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.

Let's talk about Guild Wars in AoC...

13»

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Bricktop wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty or none pre-siege.
    I am really surious as to how you can justify this statement along side the following
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept.
    You seem to only want risk vs reward when you are providing the risk, not when you are attempting to get the reward.

    This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.

    He's suggesting more opportunity for PvP to happen in a PvP game, what's the problem?

    My bad, I thought we were talking about Ashes.

    Ashes is not a PvP game.

    What game are we talking about?
  • XylsXyls Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty or none pre-siege.
    I am really surious as to how you can justify this statement along side the following
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept.
    You seem to only want risk vs reward when you are providing the risk, not when you are attempting to get the reward.

    This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.

    Castle and node sieges are opt-in PvP content... you don't have to participate if you don't want too. You should not be punished for PvPing simply for opting in to PvP content. Risk vs reward applies to getting the best gear and best materials, node sieges will not get you either of those, therefore there should be less risk.
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2020
    Xyls wrote: »
    Castle and node sieges are opt-in PvP content... you don't have to participate if you don't want too. You should not be punished for PvPing simply for opting in to PvP content. Risk vs reward applies to getting the best gear and best materials, node sieges will not get you either of those, therefore there should be less risk.
    So, what you are saying is that you don't think people should be open to PvP attacks while out harvesting?

    I mean, when I'm banging on rocks to get some iron ore, I am in no way getting the best gear or materials - yet I am subject to risk vs reward.

    This stance you are taking here does not square with literally anything in the game. Either you want only content that provides the best gear in the game to be subject to risk vs reward (which is largely provided by PvP), or you want all content to be subject to it.

    Which is it?

    Are you about to start arguing that people harvesting iron ore shouldn't be subject to PvP, and that people running caravans shouldn't be subject to losing their contents? I mean, those things don't provide the best gear in the game, so according to your own statement, they should not be subject to risk vs reward.

    What this really sounds like is that you want to hunt other people to take their stuff, but when it comes to content you want to run, you don't want to have to deal with possible loss.

    Have fun arguing that point.
  • WarthWarth Member, Alpha Two
    Xyls wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty or none pre-siege.
    I am really surious as to how you can justify this statement along side the following
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept.
    You seem to only want risk vs reward when you are providing the risk, not when you are attempting to get the reward.

    This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.

    Castle and node sieges are opt-in PvP content... you don't have to participate if you don't want too. You should not be punished for PvPing simply for opting in to PvP content. Risk vs reward applies to getting the best gear and best materials, node sieges will not get you either of those, therefore there should be less risk.

    i can't agree with that.
    Risk/Reward shouldn't be limited like that.

    Participating in Wars and Sieges is costly. The game should reflect that. If you want to be that castle owner, then you should be ready to defend it, even if that goes at the expense of some of your EXP/gear durability.

    If you want to tear down someone else's node, then you should be ready to incur the death penalties to do so.
  • XylsXyls Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »
    Castle and node sieges are opt-in PvP content... you don't have to participate if you don't want too. You should not be punished for PvPing simply for opting in to PvP content. Risk vs reward applies to getting the best gear and best materials, node sieges will not get you either of those, therefore there should be less risk.
    So, what you are saying is that you don't think people should be open to PvP attacks while out harvesting?

    I mean, when I'm banging on rocks to get some iron ore, I am in no way getting the best gear or materials - yet I am subject to risk vs reward.

    This stance you are taking here does not square with literally anything in the game. Either you want only content that provides the best gear in the game to be subject to risk vs reward (which is largely provided by PvP), or you want all content to be subject to it.

    Which is it?

    Are you about to start arguing that people harvesting iron ore shouldn't be subject to PvP, and that people running caravans shouldn't be subject to losing their contents? I mean, those things don't provide the best gear in the game, so according to your own statement, they should not be subject to risk vs reward.

    What this really sounds like is that you want to hunt other people to take their stuff, but when it comes to content you want to run, you don't want to have to deal with possible loss.

    Have fun arguing that point.

    Way to completely miss the point. Lol.

