are having this conversation. I think it's worth noticing that the most popular games on the market are pvp games(at least from what i can see). The only Pvp mmos we have are eastern games and they struggle in general in our market for a variety of reasons other than the presence of pvp. It's not hard to see that a well put together pvp MMO could grab a decent audience.
The red player can also lose gear if killed with any loot they gained from their kill. They also have to work all the negative exp the got as it's greatly increased. The player they killed can get the satisfaction of knowing the person who killed them will at least have to work off that kill and might lose something for it. That said, they died. I don't think you deserve to get anything for that.
First off, I never said it did not belong. I Said in any game that has had it fails. My second ever MMO was Ultima online when it launched. It had open full loot PVP. At first, it was fun, you would have blues vs reds. Then as time went on it became toxic, if you were around at that time and were old enough to have played, you know what happened. Trammel was born. And Feluccia became a dead server within the server.
So let's look at how the PVP is going to work here. It is not consensual, it is I am gonna attack you and if you defend yourself you are also flagged. That is not consensual. That is let's let griefers run amuck and punish the non PVP players. Not only that all these PVP players have to do is own more than 1 account. They go out and kill players run home and log. Then they can get on their other account and play normally. OR they can log on during nonpeak times and work it off. That is only 1 scenario where they can skirt the penalty. There are many more, and they will figure it out. So, while PVP could be fun in this game, THAT type of PVP ONLY benefits one type of player. Guess who they are?
I think that the sieges and other types of PVP they are planning could be fun. But having zerg guild go out with a few reds who kill everyone in sight will be rampant. Time is gonna tell. I know that during Alpha I plan to test it thoroughly and give my fair feedback on all of this. So right now all I have is theory. I just hope most of the Alpha folks will also be fair with their assessment too. My worry is that every toxic/cheating PVP players will flock to this thinking it will be their griefing playground. I can only hope this is not the case.
By the way what in the world are you talking about saying the only successful MMO's out right now is PVP? You are joking, right?
Most MMOs fail. You can find just as many, if not more pve mmos that have failed as pvp ones. The number of successful MMOs is too low to draw such conclusions. If making a MMO PvE was the recipe for success then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation as you could be playing the newest pve MMO while I wait and support this niche PvX one.
Open pvp is a part of the game which means it's not griefing. When you buy ashes, that's what you are getting. it's gameplay some people enjoy. Calling it griefing would be like playing fortnite and saying you are being griefed when someone attacks you. When you play the game, expect that you could come under attack.
The corruption mechanic is there as a deterrent so the game doesn't become an all-out free for all. It's to attach a risk to pvp to make the player question if it's worth it. It will decrease the number of times you are attacked, especially if you work to not give anyone a reason to attack you.
Even if they play on two accounts, they will have to grind off the corruption/negative exp at some point as it eventually makes you useless. We also recently found out that there is another pk score that goes up as you get kills and increases the amount of corruption you get per kill. If all you do on a character is kill, you will have to spend more and more time working off those kills. It's also unrealistic to think that a corrupted player will always be able to get away, especially when we have a bounty hunter system that makes it easier to track corrupted players down.
I think we should start at the most extreme and let the testers pull it back to something more reasonable.
I would like for this effect to only impact players that are killed by opposition 5 levels higher or lower. If you’re getting these from a high leveled player it’s just salt in the wound.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I have made suggestions in other threads and advice why player theft is a bad idea and how to improve the concepts of PvP. I have been open minded on ideas for greif prevention. I am not open minded to ppl that only seem to care on greifing ppl. It seems like you would be one of them. I will keep an eye on this game to see if they wised up and remove the player looting system but if they don't I am 100% sure the game would get memed on and the ppl amount Steven wants for the game won't happen.
It's part of the game, it's not griefing. I play this game expecting to be attacked and losing my stuff at times. As I said in another post, calling it griefing is like saying you are being griefed when attacked in fortnite.
Just because you have played MMOs in the past that didn't have systems like this doesn't mean every MMO has to be like that.
If you were being open-minded, you would be stating your opinion, arguing your points, and then waiting for testing to see how the systems feel. You would not be telling the developer their game will fail and be memed on (lol) because they have this system you don't like.
Except tyrannical, when that loss where to happen when your offline (seige succeeds and banks/housing gets looted) how would a player feel when they come online to see everything they worked for vanish? That is not good for the health of any game, nor is player looting.
I also lack the understanding why player looting needs to be used to bring "andrenaline" into the game. In games that lacks player looting I feel that andrenaline just fine without it in PvP because I want to win.
If you were gone from the game from declaration to seige date (so basically, a full week), then tough luck. They had ample time to prepare to help defend their node. They didn’t. It’s not a tall ask to have players log in once a week.
You clearly don’t want a game with actual consequences to ignoring your territory. Ashes is not, will not be, and should not become the type of game you’re after.
Another shut up and leave again? Damn these forums is rude.
No I will not leave lol, and I will stat my opinion.
Players has lives outside the game, vacations work and what not. To expect everyone to always to log in is arrogant at best and bad gaming at worst. There is better PvP incentives that can and should be in game then player greifing.
When you log into CoD and demand it play like Stardew Valley, then yeah you should leave.
What you’re demanding is completely opposed to the vision of the game. Your opinion is completely pointless because it has no place is the game. It doesn’t work within the systems, it’s trying to get rid of them.
So yeah, please leave if you’re entire argument is “No one should be able to mess with my stuff ever” in a game where player conflict and territory destruction is the primary drive behind change.
I almost want to make a post completely the opposite of this. I feel the only real risk for dying is exp debt and it cant even drop you in level.. All the other risks, I assume from what I've read from others here, are timed which I think is a bad idea. Waiting out penalties is just as meaningless as having no penalties.
