Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Pvp and pve isn't mutually exclusive. Ashes is a pvp game as well as a pve game. Can you post the comments you are referring to?
People will look for pvp with or without this system. I see something like this being an easier way for two groups to duke it out similar to a duel if another system can't fill this role. We have both node and guild wars which will allow something similar.
Should duels also not be allowed?
Wow look at this elitism. You should take a second to look around the forum(s) for being as one dimensional as my opinion is, there sure are a lot of people who agree with me (in multiple threads that you pop up in) with very little to no one in agreement with you. For as uninformed as you seem to be I'm not sure what you've done with your time over these "years of discussions" other than completely lose touch with reality.
Instead of just writing non stop bs and pounding your chest. Why don't you post something that proves your point. Link a video, text, wiki or other form of proof that backs up anything you're saying @Noaani otherwise just move on. - to be clear you are literally taking a stance against an option that currently exists in the game (pre alpha or not it's there and you can't prove it wont be at launch).
Woke us or get out.
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
Not sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
I'll eat my words if he can prove anything he says (ever).
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
you may want to toss a 0 on the end of those numbers
However, player actions and player perception of the game are 100% dictated by the systems the game offers players. A game that offers a system for players to more easily gather together to do literally nothing other than PvP with other players will see more people doing exactly that.
While this may seem like a good thing, it also seemed like a good thing to many players when WoW introduced the LFG system - I mean, more people running content is a good thing, right?
My point here is about 90% based on player perception of the game, and how changes to systems in the game change player perception of the game. While this suggestion is in itself a small thing, it is a system designed specifically and solely to facilitate meaningless PvP (as described by Intrepid).
This shifts player perception of the game from being a PvX game to being more of a PvP game - I mean, why does a PvX game need a system that serves no purpose for anything other than meaningless PvP?
Well, this depends on what it is you want me to prove.
If you want me to prove that Intrepid have said they want PvP in this game to be meaningful, then this quote from 2017 should do. That quote is pulled directly from the Kickstarter video for this game, where Intrepid outline the four pillars of this game.
This is the only thing I am presenting as a fact in this thread, everything on top of that is my opinion. As the only fact I am presenting, it is the only thing that a request to back up can be made for. Since that request has been fulfilled, I expect you will now eat your words, as you said above.
It is a fact that Intrepid want people to always have some skin in the game when it comes to PvP in Ashes - they want PvP to be meaningful. As far as facts go, this is essentially undisputable - but feel free to find someone at Intrepid saying they want PvP in Ashes to be meaningless (you want me to back myself up, I did, now it's your turn, @Tyrantor ).
On top of this one fact above, I am saying that it is my opinion that any game system that enables people to go around the game world looking specifically for PvP is by definition not meaningful PvP, as there is no real skin in that fight.
The idea that resources will change hands in this situation is unlikely, as if you are going out specifically looking for PvP, you will not take resources with you (why would you?). Since your claim here is that you want to go out looking for similarly flagged players, and those players will not have resources on them (why would they), then there are no resources at stake here. The only way there should be resources at stake with a group like this is if you also attack others that are not flagged up for PvP.
The notion of node experience is also absurd, as if you are going out to gain experience for your node, you would not be going out looking for a singular activity - you would be looking to go out to do what ever you could find to do. Additionally, if you are gaining experience for your node via this PvP, then you are attacking other players within the ZoI of your node. This would understandibly see these players leave your nodes ZoI. The problem there is that these players were previously generating experience for your node, as they were in your nodes ZoI. What node they are a citizen of mas no influence on where the experience from their activities goes - that experience is 100% sent to the node in control of the area in which the activity took place. In other words, this activity is more likely to reduce the experience your node gains than it is to increase it.
---
One thing I will say is that I am always willing to collaborate to find a workable solution to a percieved situation.