    When you are out in the open world, PvP is not expected, but simply an option people have. When you are doing PvP content, PvP is expected. All content that does not auto-flag a player (you out in the world mining iron, etc.) has it's risk vs reward tied into the flagging/corruption system. If the content auto flags people (castle sieges, node sieges, caravans, guild wars, etc), the risk vs reward is no longer bound by the flagging/corruption system. Death Penalties from content where you are expected to PvP, since you are expected to fight and die a lot to complete the objective, should be lowered. I'd even be okay if they lowered death penalties around world bosses as well.

    This is my opinion on how it should happen. Whether Intrepid goes that route or not, is their choice.
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • XylsXyls Member, Alpha Two
    Warth wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty or none pre-siege.
    I am really surious as to how you can justify this statement along side the following
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept.
    You seem to only want risk vs reward when you are providing the risk, not when you are attempting to get the reward.

    This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.

    Castle and node sieges are opt-in PvP content... you don't have to participate if you don't want too. You should not be punished for PvPing simply for opting in to PvP content. Risk vs reward applies to getting the best gear and best materials, node sieges will not get you either of those, therefore there should be less risk.

    i can't agree with that.
    Risk/Reward shouldn't be limited like that.

    Participating in Wars and Sieges is costly. The game should reflect that. If you want to be that castle owner, then you should be ready to defend it, even if that goes at the expense of some of your EXP/gear durability.

    If you want to tear down someone else's node, then you should be ready to incur the death penalties to do so.

    There are other ways to include risk vs reward that can be punishing for the defenders or attackers as a whole. Punishing individuals who simply want to help one side or the other isn't necessary IMO. I outlined some of those in this thread in the OP specifically about guild wars.

    Do you think there should be strict death penalties in arenas too?
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2020
    Xyls wrote: »

    Way to completely miss the point. Lol.

    When you are out in the open world, PvP is not expected, but simply an option people have. When you are doing PvP content, PvP is expected. All content that does not auto-flag a player (you out in the world mining iron, etc.) has it's risk vs reward tied into the flagging/corruption system. If the content auto flags people (castle sieges, node sieges, caravans, guild wars, etc), the risk vs reward is no longer bound by the flagging/corruption system. Death Penalties from content where you are expected to PvP, since you are expected to fight and die a lot to complete the objective, should be lowered. I'd even be okay if they lowered death penalties around world bosses as well.

    This is my opinion on how it should happen. Whether Intrepid goes that route or not, is their choice.

    The death penalties around this content are already low enough.

    No corruption and automatically flagged as a combatant which reduces all death penalties by half.

    They absolutely should not lower death penalties any lower than this around world bosses - as the death penalty associated with them is key to the structure of the rewards they are able to provide. Without the death penalty, the rewards would need to be a lot less.

    Same with PvP. If there was no penalty associated with death while attempting to take a castle, owning a castle shouldn't give you the rewards that it does.

    That is how risk vs reward operates - it is a simple concept. High risk means potential for high rewards. Low risk means no potential for high rewards. It should be applied evenly to every activity in the game - not just the few you want it to be applied to.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I'd actually like to see Node sieges and Castle sieges open up the attakcing/Defending sides to open PvP with less death penalty or none pre-siege.
    I am really surious as to how you can justify this statement along side the following
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    There is no progression path without the risk of PvP hence the open world concept.
    You seem to only want risk vs reward when you are providing the risk, not when you are attempting to get the reward.

    This appears to be a somewhat hypocritical position to take up.

    I'm not sure I understand your statement or questions here @Noaani . My comment regarding progression without risk of PvP was in regards to leveling from 1-50. So incase you need me to explain this further since you apparently are completely lost by the statement. You will risk being killed during your entire progression to level 50.

    If I'm suggesting that guilds or residences of a node or castle who actively or passively choose to attack or defend it SHOULD have the option to freely kill each other outside of the corruption process prior to the siege (I.E. The game would flag them as combatants prior to and during the siege). My suggestion would be that the death penalties would be similar to the actual siege duration penalties.

    This appears to be a somewhat reading comprehension issue.

    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
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    This appears to be a somewhat reading comprehension issue.
    Not at all, this appears to be a situation where you want risk associated with any content that you don't find overly interesting, yet you are here arguing for lowering the risk associated with content you want to participate in.

    Not a reading comprehension issue, a hypocritical issue.

    There is literally no need to open up PvP penalties prior to a siege. That is what the siege is for.