Death penalties should have permanent impact. You could argue that you can grind the exp back, but the exp loss is permanent if you do nothing. I can wait out debuffs by going afk rendering them useless.
If the gameplay is slow and methodical I'm already doing everything correctly I just got caught off guard by new information that the game surprised me with. Im making sure Im buffed, full health/mana, checking corners, watching patrols, etc. Dying penalties aren't about preventing people from being a Leeroy, at least they shouldnt be imo.
I have a feeling this game wont be slow and methodical in its combat which will be really weird and I gotta say, I'll probably dislike it. But hey, AoC is the last bastion of hope besides Pantheon:RotF, and having a community split between 2 games will be rough.
The short answer i Risk versus Reward.
I quit like it the way it is.
Too many games in the Past had what you described as "Minor Death Penalty's", whats basicly a boring world were you never have to really watch yourself.
Whats more engaging?
A fight were is you loose you can quickly get up or a fight were if you loose, it really hurts you.
For me the answer is the second one.
If i win a fight were dying would set me hours back then the feeling of fulfillment is much better then if i barley lost anything in it.
But as you said its personal preference and i am from the generation of 20 years old MMORPGs were the Death penalty could destroy weeks of effort. But oh the sweet feeling of success if you won.
Experience debt
Skill and stat dampening
Lower health and mana
Lower gear proficiency
Reduction in drops from monsters
Durability loss
Drop a percentage of raw materials
I mean, I suppose it would depend on the final balancing. I can agree there should be something more than just a small debuff cause there should be incentive not to die. But even a game like Dark Souls only has:
experience/currency loss
durability loss
lowered health max
And even in it's hardest incarnations that Experience/currency loss is recoverable if you can get back and kill the thing that killed you (in the hardest version of the blood/soul echo mechanics). A lot of people consider that system tough and the list of negatives does "look" daunting when compared to that especially since this is an MMO and MMO's require 100 times the amount of grinding, looting, and leveling a Dark Souls game requires. Not an MMO expert though, can't really tell how the system would feel playing in it like that.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I would have to agree with this IF and I mean a big IF the area you happen to be in is another enemy faction territory. Then yes, you should be attacked, as that is defending your "turf" I will admit I am not versed in how they plan to do open-world PVP, but if it is via factions, then I am all for that. I am not however for just plain old open-world PVP, and if they do that, it won't be long after before they open PVE servers due to the outrage it will cause. Mark my words, I do not care how "firm" a stance the Devs may have on it right now. I know other games that had this type of stance bend when it came to pride over money.
AGAIN. First off, i haven't seen you around so welcome to the forums and the game. Second, before assuming Ashes says it's going to do something, and you throw up the disapproval because you played this one game one time, actually look into the game systems and wait till you have a complete picture to judge it for yourself. I would strongly suggest you check out the wiki and Ashes101.com, both great resources.
To give you some broad stroke info, there are no solid factions, so no Horde v Alliance if you're a wow player. As people do anything; explore, gather, kill mobs etc., exp is gathered in the area. Eventually, as we all play, the areas will grow into centers of civilization, from a crossroad, to a camp, to a village, a town, and finally a metropolis. These are called Nodes, and eventually, bigger nodes tie smaller nodes to them, in effect creating a country of sorts. You may become a citizen of these places at the village level on up, at which point this is your "Faction". You may leave, and join another cluster of nodes, or switch to another node in your cluster if you have the capacity. If i am walking in my node clusters area of control, or ZOI (zone of influence) and i see a guy mining or fishing, I'm not going to mess with him. He is actively growing my home, and i want my home to be the biggest and best it can be (there are many bonuses to this). However if someone from another node group comes in and starts messing with that gathering guy, i'm going to hunt the intruder down so my node isn't being slowed.
This is the central pillar of Ashes, and you really should look into it if you are interested in the game. It's way more detailed than i can explain here typing.
I am sorry if you got the impression that I was a brand new soon to be player. Been with it since the day one Kickstarter. I just have not been following closely. I should have been more specific, I understand how the "faction/node) works. My statement stands on the part about total open-world PVP. It brings NOTHING but headaches. And from the sound of it the nodes will connect which could cause strife as each side tries to grow their side, which I called a "faction" for lack of better terms.
There is a post a few up from this where a guy is serious/joking about him griefing another poster over the thoughts on theft. Joking or no, this is exactly what I am talking about. It will happen, a lot. These types of PVP vs PVE arguments happen in every game, but in the end, it turns into a stalemate until the game developers either change the system to accommodate both sides in a fair way or the game tanks. Show me any MMO that has true open-world PVP that is not a toxic mess. Heck, the only big-named one I can think of off the top of my head is Black Desert. I played that, and it is full of toxic nasty people. Like I said I have been around the block on this stuff. Been playing since 1996. Some things don't change. If there is an opportunity to grief it will happen and run rampant.
Now let's talk about the PVP system. The way it is set up right now favors the PVP players, as they will go around and kill non PVP players for loot and giggles. To lose the "corruption" you get you to die or quest. What about the guy who was killed and lost his loot? They get nothing but lost time and goods or whatever they drop. How long do you think it will be before a guild runs whatever they need to run to get around these penalty rules? The guild makes bounty hunters, they go after their guildie kill them and return their stuff, and maybe split the profit from the bounty should there be one. Again, what does the PVE player get out of this? A vicious circle of grief. When this first came out in Kickstarter, I did not do enough research, because had I, I would not have backed it. Now I am stuck, should it be the open-world PVP game that is taking shape with an over one thousand dollar account that I at this point don't even want, and no way to legally get my money back. The rest of the game I love the ideas, but open world PVP will ruin it all. My 2 cents.
This is a human problem not a game problem.
Humans gonna human kind of is what it is.
As of right this moment looking at the WoW classic server list the only high population servers are PvP and 1 just 1 lowly PvE server has high population and 5 PvP servers.