Since the intention with this is that it is people flagging up going around looking for other people flagged up so they can all PvP, the obvious workable solution to make this an acceptable system in Ashes, where PvP is meaningful, is to make it so that you gain tripple corruption if you are flagged via this method. This means that flagging up in this manner is somewhat risky in situations where there is a chance you may "accidently" attack someone that is not flagged, and that risk could be considered a form of added meaning to flagging up in this way. While not altering the core of this to a form of meaningful PvP (when done as per the request), this would introduce a form of meaning to this type of flaging, which to me makes it acceptable to add to the game without altering the core concepts the game is built upon.
Since the intended use case of this system should not result in any corruption, this shouldn't be an issue.
You're saying that the only "fact" you've got after all these years is that the developers want you to have "skin in the game" which you're either taking out of context or didn't listen to the full sentence when it was spoken. In this exact reference they were talking about people who are residents of nodes, own homes etc. So their "skin" in the game would be to participate in the pvp to defend what is theirs.
The Kickstarter video says they want "meaningful conflict" not 'meaningful pvp' which is what you've been touting and forcing your "opinion" down peoples throats - so would you like to back track on that argument with everyone here and let them know you were wrong?
If you thought I need to eat my words after you failed to provide anything relevant you're going to be disappointed.
Glad you could prove to all of us that you're just a bunch of hot air much appreciated.
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 feel like what is being recommended hear and LFG is an apple and oranges comparison.
This is a minor QoL change for open pvp. It allows players who want to participate in pvp to opt in without having to attack someone.
Should they also remove duels? That's "meaningless" pvp isn't it?
As I said, I don't see how this change is a large departure from the existing system. Just because you are able to manually flag yourself without attacking someone doesn't mean you are able to pvp without punishment. You still gain corruption if you kill someone who isn't flagged.
The only reason it is valid here is as a means to point out how QoL changes to a game (because LFG really was a QoL change) can drastically affect player behavior. It works as a comparison in that sense, but only in that sense - it is, as far as I know, the most obvious case of a QoL change in a game that altered player behavior.
As for duels, as long as they don't result in a death penalty (including resource shifting, experience debt, and having to respawn), then it's fine. Such activities can barely even be considered PvP imo. I once had someone try to tell me that playing the games market was a form of PvP, as you are actively going against other players - I think that player has about as much of a valid point that this is PvP as someone that duels does in claiming tht duels are PvP.
While I can appreciate your distaste for somebody who believes the market is PvP, dueling is most certainly PvP. You are actively 1v1ing against another thinking breathing person with your character in an MMO. I can share your need for a more risky form of PvP, so duels have never been my thing personally.
However, fighting in the open world whether you are flagged 100% of the time or not will be equally risky regardless, because you can lose gatherables one way or the other. 100% flagged state is more risky for the person who initiates it because it opens them up to try and be ganked by someone who is feeling ballsy that day (which would lose them any materials) by giving them first strike capability for free. Absolutely nothing would change in the core form of gameplay unlike instancing 50% of the game which completely changes everything. People will still PvP the absolute most over world bosses, caravans, and castles guaranteed. And I assure you people will be roaming looking for fights no matter what.
Obviously I hold the opinion that PvP should be encouraged and not hindered at all. PvP is the lifeblood of open world player driven games. I absolutely fail to see how an opt in toggle for 100% flagged all the time would break the game in anyway. I do not want to see the game or the vision changed or taken away from, so I really am approaching this with an open mind.
A duel is surely one Player vs another Player. How is that not the very definition of PvP? Player vs Player......
The quote I posted is verbatium from that video, that they want people to have skin in the game when it comes to participating in PvP. Not when it comes to conflict. Not when it comes to sieges. Not when it comes to guild wars. When participating in PvP.
Argue that point with Steven if you disagree, not with me. They are literally his words.
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would have realized that there are many times developers have talked about meaningful PvP in regards to Ashes. You've read enough of my posts to know I don't usually offer up quotes this readily, prefering instead to let debate stand by itself (or, to let people make fools of themselves over a week or so, before offering up said quote). The fact that I offered up a quote from what is essentially the foundational document of this game the first time it was asked should maybe give you reason to pause for a second, and do some searching as to how often Intrepid talk about meaningful PvP in Ashes.
As I specifically said in my above post, my take on the system being requested is that it creates meaningless PvP - but that is an opinion. That is where you should be focusing any further debate - assuming you want to argue the point, not the person.
