Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
@Mojottv
Hm, strange. I could have swore I remembered a 5% loss on unflagged death, a 3% loss on flagged death and a 1% loss for a guild war death. It's been 15 years or whatever. My apologies for the misinformation.
Just shows you how often everybody flagged in that game!
Amazing game though. The grind is what made the PvP feel risky.
Exp loss on flagged and unflagged death was the same, unless a clan war was on which resulted in 1/4th of the normal exp loss. Death by monsters had a higher exp loss in older chronicles (that's why some ppl made sure you die to mobs instead of finishing you even after player drop from mobs was removed)
This game looks promising since it has the same flagging/karma(corruption) system.
Yeah I've gotten the facts mixed after all this time. Just goes to show how it wasn't really a problem. Everybody was ready to throw down in that game for the most part. I played mostly during C3/C4 on Gustin.
As far as as the random killing, I've learned in the past that you have multiple types of PVPs. Those that you can roleplay with (here - have some mats, let me pay off the mob so you don't kill me), and then there are total jackasses who can't be reasoned with.
For the latter, it's like playing a survival game, which ironically adds to the fun and immersion of the game. Why should I feel safe from anything out in the open world? Wolves might attack me, fantastic creatures might attack me. Maybe I'll kill them and get some good loot, maybe it'll kill me.
Random PVP in the open world adds to the immersion of the game of survivability - that you must always be on your guard, and hope that the people you come across will either leave you alone or can be reasoned with.
If they can't be reasoned with, you could rage quit, or could you actually socialize and join a group that helps with protection.
Well, that was the beauty of Lineage 2 karma system, that you had all the posibilities and only limitation on how people would act, was actual people, some could have been reasoned with, some were just assholes and wanted to kill others. and it was up to you how to deal with them.
Dude, I play Eve Online every day for the last 12 years non consensual pvp is what that game is all about, but does that make it right...NO. Eve is completely a different game with full loot drop which drives the economy and one server, making the pvp meaningful. in the first 6 years I played I was forced into non consensual pvp 100's of times on a few of those occasions early on I lost everything and had to start from scratch...does that make it right...NO. For the last 6 years I have been in a leadership position in a mid size null sec alliance and fought in some of the biggest battles ever in online gaming all meaningful and consensual. Risk...I take a risk of loosing thousand of RL dollars every time I undock a capital ship, which is 3-4 days a week. You have no idea the pucker factor this creates.
As I have said before if you think the corruption system will do anything to detour non consensual pvp you are naive or unaware of what is currently happening in online game. In Eve it takes a year of playing and focused training to even be able to be a low level ganker, that doesn't even take into account that you are also going to loose your ship to the npc space police.
If they don't change they will loose money...not a sound business decision. We just saw it happen with New World, when we saw an example of the underbelly of online pvp gaming show up in force to harvest their precious tears ruining their testing.
I tossed IS a few buck in kickstarter knowing full well their plan on open world pvp, but was so impressed withr all other aspects of the game that a few bucks was worth it to have the right to voice my concerns of non consensual pvp until launch. I will not start a thread about the subject but will give my opinion in every pvp themed thread that pops up.
I will end it here unless you want to continue the discussion.
I was well aware of the plan for non consensual pvp when I tossed them a few bucks. But I was so impressed with all other aspects of the game and still am. Why should I not back a game that has so much going for it because of one bad decision, kind of like raising a kid, they just need to realize the bad decision and not do it again. I could care less about dps meters or calling a tank a tank this is my hill and I am willing to die on it.
Eve online is a very bad example for pvp, as its completely different game, and you can warp i
Out and never be found again. I think everyone who played lineage will agree that corruption system if it works same way as in lineage and by what i can see so far it will, then it will work quite well by allowing oportunities for different types of pvp as well as a lot of oportunities to avoid it
Well then you are naive. The online gaming community is alot different than it was when lineage was a thing. You have no idea what is awaiting you when this game launches.