Sorry you feel you wasted your money and time on a game you don't want to play. While not as much invested I feel the same way about GW2.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
I almost want to make a post completely the opposite of this. I feel the only real risk for dying is exp debt and it cant even drop you in level.. All the other risks, I assume from what I've read from others here, are timed which I think is a bad idea. Waiting out penalties is just as meaningless as having no penalties.
Death penalties should have permanent impact. You could argue that you can grind the exp back, but the exp loss is permanent if you do nothing. I can wait out debuffs by going afk rendering them useless.
Not sure if you read my post or not but it's my belief that the stat debuffs are going to act as a way to prevent rushing back into a fight right after dying. Think about it this way, in WoW when you died you could simply just charge right back and avenge your death no questions asked. However this creates an unfair advantage for you essentially getting a free reset on health mana so the debuff is there to give you pause. This gives the winner of a pvp engagement the proper opportunity to heal, mana up or move to a new area before you can just charge back with full power. Since the game will have penalties for dying, if everyone just respawns with 100% effectiveness and runs back and kills people it sort of defeats the risk to dying. Think about when you were a kid playing freeze tag, the whole "no tag backs" adage would be comparable here I mean what is the point in playing if they just tag you back right? lol
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
1
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I almost want to make a post completely the opposite of this. I feel the only real risk for dying is exp debt and it cant even drop you in level.. All the other risks, I assume from what I've read from others here, are timed which I think is a bad idea. Waiting out penalties is just as meaningless as having no penalties.
Death penalties should have permanent impact. You could argue that you can grind the exp back, but the exp loss is permanent if you do nothing. I can wait out debuffs by going afk rendering them useless.
The penalties of death:
Skill and stat dampening
Lower health and mana
Lower gear proficiency
Reduction in drops from monsters
Drop a percentage of raw materials
are tied to experience debt. The penalties increase as your experience debt increases and you have to burn off your debt while under the penalties.
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
While I agree - it is worth remembering that we are talking about a game that is considering adding a family summons to cater to these casual people.
Honestly, some aspects of this game seem so out of place...
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
While I agree - it is worth remembering that we are talking about a game that is considering adding a family summons to cater to these casual people.
Honestly, some aspects of this game seem so out of place...
IS will not neglect the casuals as they will make up the majority of the player base. Nothing wrong with creating a game that is enjoyable by casuals and hardcore players.
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
While I agree - it is worth remembering that we are talking about a game that is considering adding a family summons to cater to these casual people.
Honestly, some aspects of this game seem so out of place...
At least the most pressing concerns of item muling via Family Fast Travel have been addressed. Empty inventory, no corruption, set arrival points.
Granted I would’ve just let people choose their starting locations and call it done, an actual family unit can go from there.
But we all know it’s not gonna be the casuals using this system the most, but big guilds and serious players.
I think they are. It will just cause casuals who aren't in a guild, to leave. People who haven't followed the game as long as the rest of us. Those that don't go to the forum and have a guild through there. Those who dosen't have friends that also play the game. I don't like to have to rely on others in a game. You can't count on others wanting to do what you want to do. Do it when you all have time etc
There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
While I agree - it is worth remembering that we are talking about a game that is considering adding a family summons to cater to these casual people.
Honestly, some aspects of this game seem so out of place...
IS will not neglect the casuals as they will make up the majority of the player base. Nothing wrong with creating a game that is enjoyable by casuals and hardcore players.
It’s not a matter of neglecting casuals, hence why is said there are casual-catering games for them. People asking for removal of death penalties aren’t asking for the game to have appeal to casuals, their asking for the game to cater to casuals at the expense of a serious playerbase.
I was referring to family summons in my above response, not necessarily to harsh death penalties.
Alright. Still, the group summon isn’t going to be used as intended the majority of cases. It’ll be used by guilds, PvP groups, and other hardcore players to get an edge.
It’s just fast-travel that shouldn’t be in the game.
The short answer i Risk versus Reward.
I quit like it the way it is.
Too many games in the Past had what you described as "Minor Death Penalty's", whats basicly a boring world were you never have to really watch yourself.
Whats more engaging?
A fight were is you loose you can quickly get up or a fight were if you loose, it really hurts you.
For me the answer is the second one.
If i win a fight were dying would set me hours back then the feeling of fulfillment is much better then if i barley lost anything in it.
But as you said its personal preference and i am from the generation of 20 years old MMORPGs were the Death penalty could destroy weeks of effort. But oh the sweet feeling of success if you won.
Experience debt
Skill and stat dampening
Lower health and mana
Lower gear proficiency
Reduction in drops from monsters
Durability loss
Drop a percentage of raw materials
I mean, I suppose it would depend on the final balancing. I can agree there should be something more than just a small debuff cause there should be incentive not to die. But even a game like Dark Souls only has:
experience/currency loss
durability loss
lowered health max
And even in it's hardest incarnations that Experience/currency loss is recoverable if you can get back and kill the thing that killed you (in the hardest version of the blood/soul echo mechanics). A lot of people consider that system tough and the list of negatives does "look" daunting when compared to that especially since this is an MMO and MMO's require 100 times the amount of grinding, looting, and leveling a Dark Souls game requires. Not an MMO expert though, can't really tell how the system would feel playing in it like that.
@Dragonwaz
Dark Souls is designed for you to die.
(most) MMORPGS have never been designed like that.
I actually have not, but unfortunately you presumed I did.
The idea of stealing everything is a bad one, and will make the game fail. Taking over territories is one thing after all, but stealing is crossing that line.
I generally agree with most what you say, but most people here enjoy the concept of punishing other players, so they won't ever agree with you. Looting other players (especially after they gathered stuff .. for them) ist some form of griefing, I agree. But in AoC it doesn't matter. The point is: the death penalties are that harsh, that the simple act of killing the other player is fun enough for every griefer. So if someone just wants to do some pve and gets killed without fighting back, he not only losses his stuff but exp and such too. The frustration generated by the AoC system is even higher than you argued here.