    If you want to gain an upper hand in the siege from disrupting your opponent prior, suffer the full penalties of doing so. Chances are, these people will fight back and you will still face those same penalties regardless - but that is a risk that you need to take.

  • XylsXyls Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »

    Way to completely miss the point. Lol.

    When you are out in the open world, PvP is not expected, but simply an option people have. When you are doing PvP content, PvP is expected. All content that does not auto-flag a player (you out in the world mining iron, etc.) has it's risk vs reward tied into the flagging/corruption system. If the content auto flags people (castle sieges, node sieges, caravans, guild wars, etc), the risk vs reward is no longer bound by the flagging/corruption system. Death Penalties from content where you are expected to PvP, since you are expected to fight and die a lot to complete the objective, should be lowered. I'd even be okay if they lowered death penalties around world bosses as well.

    This is my opinion on how it should happen. Whether Intrepid goes that route or not, is their choice.

    The death penalties around this content are already low enough.

    No corruption and automatically flagged as a combatant which reduces all death penalties by half.

    They absolutely should not lower death penalties any lower than this around world bosses - as the death penalty associated with them is key to the structure of the rewards they are able to provide. Without the death penalty, the rewards would need to be a lot less.

    Same with PvP. If there was no penalty associated with death while attempting to take a castle, owning a castle shouldn't give you the rewards that it does.

    That is how risk vs reward operates - it is a simple concept. High risk means potential for high rewards. Low risk means no potential for high rewards. It should be applied evenly to every activity in the game - not just the few you want it to be applied to.

    You don't know what the death penalties are, you only know what the percentages are right now.

    You have brought some pretty bad opinions to these forums and while I think your opinion is bad here too (or perhaps you just don't understand the mechanics of AoC), there is no reason for me to continue the argument because this is a minor topic to me when it comes to the game as a whole. If Intrepid decides to have the same death penalties as all other content, it really won't bother me.
    We are recruiting PvPers!
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited September 2020
    Xyls wrote: »
    You don't know what the death penalties are, you only know what the percentages are right now.
    The normal death penalty is the penalty that players will be subject to if they are jumped by a PvE mob while out harvesting, or if they miss-pull and aggro too many mobs, or if they are in a pick up group trying to take on content that one player just doesn't get.

    The penalty for this needs to be suitable for casual players to accept (otherwise we don't need the family summons that is aimed at these casuals).

    The PvP penalty is HALF of this casual penalty.

    If the penalty is acceptable to casual players, half of that penalty should be suitable for PvP players at the top end of the game.
    there is no reason for me to continue the argument
    In my experience, this is how people that have no argument left bow out of said argument while attempting to save face.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    This appears to be a somewhat reading comprehension issue.
    Not at all, this appears to be a situation where you want risk associated with any content that you don't find overly interesting, yet you are here arguing for lowering the risk associated with content you want to participate in.

    I'm suggesting that they open up combatant flagging for all participating members of sieges. How exactly is that lowering the risk? I will go edit my post as not to confuse you in the future - I meant no corruption penalty not "no death" penalty.

    Just to make this very clear: I WANT DEATH PENALTIES.
    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
  • XylsXyls Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Xyls wrote: »
    You don't know what the death penalties are, you only know what the percentages are right now.
    The normal death penalty is the penalty that players will be subject to if they are jumped by a PvE mob while out harvesting, or if they miss-pull and aggro too many mobs, or if they are in a pick up group trying to take on content that one player just doesn't get.

    The penalty for this needs to be suitable for casual players to accept (otherwise we don't need the family summons that is aimed at these casuals).

    The PvP penalty is HALF of this casual penalty.

    If the penalty is acceptable to casual players, half of that penalty should be suitable for PvP players at the top end of the game.
    there is no reason for me to continue the argument
    In my experience, this is how people that have no argument left bow out of said argument while attempting to save face.

    Again dude, you have brought some of the worst opinions into these forums. People have absolutely destroyed them in many of the threads you post in. You completely lack understanding of basic mechanics that people try to explain to you, and your only response is to repeat the same things over and over again as if by saying them enough times, people will believe you. Simply, you are not worth arguing with on minor topics like how to apply death penalties to the different types of content.
    We are recruiting PvPers!
Sign In or Register to comment.