Warp off (LoL) I can't think of any of the hundreds of times I have tried to warp off when getting ganked that It was successful. Anyone that has played for more than a few days knows that the first thing you do when attacking is lock the target down with your warp disrupter before ever firing a gun. If you want a game with real pvp go play Eve. I will even give you some survival tips.
Well i well aware of current gaming trends and what masses of carebears want. This is why it was a breath of fresh air when i heard about aoc, . And again, you cant compare eve to game like aoc, and pvp mechanics are completely different. If you never played lineage you won't understand, how open world pvp can work with corruption system and what it enables players to do, and what it discourages players to do without restricting them.
Unless the internal policing will work in this game, many of the "softer" players who are used to "shits+giggles" pvp (if you can call it that) like WoW will be driven off by that. My hope rests on the players who do not like that kind of thing and like proper pvp of two or more people beating the stuffing out of each other...and not a level 30 oneshotting a level 10.
In L2, I actually had one of my characters solely for the purpose to be logged into lowbie zones to "clean house" if need be and follow the perp around for an hour or three, giving him a sip of their own medicine. Did not help much, but if there were noobs around, they could grind in peace for that time.
A player "police" and the measures already in place will surely work out. The technical measures alone surely not.
Safe zones and stuff like that are lame and have no place in PVP games imho...then again, I am old-fashioned.
@jubilum So how successful were you in lobbying EVE to become a PvP checkbox game?
Well I wouldnt say that there was a loot of these type of people killing lowbies, sure there would be ocasional guy one shooting newbies, but would say it was constant griefing, where you couldnt leave a town for mob grind. Also from what i've seen, they will give debuffs for players with corruption, with debuff increasing with more corrution. so I guess that kind of would counter those pk guys with throwaway gear who would have endless karma points.
I sure hope that the debuffs will be enough to discourage that tactic. It would make a good deterrent or at least give harshly diminishing returns.
Sadly, I have met a good share of players who actually and constantly griefed lower levels. And while I don't care much if I am the target of such tactics, people can be put off and a game's reputation can be tarnished by that.
I am looking forward to seeing the system in action and god knows we will see it in action a day after launch.
Eve is a super high skill cap and is super successful... yet it uses this system you hate so much. As you say it drives the economy through that gameplay. AoC is no different, caravans are a mechanic that will drive economy through world pvp. People ganking will cause bounty hunters to go off and find them for reward, further driving player economy. Competition between nodes will promote "nonconsenual-pvp" and thus effect node progression through pvp. "Consenual pvp" hasn't even been discussed seeing as a siege being declared is technically against a nodes wishes for the most part. The closest thing to "Consensual PVP" is bounty hunting and the arena for military nodes. Literally almost every aspect of this game is involved with "Non-consensual pvp". And honestly if you are logging into a game fully aware of all of the possibilities, you are consenting to anything that happens, otherwise you just shouldn't play the game.
The corruption system is going to have an effect, seeing as if someone ganks enough, not only will they become weaker but they will drop their gear. So yes, being put at a major disadvantage for ganking and griefing will make a difference. Consequences usually have that effect.
And I understand that it is well within your right to complain until you can get your way and voice your opinion even though it is clear that it wont be implemented. But don't be surprised when people like me read it and see it as an attack on the core mechanic of the game. If for some reason Steven had a sudden change of heart, it will require EVERYTHING in the game to be gutted and reworked. Which would end in failure with the timeframe they have set for themselves. Not to mention the number of systems people are excited about would be completely scrapped without open world pvp. So where does that leave us? With a guy who keeps complaining on every pvp thread expecting pvpers to agree with a very non-pvp ideal.
Lineage 2 is still a thing and the system still works fine even now.
I'd like to elaborate on this.. Yes, sometimes it was like that, but it was more common for developed servers to have this, Usually players create a new PKing acount or character after the endgame stuff or when they feel bored/the game has nothing else interesting. The human aspect of griefing/Pking is what makes it interesting.
Nevertheless, You had safe zones in lineage2 ( All the starting villages plus some battle arenas here and there ) And also very dangerous zones, like Execution Grounds, where, because of the high amount of people this area had ( either for quests / spoiling / farming )It was very atractive for someone looking to PK .