But you learned in this forum, that this is intended and the developers obviously like griefing. It is just like EvE Online. They created a full space pvp zone, but told the player, don't worry, there is police, jumping in to help. Over the years the griefing growed and the developers even made it easier to be ganked even in high sec. They never listened to the peaceful players, the drove them of, one by one.
In my view, no developer creates a full blown open pvp system, where players can be looted, when he does not like to grief other people. No one ever likes to be looted and the risk vs reward phrase is only a cheap excuse for it. When you create such a system you like such a system. It is that easy.
So Great Brae, I agree with you, lootable player pvp is bad design, if you want to be succesful in the long run. They will either face the toxic community that will arise eventually or they will strip the game from it. After all those years playing MMOs (with and without pvp with loot) I would guess, when lootable stays upt o the release, they will strip the game of it, when more than half of the initial players have left it. Like every other such game, the death penalties will be smoothed then as well.
I will wait and see. Without this loot crap (sorry only my view, nothing personal) I believe the game would losse nothing but attract way more people.
I actually have not, but unfortunately you presumed I did.
The idea of stealing everything is a bad one, and will make the game fail. Taking over territories is one thing after all, but stealing is crossing that line.
I generally agree with most what you say, but most people here enjoy the concept of punishing other players, so they won't ever agree with you. Looting other players (especially after they gathered stuff .. for them) ist some form of griefing, I agree. But in AoC it doesn't matter. The point is: the death penalties are that harsh, that the simple act of killing the other player is fun enough for every griefer. So if someone just wants to do some pve and gets killed without fighting back, he not only losses his stuff but exp and such too. The frustration generated by the AoC system is even higher than you argued here.
But you learned in this forum, that this is intended and the developers obviously like griefing. It is just like EvE Online. They created a full space pvp zone, but told the player, don't worry, there is police, jumping in to help. Over the years the griefing growed and the developers even made it easier to be ganked even in high sec. They never listened to the peaceful players, the drove them of, one by one.
In my view, no developer creates a full blown open pvp system, where players can be looted, when he does not like to grief other people. No one ever likes to be looted and the risk vs reward phrase is only a cheap excuse for it. When you create such a system you like such a system. It is that easy.
So Great Brae, I agree with you, lootable player pvp is bad design, if you want to be succesful in the long run. They will either face the toxic community that will arise eventually or they will strip the game from it. After all those years playing MMOs (with and without pvp with loot) I would guess, when lootable stays upt o the release, they will strip the game of it, when more than half of the initial players have left it. Like every other such game, the death penalties will be smoothed then as well.
I will wait and see. Without this loot crap (sorry only my view, nothing personal) I believe the game would losse nothing but attract way more people.
The devs at CCP are a bunch of gigabrains for not catering to those carebears and creating an interesting game on the base of an otherwise boring spreadsheet simulator. The player population is stronger now than it has ever been since launch. The game surely would've been dead by now if they had switched to a PvE flagging system where you can choose whether or not a player can attack you. Everyone would have quit when they realized how meaningless spending hours on spreadsheets gathering virtual currency is when all there is to attack are some PvE space aliens.
The recent events of allowing aliens to take over a major trading vein in high sec space was nothing short of amazing. Now players have the option of taking on more risk but more reward by going through a null sec system, or taking low risk but low reward by traveling through 40 high sec systems instead. This is all intended gameplay mechanics, and it creates meaningful rewards
No one ever likes to be looted and the risk vs reward phrase is only a cheap excuse for it.
Exactly. No one ever likes to be looted. This gives you an incentive (aka reward) for not getting killed, and that feeling of reward makes you feel more accomplished because it means you've beat another player by being better at a skill.
Think about it this way: no one ever likes getting killed and losing in an FPS. Does this mean we should ban FPS players from killing each other? Hell no, because getting better at the game and pushing through the times you've been killed and learning how to win is extremely rewarding for the player. So the second part of your sentence makes no sense, it is all about risk and reward, as most multiplayer games challenge you and create a competitive atmosphere and the reward function is to win and get better. If you want to neuter a game because you hate getting killed and losing (everyone does), then that's fine, but it would make for a very boring game full of just participation trophies. This results in the game losing almost all of the essence of direct competition against other players.
LOL my money is all over @Enasithia@Great Brae and now @goemoe all being the same person. Look at these account created dates, all sharing the same concerns and in agreement go figure.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Think about it this way: no one ever likes getting killed and losing in an FPS. Does this mean we should ban FPS players from killing each other?
I do want to point out that CoD Warzone not only lets you kill other players but loot them as well (95% loot ratio) and it has up to 60 million people that play it.
Loot FTW.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
@Tyrantor With what you said, I think what I said still stands. However, with what @FuryBladeborne said, if its true that the debuffs stay with you as long as you have the exp debt... That will certainly be interesting and I look forward to see how it works out. But Im not gonna praise or knock it yet because I dont know how bad the debuffs are or how easy the exp will be to get back. I always err on the side of caution/pessimism though, hopefully it's balanced well enough so that death feels very weighty.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In my view, no developer creates a full blown open pvp system, where players can be looted, when he does not like to grief other people. No one ever likes to be looted and the risk vs reward phrase is only a cheap excuse for it. When you create such a system you like such a system. It is that easy.
So Great Brae, I agree with you, lootable player pvp is bad design, if you want to be succesful in the long run. They will either face the toxic community that will arise eventually or they will strip the game from it. After all those years playing MMOs (with and without pvp with loot) I would guess, when lootable stays upt o the release, they will strip the game of it, when more than half of the initial players have left it. Like every other such game, the death penalties will be smoothed then as well.
This problem is pretty much the same as another post, so I will copy my response over.