Though I have to admit, I don't think you really care about the point, I think you are more interested in arguing with me.
youtu.be/Vut1tIsfoww?t=322
@Noaani while the quote you posted might be verbatim if you're going to cut the sentence off before it finishes then you're taking it out of context to fit a narrative you want to create.
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
"Because players are motivated by different things, because they want something from the game that other players don't want, that's going to cause people to butt heads" "different players are going to want different experiences and the conflict between the two of them will create a bigger and better thing, out of strife comes rebirth. And that's a core symbol, its a core theme that occurs throughout the game."
at 5:30
Hate to break it to you, but part of the core of the creation of conflicts will directly be affected by "meaningless" pvp as you like to call it.
It's there to keep a few people happy, and in most games it generally just doesn't matter. When talking about content in general terms for both (PvE content in general, and PvP content), each of these things really isn't an important consideration.
One major difference between the two though is that duels are completely removed from the risk vs reward structure (both ends of it - no risk and no reward). When talking about PvE content you will almost never hear me talking about solo content, as it just doesn't matter. The same is true with PvP content and duels - they just don't matter and aren't really worth talking about.
I actually kind of agree with most of the rest of your post here, honestly.
In solo situations, I don't see this as being an issue at all. If the suggestion were only to apply to people running around solo, I'd actually be fine with it.
It's when you have large groups of people all flagging up and running around that it changes. A game (or even a server) with large groups of players running around flagged for PvP has a completely different feel to it than a game (or server) without such groups.
As I said in an above post, my main concern with something like this absolutely is the way it will change the player perception of the game - and perception between the two gamse (or servers) above absolutely will be different.
While I do agree with you that PvP is the lifeblood of an open world MMO like this (which may well shock you), I personally also consider the economy and it's components to be of equal imprtance. The main mover of a games economy in every MMO I have played are the solo harvesters and farmers. While large guilds may be the end repository for large amounts of coin and resources, it is usually players out by themselves that generate the bulk of that wealth.
I'm not going to attempt to argue that a change like the suggested one will chace them all away, that would be a foolish argument to make. It will, however, alter the way they play the game. I don't know what the end result of that will be, but I don't think it would be good in the long run.
All up, I don't think it is worth the risk of changing the feel of the game to a somewhat important segment of the playerbase all for what is essentially a minor and unimportant QoL change, especially when that change isn't necessarily directly in concert with the aims of the game.
So, you just went through a video that talk about all the meaningful PvP in Ashes, and came to the assumption that this means it is going to be full of meaningless PvP?
The video we are all talking about is specifically talking about nodes, castles, religions, guilds, social organizations and such, and how people wanting different ones of these to progress will butt heads with each other, causing strife.
This is literally the meaningful PvP that I am talking about. That is what Ashes is from a PvP perspective - fighting against people that want different, incompatible things from what you want.
Flagging up for PvP and fighting who ever you come across does not facilitate that at all. It could be argued that the stance of promoting meaningful PvP would require not promoting meaningless PvP, as every act of meaningless PvP means less potential for meaningful PvP.
Additionally, absence of comment on a topic should not be considered positive proof of an assertion. To argue this point, you really do need a comment that Intrepid plan to promote meaningless PvP in the open world - otherwise we could all argue anything Intrepid haven't specifically commented on, and that is clearly an absurd notion.
Edit; a better point for you to argue would be that sure, it doesn't make sense to put in the game from some perspectives, but it wouldn't be the only thing in the game that doesn't make sense.
I do seem to be helping you guys out a lot in this thread.
Basically, instead of the player having to push the "I want to be a combatant and fight back" button manually, it auto-toggles the combatant state to ON, whenever attacked by another player.
This seems really trivial to code, and it saves a single key press or click for the player who is attacked, and perhaps saves them a second better used for fighting back. Obviously this shouldn't be known to the attacker beforehand.
I see no downside at all. I would definitely like @Steven Sharif to add this to the game if it isn't already
Well it wasn't to have an auto toggle, though that would at a minimum prevent anyone who selects that to avoid non-combatant death which is 50% of the problem I see with corruption for groups willing to engage each other. I want to manually check myself into combatant mode.