I would never lobby for eliminating pvp in Eve, although I have some ideas on making the game better and attracting a more civil community. PvP in Eve drives the entire game and economy. Without full loot drop in AoC non consensual PvP is pointless, other than to harass and drive players off. AoC has so much more to offer than Eve the non consensual PvP is completely unnecessary.
I fully support sieges, guild wars (with limits, not like Eve war dec system), caravans, battle grounds, areans, and any other form of consensual PvP. But giving a player with unknown ethics the ability to run around and kill people is a very bad idea.
I didn't ask if you lobbied to eliminate PvP in Eve entirely. I asked how successful you were in lobbying for the removal of open world PvP (e.g. PvP checkboxing to opt out of PvP) in Eve.
As suggested by this youtube channel
The pure pacifists (who think non consensual pvp is rude & evil) aside, I think what most average players concern about is "what options do I have when I get preyed upon?"
"Absolutely nothing, you die if you're not pvp ready" is a big turn off. This usually happens when the game allows for gears & builds heavily optimized for PvP. (tilting the odds to 6:4 (or even arguably 7:3 if it requires significant effort / trade off) is acceptable, but often pvp gears / builds tilts the odds way beyond that) I saw on wiki that Ashes won't have pvp gears, that's great. Not sure about the situation of pvp builds though.
- I remember there's a period when WoW had pvp-only gears with a "resilience" stat (reduces damage received from other players), which puts the average PvE player at a serious disadvantage if he runs into a ganker high in resilience. The only thing you can do is hope you have more CC skills than stun-break skills / trinkets he has, and try to run away.
- I would argue Eve Online has this issue too. While there's no resilience in Eve, the PvE contents often demand players to bring battleships optimized for sustained healing & long range dps (extremely bad tracking at close range in case of guns & sentry drones, extremely bad damage against smaller ships in case of cruise missiles). The gankers can easily gain the upper hand by bringing ships optimized for mobility, short range high burst dps, and burst healing. There really isn't much the PvE ship can do to win unless the attacker somehow did not bring a warp scrambler, or the tackler ship holding you down is small and did not have a cap booster. A pve ship can easily fit a micro jumpdrive or heavy energy neutralizer to escape in these 2 occasional cases. But more often than not gankers attack in groups, and there will be multiple ships holding you down with scramblers.
If you want to force ppl to fight, that's fine, as long as they also have the means to fight back.
Simply not true. There are plenty of reasons to flag and kill someone in the open world that have nothing to do with full loot. Someone stealing your farm spot? Kill them. Someone harrassing you in chat? Kill them. Someone harassing other players? Kill them. Someone says you're bad at the game? Kill them.
When you make a character in a game that allows open world pvp and you go out into the world, you are consenting to Pvp.
A lot of you think that the corruption system is more than sufficient as is. It isn't. There are a ton of ways to bypass corruption. I'll state one such example and I want you @Mojottv , @Dolyem , @Bricktop , @bigepeen , to tell me how the corruption system will address it.
Say you're a lvl10 questing in the open world. You encounter a lvl20. He attacks you. You don't fight back as you know that you won't win. But guess what? He doesn't kill you either. He takes away half/more than half of your health and then stops fighting you. Now you can't quest anymore as your HP is so low. You'll be forced to use food, bandages etc. Once you're back to full, he does it again. How would you fix this issue with the current corruption system?
Sure, not being able to see a player's health does mitigate it to some extent. But not completely. The name plate still exists. Once it blurs out sufficiently, you can stop attacking.
The current corruption system only gives you corruption when you kill an innocent player. It doesn't give you corruption when you dmg/debuff him, and it shouldn't either, as that would completely discourage PvP.
So Intrepid needs to find ways of not punishing non-consensual PvP, while punishing griefing.
If you want to ruin another guy's experience for a couple of minutes, that's absolutely ok. But doing it continuously for 15+ min, isn't non-consensual PvP anymore. Its griefing and it shouldn't be supported.