PVP in Ashes is being driven by the risk of loss to make PVP meaningful. Loss of cities, loss of possessions, and loss of ships or mounts (for a period of time). Probably other loss. That loss could just disappear from your inventory. It makes no difference as you will still be motivated to protect what is yours. The only difference is that in Ashes, the loss will be the attackers gain; and, this will be one factor that motivates PVP to occur.
Losing things (or gaining) things due to PVP is core to Ashes. Is losing something from your inventory due to PVP all that different from PVP while killing a world boss, dying and losing the loot that you would have gotten? In some instances, the only difference is that you died just before picking up loot rather than just after. Does there really need to be a line for whether loot can be taken in such a world?
PVP will be everywhere with a focus on fighting over resources, dungeons, world bosses, territory, the ability to move resources, and the list will go on. PVP is over resources. Whether they are in your inventory or not.
I would just like to add, just because Steven likes a system that allows very low restrictions on PVP (and allows looting players) does not automatically mean that Steven likes griefing people. It may simply mean that Steven recognizes that many people will fight harder to protect what is theirs. It is called loss aversion and it is very common. Given that I don't know Steven personally, but he has described building meaningful PVP into Ashes at great length, I am inclined to assume that Steven's intent is to create meaningful PVP rather than some kind of griefing cage.
i agree with you OP, i think death should be harsh if youre toxic/corrupt. but dying to a pve mob really wont make things easier for leveling or questing if you come back even weaker. id like there to be some risk to the game as itll stop me from afk playing a game mindlesly, but these things seem extremely harsh for pve deaths yes
I don't see how becoming weaker after dying can ever be a good thing. You're just out questing and can't quite kill a mob and die...next attempt you're even weaker. Your guild wipes on a raid boss, next pull you're all even weaker. The examples can go on and on. It incentivizes playing it safe. It rewards...cowardice. Not challenging yourself unless you know you'll come out on top.
It should reward cowardice. It absolutely should. It discourages stupid Leeroy tactics and face rolls. You should fear failing.
Are you saying you’ve never played an MMO that had res sickness before? I remember when every MMO had it, it was just the expectation. The reason why it existed was because the game wanted you to take it easy and wait before charging right back in there. Usually it was around 10 minutes or so. Long enough to maybe make you impatient, but it also ensured that death felt like a setback.
It also made you think, plan, strategize. You had to weigh your risks. After beating an enemy you could charge over to the next one immediately, or wait and heal up properly, With res sickness you had a real choice; if you were reckless and took on too much too fast you could actually lose time because you were forced to wait. Without it there is never a reason to not push the envelope every time.
It’s good to see it in this game. It makes it a big kid game.
Could you imagine what would happen if you only ever had one life? Now I'm not saying one and done BUT what about if there was simply no respawn timer? You would have to find someone to come rez your body. Now THAT would be hardcore. So people complaining about a minor penalty for a few mins BECAUSE THEY DIED.....
that makes no sense at all, "lets insert ridiculously extreme and unpractical nonsensical situation here to try and make OPs issues seem relatively minor." you shouldnt have the ability to post on forums
I don't see how becoming weaker after dying can ever be a good thing. You're just out questing and can't quite kill a mob and die...next attempt you're even weaker. Your guild wipes on a raid boss, next pull you're all even weaker. The examples can go on and on. It incentivizes playing it safe. It rewards...cowardice. Not challenging yourself unless you know you'll come out on top.
It should reward cowardice. It absolutely should. It discourages stupid Leeroy tactics and face rolls. You should fear failing.
Are you saying you’ve never played an MMO that had res sickness before? I remember when every MMO had it, it was just the expectation. The reason why it existed was because the game wanted you to take it easy and wait before charging right back in there. Usually it was around 10 minutes or so. Long enough to maybe make you impatient, but it also ensured that death felt like a setback.
It also made you think, plan, strategize. You had to weigh your risks. After beating an enemy you could charge over to the next one immediately, or wait and heal up properly, With res sickness you had a real choice; if you were reckless and took on too much too fast you could actually lose time because you were forced to wait. Without it there is never a reason to not push the envelope every time.
It’s good to see it in this game. It makes it a big kid game.
Could you imagine what would happen if you only ever had one life? Now I'm not saying one and done BUT what about if there was simply no respawn timer? You would have to find someone to come rez your body. Now THAT would be hardcore. So people complaining about a minor penalty for a few mins BECAUSE THEY DIED.....
that makes no sense at all, "lets insert ridiculously extreme and unpractical nonsensical situation here to try and make OPs issues seem relatively minor." you shouldnt have the ability to post on forums
These games exist though. It's called 'permadeath', and it's extremely high risk, high reward (assuming the body is fully lootable), on the risk/reward scale. To say that this doesn't exist, and you shouldn't post on the forums because it doesn't exist, is completely incorrect. I mean, even single-player games have hardcore/permadeath modes. Why would it be common for developers to include these modes if no one likes or plays them because their progress is completely reset if they die? Hint: maybe lots of people like there being risk in video games.
Anyway, no one is advocating for permadeath in AoC as far as I know. A lot of people, including the creator of AoC, just wants there to be more than no risk that you see in most MMOs nowadays.
I would just like to add, just because Steven likes a system that allows very low restrictions on PVP (and allows looting players) does not automatically mean that Steven likes griefing people. It may simply mean that Steven recognizes that many people will fight harder to protect what is theirs. It is called loss aversion and it is very common. Given that I don't know Steven personally, but he has described building meaningful PVP into Ashes at great length, I am inclined to assume that Steven's intent is to create meaningful PVP rather than some kind of griefing cage.
@Tyrantor With what you said, I think what I said still stands. However, with what @FuryBladeborne said, if its true that the debuffs stay with you as long as you have the exp debt... That will certainly be interesting and I look forward to see how it works out. But Im not gonna praise or knock it yet because I dont know how bad the debuffs are or how easy the exp will be to get back. I always err on the side of caution/pessimism though, hopefully it's balanced well enough so that death feels very weighty.