Here would be an example of when this may come into play and so @Noaani can understand since he thinks everything open world is meaningless.
Now think about it like this - do you think that the members in Group A who may have suffered additional XP loss and material loss would have preferred to be flagged before combat to avoid the additional death costs? Even if you can't get your head around doing this yourself can you see the logic for other people to do this?
I want to point out that in multiple videos released there are constant occurrences in these videos when multiple groups are present that about half of the players on screen are flagged purple and the other half are flagged green - co-existing and not ruining the game or the dynamics of the game. If you watch the video posted up in this thread earlier you can see them actively killing mobs in the dungeon together. In the video with Summ1t multiple groups are killing some drake at the city entrance while most of them are flagged purple. It has no impact on the game outside of either allowing player freedom to choose for yourself. In a game designed specifically around risk/reward it would seem that allowing players to choose this option for themselves would be justified.
Now you can continue this crusade to argue your opinion but your point seems to now be that the "feel" of the game changes if groups of players are flagged for combat moving around the open world. How exactly is this different than groups of players not flagged for combat moving around the open world? The threat of PvP is absolutely 100% the same in both scenarios since there is nothing stopping either party from attacking each other.
I'll leave you with this quote so you can sink your mind around it @Noaani
Hunting grounds are open-world PvP corruption-enabled areas that encompass most of the map.[60]
Hunting grounds refer to killing monsters or NPCs in the open-world.[60][61]
This also refers to contesting resources.[59]
One of the interesting components of Ashes of Creation and our flagging system is that it presents the potential for two conflicting parties to have open conflict in the open world over pretty much anything that they may want or disagree with; and if that pertains to a hunting ground, not just the caravan or the castles or the nodes or whatever, it can exist in that area.[62] – Steven Sharif
"Over pretty much anything" sounds like the more appropriate way to say "meaningless pvp" I mean anyone that views pvp in a positive light would likely never call it meaningless so I can see why we haven't seen a direct quote from Steven to the effect.
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
Anyway, all this is a bit moot right now. Steven has asked us to test the system as-is for now, and if changes are warranted, it'll happen in alpha 1 and 2 if the current system has flaws.
Yes, QoL changes can have a drastic impact but that's why we need to look at what the change is.
All the change does is allow players to flag up without having to attack another player. There isn't an advantage to this outside of what I view as some un-intended scenarios that can happen with the current system. If someone goes out to pvp, they will be flagged purple the moment they attack someone anyways. All this means is someone can flag themselves up so they can be killed as a combatant without having to attack someone.
It changes nothing for the attacker, only a minor change for those being attacked.
How is that going to drastically change things?
Exactly this! I don't know what the big problem is with the idea. It just stops them having to annoy someone to get their purple Combatant status by attacking them and then leaving them alone.
But, before you left the last city, you swiped a random passerby with your axe and turned purple, so you're already a Combatant. And you made that poor person have to go and repair their armour, for nothing.
Orrrrr, you can save them the bother and just have this toggle.
Sorry, I'm not following. Are you saying you want more unflagged folks to receive the full penalty? You want the coordinated group to get more corruption? Both?
If I have this option enabled, it basically removes whatever timer unflags me. So I'm therefore flagged until manually turned off. I've made a choice to halve my death penalty while increasing the risk I'll be attacked in the wilds.
It all seems relatively straight-forward, so can you help me better understand your point?
If a group coordinates to take out the healer of a competing group, and successfully 100-0’s them before they can react (which will be very difficult considering the intended TTK is 30+s) then they do deserve to get the full material drop and inflict 100% of the penalties on that player. Corruption is the kickback, but one kill’s worth of corruption will not severely hinder their combat effectiveness.
However that scenario will almost never happen in a group v group because group combat is typically around objectives people will defend and thus everyone will be a combatant anyway.
In general o just don’t see it as useful for group PvP and in solo PvP it provides a guarantee that they only take half a penalty even if they are successfully 100-0’d.