Could player killers have some limited refuge places on the map?
akabear
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What are your thoughts of creating certain places on the map that might provide limited reprieve for a player that has gone red so it is not a 100% free for all, hunt them down until they die affair, but perhaps make the hunt a little less predictable?
What if there were some limited places at considerable intervals that once entered, a player killer was not visible on the map for others.
Such as
A player might then be able to sprint, hide, sprint, hide but keep moving.
Should player killers have some refuge places on the map?
What if there were some limited places at considerable intervals that once entered, a player killer was not visible on the map for others.
Such as
- Under bridges
- In selected caves
- Clan cast buff (that must remain cast)
A player might then be able to sprint, hide, sprint, hide but keep moving.
Should player killers have some refuge places on the map?
0
Comments
Aside from the 2 exceptions, there really is no safety anywhere, least of all as a red name. Unless players create safe zones on their own. So, I suppose a group of player such as a guild or city of players or something could establish dominance in an area and protect red names from their group. Then red named players from the group would be able to flee to the protection of the player created safe area(s).
All they need to do is stay a good way away from areas where players are likely to be found - and since Ashes is a sandbox rather than a theme park like WoW, there should be plenty of space with which to do that.
No, that sort of defeats the point of it.
But as I've suggested in a similar thread, and FuryBlade suggested here, players who intended to be corrupted frequently should come together and set up freeholds as a player-made city. Aside from missing out on some quest sources and some social organizations, a player-made city would have most of the basic functions of a game-generated node.
Makes me wonder what will happen when that node gets attacked. Will the Corrupted players risk being attacked by the defenders when they go to help defend? Will the defenders' AoEs hit the Corrupt defenders?
Could be interesting!
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Assuming the Rogue's Stealth hides your nameplate, the Rogue classes might be able to do this?
I am talking about anyone being able to use the environment to hide. Like in real life, sometimes there are just places that anyone could disappear into without being trained in stealth.
I will never play rouge.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Eternal Guild
( Web | Discord )
I'm all for this.
In my mind, you should be able to see a specific amount of a player character before a nameplate is shown. Not a percentage of a character, but a specific set number of pixels (not that pixels are a good way to measure this).
That means if a player is far away, you don't see a nameplate (as is usually the case, but it also means if a player is hidden in bushes, behind a wall, where ever, you don't see a nameplate. This also means that the closer you are to a hidden character, the more of that character that needs to be hidden in order to be able to see them.
Edit; would be cool if it worked in PvE as well.
During seiges there’s no corruption active. Afaik it’ll only be Attackers vs Defenders. If friendly fire was allowed, I can only imagine the exploring that’d pop up. Just pay a merc guild to turn on the defenders from inside the cities during a siege all while preventing genuine defenders from joining up.
That's the whole point of Corruption.
But, APOC was action only - no tab-target.
Hiding in bushes will not save you from tab-target abilities.
I love playing Rogues, but I also will never play a rouge.
PvP on unwilling participants is not a game draw for those people. PvP-centric MMO players are the minority, and all systems should treat them as criminals with extreme penalties and prejudice against that playstyle (there was the faction system in Everquest that worked well for this sort of thing also).
It should be possible for players who despise PvP to play the game and avoid it completely. One hybrid system I thought was OK was that of DAoC, where there was plenty to do in each race's "Realm", and then if you wanted to, you could go into the contested areas to fight for castles and the like which granted your side buffs and other benefits when you held them.
I do not like the idea of the caravans opening up to PvP, as the way it sounds, some poor schmuck who's just trying to sell some mats is going to get gang-banged by the local b-net griefers. And PLEASE, any "hiding", stealth, etc must be extremely limited, impose significant movement/weponry penalties, and have numerous counters by most other types of players.
I have to say I agree with your points. One of the most annoying things I've ever seen in PvP-style stuff is that huge, stupid, glowing colored arrow while playing WvW in GW2.
To me this is one of the most exciting aspects of the game - the political happenings in situations like this. As they say, there is honor among thieves...but how far does it really go?
@daveywavey AoC uses dynamic flagging. events like sieges and caravans work outside the flagging system. You are either flagged as defender or attacker and you are Allied to all the players of your category, whether they are corrupted or not in the open world.