1. You type in general chat that the person is griefing you, someone comes and kills him.
2. You type in guild chat that the person is griefing you, your guildies come and kill him. If your guildies won't come, maybe its time to find a new guild...?
3. You fight back, knowing you will probably lose but also knowing you will lose less materials because you fought back. They kill you and leave or you try options 1 and 2 again. Or you possibly win because they assume you won't fight back in which case they probably will think twice next time they want to kill a low level player.
Again, you signed up for an open world game that allows pvp flagging. You are consenting to pvp when you're character enters the open world.
Yeah I've thought about this. It is my opinion that if you are willing to commit to attacking a non-combatant, then you should be all-in and try to kill him. So I would be fine if Intrepid decided to change the trigger for becoming corrupted from killing a non-combatant to attacking a non-combatant.
However, this raises some other concerns. Especially with mining/harvesting scarce resources (which Intrepid has cited as a main reason for engaging in open world PvP). We don't want a lvl 10 alt to waltz in and start mining valuable resources while others have to fight for it. Basically, the lvl 10 will know that he will cause massive corruption penalties to the lvl 50s that are killing him to protect the scarce resources, and he will just keep on coming back every time he dies, stacking corruption on to the people defending the resource. Previously, you would've been able to perma-stun him and disrupt him from gathering the resource without getting corrupted, however, now this would make you gain corruption. A solution to this is to only put scarce resources in zones that force everyone inside to flag as combatants. I'm not sure if Intrepid is already planning to do this or not, but it would make sense. It's a win-win in my opinion because it would be interesting to have dangerous, high level areas where there are only combatants allowed.
So let me get this straight. You want players to rely on OTHER people to come and help them against the griefer? How exactly are they going to HELP you? That guy isn't killing you, he is just attacking you. Why would somebody else come and kill him for you, just to gain corruption?
Your first 2 points does not solve the problem. None of them can help you, and even if they could, you shouldn't let counter measures for griefing rely on player help, as that is an inconsistent variable.
As for your third one, yes you could fight back. But the problem is, that guy is 10 levels above you. So whilst you may damage him, it won't be by much. Also, now if he kills you, he won't gain corruption and he gains a portion of your loot as well. You also get re-spawned at a re-spawn point, which may be far away from where you were questing. So its going to take you a long time to get back there. He was griefing you and now he got rewarded for it because you fought back. So there goes your third point as well.
Oh my bad, I didn't know you didn't know how the flagging system works. So when a player attacks a non-combatant (green) or combatant (purple), they become a combatant (purple). A player only becomes corrupted (red) when they kill a non-combatant (green). So when the lvl 20 attacks the lvl 10, the lvl 20 becomes purple. If someone comes along to help the lvl 10 kill the lvl 20, they will only become purple because the lvl 20 is purple, not green.
They solve the problem in a MMO that requires players to socialize and work together... like AoC.
I think Xyls has a good point though. If I were getting harassed by people I couldn't kill, then I would see if any guildies are available to help, go to a different area to farm, or work on crafting skills inside of a city. If I'm a lower level than the person attacking me, then I wouldn't expect to be able to farm in the same location. Usually this is temporary and the attacker will lose interest, so it's probably not as big of a problem as you think. AoC will have plenty of things to do, and I don't think much of the population will waste their time doing this. If someone does it to me, it would give me a huge incentive to level up and craft better gear so that I can find that person later and kill him. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but when it does call for backup or just go somewhere else.
There is no way it could ever be corruption on attack... there would be no open world pvp if it was lol. That would make it so the only way to attack someone would be if they manually made themselves a combatant before you attacked. If I'm a non-combatant and I attack a non-combatant, I would become corrupted. Wouldn't work.
You missed my point @Xyls . Relying on other people to solve Griefing isn't a good idea. There should be systems in place that solve it, even if players are not online/willing to help you at that time. Also, not everyone has friends and guilds when they start playing a game. So its foolish to rely on player help to solve things like griefing; especially when it can have a huge negative impact on a new player's experience.