Well that does appear to be true, based on the May 5, 2017 podcast (so unsure if this has been revised). If i'm reading this correctly now that also means people who die in PVE will suffer the same consequences on death as a non-combatant in PVP. This would mean that solo PVE will be much riskier than group PVE due to the fact someone walking by or waiting for you to die could simply stroll over and loot your body on death with no penalty because you were killed by an NPC.
Furthermore I think that the fact the XP debt controls the stat/skill dampening is kind of strange, from a PvP standpoint I understand why it's important to have this function on a time basis, from a PVE standpoint I do not especially tying it to XP debt - if you died with full stats and skills lowering this seems to fit more in line with de-leveling so to speak as you'll have to go backward in terms of NPC's you can likely kill. The way I would view this is if you're at 100% effectiveness and you die to the level 10 NPC that is in line with your character level, quest line. Now on death you suffer XP debt and are reduction in stats and skills, it seems likely you would need to revert to killing the level 8 NPC (or other lower level NPCs) in order to advance out of the XP debt.
Personally I think it's more reasonable to attribute the stat/skill loss based on a timer that can multiply on concurrent deaths prior to removal, versus forcing removal by XP gain. The forcing of XP debt removal seems like a great system to avoid grief at max level however during the leveling process to max level it seems more in line with actual de-leveling regardless if your characters level changes or not, since it would have constant strain on your characters ability until you climb out through lesser game content.
With that said everyone so concerned about non-combat/Green players dying by PvP and losing their things may want to re-think their argument as it's likely they will die to NPCs way more often LOL.
Tyrantor
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
i agree with you OP, i think death should be harsh if youre toxic/corrupt. but dying to a pve mob really wont make things easier for leveling or questing if you come back even weaker. id like there to be some risk to the game as itll stop me from afk playing a game mindlesly, but these things seem extremely harsh for pve deaths yes
They’re not harsh at all. People crying about them have refused to acknowledge that the majority of these penalties exist on a sliding scale based on total exp debt accrued, much like corruption when people cry about that.
If you die once in PvE or when refusing to fight back in PvE, you lose a bit of your materials, accrue a little exp debt, and might feel a small debuff.
If you fight back in PvP (die as a Combatant), you lose half the mats of a PvE death, and accrue half the exp debt caused by a PvE death. Or you win and get someone else’s stuff.
You don’t start getting smacked with massive debuffs after one death. You get a small penalty that is there to make you reconsider your approach, because if you run back to die again, the penalties will start getting harsher the more you run in recklessly.
Comments
This is why you have been repeatedly referred to as a troll.
On the off chance that you aren't, i do agree with the point that having your things be taken or destroyed while you aren't there sucks (in the situation it's over night) I have played full pvp games with this, and while it does indeed add a tension and adrenaline rush that other games without it just can't touch, it isn't a good move for long term server health. However. in the case of ashes, at the very least, you are given a 3 day warning, an event that will occur during a set time that should be your optimal free time, and a protection should you succeed so you don't get siege spammed. In addition, this can't be started willy nilly, there is actual cost.
Real life happens, and if you're trying to put together a game that has memorable, awesome, player driven events, some people are going to miss some things. People have jobs, kids, relationships, and other pursuits they want to follow, and that's how it always is. If you are living in a metro, and it comes under siege, and you don't log on or have communications with guild or other contacts for more than 5 days in an mmo, then you have to be honest with yourself and admit you aren't that invested in the game. Which is fine, but also your choice.
All in all there are only 2 aspects of the current pvp system that concern me, but i'll hold those till we can get our hands on them to test. Everything else seems to have balance and counter balances, and is just fine.
And last note, if anyone is regretting their backing, then they listened to nothing and turned every bit of information into only what they wanted to hear, which is on them. IS has been clear on the tone of this game from day 1.
Most MMOs fail. You can find just as many, if not more pve mmos that have failed as pvp ones. The number of successful MMOs is too low to draw such conclusions. If making a MMO PvE was the recipe for success then we probably wouldn't be having this conversation as you could be playing the newest pve MMO while I wait and support this niche PvX one.
Open pvp is a part of the game which means it's not griefing. When you buy ashes, that's what you are getting. it's gameplay some people enjoy. Calling it griefing would be like playing fortnite and saying you are being griefed when someone attacks you. When you play the game, expect that you could come under attack.
The corruption mechanic is there as a deterrent so the game doesn't become an all-out free for all. It's to attach a risk to pvp to make the player question if it's worth it. It will decrease the number of times you are attacked, especially if you work to not give anyone a reason to attack you.
Even if they play on two accounts, they will have to grind off the corruption/negative exp at some point as it eventually makes you useless. We also recently found out that there is another pk score that goes up as you get kills and increases the amount of corruption you get per kill. If all you do on a character is kill, you will have to spend more and more time working off those kills. It's also unrealistic to think that a corrupted player will always be able to get away, especially when we have a bounty hunter system that makes it easier to track corrupted players down.
I would like for this effect to only impact players that are killed by opposition 5 levels higher or lower. If you’re getting these from a high leveled player it’s just salt in the wound.
It's part of the game, it's not griefing. I play this game expecting to be attacked and losing my stuff at times. As I said in another post, calling it griefing is like saying you are being griefed when attacked in fortnite.
Just because you have played MMOs in the past that didn't have systems like this doesn't mean every MMO has to be like that.
If you were being open-minded, you would be stating your opinion, arguing your points, and then waiting for testing to see how the systems feel. You would not be telling the developer their game will fail and be memed on (lol) because they have this system you don't like.
When you log into CoD and demand it play like Stardew Valley, then yeah you should leave.
What you’re demanding is completely opposed to the vision of the game. Your opinion is completely pointless because it has no place is the game. It doesn’t work within the systems, it’s trying to get rid of them.
So yeah, please leave if you’re entire argument is “No one should be able to mess with my stuff ever” in a game where player conflict and territory destruction is the primary drive behind change.
Death penalties should have permanent impact. You could argue that you can grind the exp back, but the exp loss is permanent if you do nothing. I can wait out debuffs by going afk rendering them useless.
If the gameplay is slow and methodical I'm already doing everything correctly I just got caught off guard by new information that the game surprised me with. Im making sure Im buffed, full health/mana, checking corners, watching patrols, etc. Dying penalties aren't about preventing people from being a Leeroy, at least they shouldnt be imo.
I have a feeling this game wont be slow and methodical in its combat which will be really weird and I gotta say, I'll probably dislike it. But hey, AoC is the last bastion of hope besides Pantheon:RotF, and having a community split between 2 games will be rough.
Experience debt
Skill and stat dampening
Lower health and mana
Lower gear proficiency
Reduction in drops from monsters
Durability loss
Drop a percentage of raw materials
I mean, I suppose it would depend on the final balancing. I can agree there should be something more than just a small debuff cause there should be incentive not to die. But even a game like Dark Souls only has:
experience/currency loss
durability loss
lowered health max
And even in it's hardest incarnations that Experience/currency loss is recoverable if you can get back and kill the thing that killed you (in the hardest version of the blood/soul echo mechanics). A lot of people consider that system tough and the list of negatives does "look" daunting when compared to that especially since this is an MMO and MMO's require 100 times the amount of grinding, looting, and leveling a Dark Souls game requires. Not an MMO expert though, can't really tell how the system would feel playing in it like that.
This is a human problem not a game problem.
Humans gonna human kind of is what it is.
As of right this moment looking at the WoW classic server list the only high population servers are PvP and 1 just 1 lowly PvE server has high population and 5 PvP servers.
Sorry you feel you wasted your money and time on a game you don't want to play. While not as much invested I feel the same way about GW2.
Not sure if you read my post or not but it's my belief that the stat debuffs are going to act as a way to prevent rushing back into a fight right after dying. Think about it this way, in WoW when you died you could simply just charge right back and avenge your death no questions asked. However this creates an unfair advantage for you essentially getting a free reset on health mana so the debuff is there to give you pause. This gives the winner of a pvp engagement the proper opportunity to heal, mana up or move to a new area before you can just charge back with full power. Since the game will have penalties for dying, if everyone just respawns with 100% effectiveness and runs back and kills people it sort of defeats the risk to dying. Think about when you were a kid playing freeze tag, the whole "no tag backs" adage would be comparable here I mean what is the point in playing if they just tag you back right? lol
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
- Skill and stat dampening
- Lower health and mana
- Lower gear proficiency
- Reduction in drops from monsters
- Drop a percentage of raw materials
are tied to experience debt. The penalties increase as your experience debt increases and you have to burn off your debt while under the penalties.There’s dozens of casual-catering games out there for people who are absolutely against consequences to death
While I agree - it is worth remembering that we are talking about a game that is considering adding a family summons to cater to these casual people.
Honestly, some aspects of this game seem so out of place...
IS will not neglect the casuals as they will make up the majority of the player base. Nothing wrong with creating a game that is enjoyable by casuals and hardcore players.
At least the most pressing concerns of item muling via Family Fast Travel have been addressed. Empty inventory, no corruption, set arrival points.
Granted I would’ve just let people choose their starting locations and call it done, an actual family unit can go from there.
But we all know it’s not gonna be the casuals using this system the most, but big guilds and serious players.
It’s not a matter of neglecting casuals, hence why is said there are casual-catering games for them. People asking for removal of death penalties aren’t asking for the game to have appeal to casuals, their asking for the game to cater to casuals at the expense of a serious playerbase.
Alright. Still, the group summon isn’t going to be used as intended the majority of cases. It’ll be used by guilds, PvP groups, and other hardcore players to get an edge.
It’s just fast-travel that shouldn’t be in the game.
@Dragonwaz
Dark Souls is designed for you to die.
(most) MMORPGS have never been designed like that.
I generally agree with most what you say, but most people here enjoy the concept of punishing other players, so they won't ever agree with you. Looting other players (especially after they gathered stuff .. for them) ist some form of griefing, I agree. But in AoC it doesn't matter. The point is: the death penalties are that harsh, that the simple act of killing the other player is fun enough for every griefer. So if someone just wants to do some pve and gets killed without fighting back, he not only losses his stuff but exp and such too. The frustration generated by the AoC system is even higher than you argued here.
But you learned in this forum, that this is intended and the developers obviously like griefing. It is just like EvE Online. They created a full space pvp zone, but told the player, don't worry, there is police, jumping in to help. Over the years the griefing growed and the developers even made it easier to be ganked even in high sec. They never listened to the peaceful players, the drove them of, one by one.
In my view, no developer creates a full blown open pvp system, where players can be looted, when he does not like to grief other people. No one ever likes to be looted and the risk vs reward phrase is only a cheap excuse for it. When you create such a system you like such a system. It is that easy.
So Great Brae, I agree with you, lootable player pvp is bad design, if you want to be succesful in the long run. They will either face the toxic community that will arise eventually or they will strip the game from it. After all those years playing MMOs (with and without pvp with loot) I would guess, when lootable stays upt o the release, they will strip the game of it, when more than half of the initial players have left it. Like every other such game, the death penalties will be smoothed then as well.
I will wait and see. Without this loot crap (sorry only my view, nothing personal) I believe the game would losse nothing but attract way more people.
The devs at CCP are a bunch of gigabrains for not catering to those carebears and creating an interesting game on the base of an otherwise boring spreadsheet simulator. The player population is stronger now than it has ever been since launch. The game surely would've been dead by now if they had switched to a PvE flagging system where you can choose whether or not a player can attack you. Everyone would have quit when they realized how meaningless spending hours on spreadsheets gathering virtual currency is when all there is to attack are some PvE space aliens.
The recent events of allowing aliens to take over a major trading vein in high sec space was nothing short of amazing. Now players have the option of taking on more risk but more reward by going through a null sec system, or taking low risk but low reward by traveling through 40 high sec systems instead. This is all intended gameplay mechanics, and it creates meaningful rewards
Exactly. No one ever likes to be looted. This gives you an incentive (aka reward) for not getting killed, and that feeling of reward makes you feel more accomplished because it means you've beat another player by being better at a skill.
Think about it this way: no one ever likes getting killed and losing in an FPS. Does this mean we should ban FPS players from killing each other? Hell no, because getting better at the game and pushing through the times you've been killed and learning how to win is extremely rewarding for the player. So the second part of your sentence makes no sense, it is all about risk and reward, as most multiplayer games challenge you and create a competitive atmosphere and the reward function is to win and get better. If you want to neuter a game because you hate getting killed and losing (everyone does), then that's fine, but it would make for a very boring game full of just participation trophies. This results in the game losing almost all of the essence of direct competition against other players.
Death without consequences is meaningless. The only time there shouldn't be a penalty is if you don't fight back when someone attacks you.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
I do want to point out that CoD Warzone not only lets you kill other players but loot them as well (95% loot ratio) and it has up to 60 million people that play it.
Loot FTW.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
PVP in Ashes is being driven by the risk of loss to make PVP meaningful. Loss of cities, loss of possessions, and loss of ships or mounts (for a period of time). Probably other loss. That loss could just disappear from your inventory. It makes no difference as you will still be motivated to protect what is yours. The only difference is that in Ashes, the loss will be the attackers gain; and, this will be one factor that motivates PVP to occur.
Losing things (or gaining) things due to PVP is core to Ashes. Is losing something from your inventory due to PVP all that different from PVP while killing a world boss, dying and losing the loot that you would have gotten? In some instances, the only difference is that you died just before picking up loot rather than just after. Does there really need to be a line for whether loot can be taken in such a world?
PVP will be everywhere with a focus on fighting over resources, dungeons, world bosses, territory, the ability to move resources, and the list will go on. PVP is over resources. Whether they are in your inventory or not.
I would just like to add, just because Steven likes a system that allows very low restrictions on PVP (and allows looting players) does not automatically mean that Steven likes griefing people. It may simply mean that Steven recognizes that many people will fight harder to protect what is theirs. It is called loss aversion and it is very common. Given that I don't know Steven personally, but he has described building meaningful PVP into Ashes at great length, I am inclined to assume that Steven's intent is to create meaningful PVP rather than some kind of griefing cage.
that makes no sense at all, "lets insert ridiculously extreme and unpractical nonsensical situation here to try and make OPs issues seem relatively minor." you shouldnt have the ability to post on forums
These games exist though. It's called 'permadeath', and it's extremely high risk, high reward (assuming the body is fully lootable), on the risk/reward scale. To say that this doesn't exist, and you shouldn't post on the forums because it doesn't exist, is completely incorrect. I mean, even single-player games have hardcore/permadeath modes. Why would it be common for developers to include these modes if no one likes or plays them because their progress is completely reset if they die? Hint: maybe lots of people like there being risk in video games.
Anyway, no one is advocating for permadeath in AoC as far as I know. A lot of people, including the creator of AoC, just wants there to be more than no risk that you see in most MMOs nowadays.
Well that does appear to be true, based on the May 5, 2017 podcast (so unsure if this has been revised). If i'm reading this correctly now that also means people who die in PVE will suffer the same consequences on death as a non-combatant in PVP. This would mean that solo PVE will be much riskier than group PVE due to the fact someone walking by or waiting for you to die could simply stroll over and loot your body on death with no penalty because you were killed by an NPC.
Furthermore I think that the fact the XP debt controls the stat/skill dampening is kind of strange, from a PvP standpoint I understand why it's important to have this function on a time basis, from a PVE standpoint I do not especially tying it to XP debt - if you died with full stats and skills lowering this seems to fit more in line with de-leveling so to speak as you'll have to go backward in terms of NPC's you can likely kill. The way I would view this is if you're at 100% effectiveness and you die to the level 10 NPC that is in line with your character level, quest line. Now on death you suffer XP debt and are reduction in stats and skills, it seems likely you would need to revert to killing the level 8 NPC (or other lower level NPCs) in order to advance out of the XP debt.
Personally I think it's more reasonable to attribute the stat/skill loss based on a timer that can multiply on concurrent deaths prior to removal, versus forcing removal by XP gain. The forcing of XP debt removal seems like a great system to avoid grief at max level however during the leveling process to max level it seems more in line with actual de-leveling regardless if your characters level changes or not, since it would have constant strain on your characters ability until you climb out through lesser game content.
With that said everyone so concerned about non-combat/Green players dying by PvP and losing their things may want to re-think their argument as it's likely they will die to NPCs way more often LOL.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
They’re not harsh at all. People crying about them have refused to acknowledge that the majority of these penalties exist on a sliding scale based on total exp debt accrued, much like corruption when people cry about that.
If you die once in PvE or when refusing to fight back in PvE, you lose a bit of your materials, accrue a little exp debt, and might feel a small debuff.
If you fight back in PvP (die as a Combatant), you lose half the mats of a PvE death, and accrue half the exp debt caused by a PvE death. Or you win and get someone else’s stuff.
You don’t start getting smacked with massive debuffs after one death. You get a small penalty that is there to make you reconsider your approach, because if you run back to die again, the penalties will start getting harsher the more you run in recklessly.