Tyranthraxus wrote: » Yours truly isn't attempting to in-validate any of your concerns. Some of the things you are pointing out as problems, though.... Maybe they aren't? Let's say that the current limitations weren't in-place: 1) Why would it be bad for a PvP guild to control most of the most-important areas of the game, through PvP? Isn't this a reasonable goal, for them to have? 2) In line with my question 1, isn't this just more reason or incentive for other communities to band together, to fight them - thus creating more action and player-based content? 3) Don't most PvP guilds completely fall apart when the leader or the top 2 or 3 officers can no longer sustain a no-life level of gameplay, anyways? Aren't the nature of the Nodes similarly impermanent? 4) If players don't like one server, aren't there others to which they can emigrate? From Ashes to Empires, friend - and back again!
Rhuric wrote: » Tyranthraxus wrote: » Yours truly isn't attempting to in-validate any of your concerns. Some of the things you are pointing out as problems, though.... Maybe they aren't? Let's say that the current limitations weren't in-place: 1) Why would it be bad for a PvP guild to control most of the most-important areas of the game, through PvP? Isn't this a reasonable goal, for them to have? 2) In line with my question 1, isn't this just more reason or incentive for other communities to band together, to fight them - thus creating more action and player-based content? 3) Don't most PvP guilds completely fall apart when the leader or the top 2 or 3 officers can no longer sustain a no-life level of gameplay, anyways? Aren't the nature of the Nodes similarly impermanent? 4) If players don't like one server, aren't there others to which they can emigrate? From Ashes to Empires, friend - and back again! I think you're forgetting about corruption, or in this case the lack of due to the war flagging system. This removes the risk and penalties of corruption allowing a guild to freely gank others. If a pvp guild wants to control a server, there needs to be risks involved. It's not just nodes in this scenario but dungeons, mob spawns and resources. Without corruption they could camp anywhere, preventing others from gaining access and not suffer any consequences. Leaving a server should never be considered an answer or solution embraced by developers. Most games require payment for that and I'm not certain what plans interpid, if any at this time, has for transfers.
Blandmarrow wrote: » Rhuric wrote: » Tyranthraxus wrote: » Yours truly isn't attempting to in-validate any of your concerns. Some of the things you are pointing out as problems, though.... Maybe they aren't? Let's say that the current limitations weren't in-place: 1) Why would it be bad for a PvP guild to control most of the most-important areas of the game, through PvP? Isn't this a reasonable goal, for them to have? 2) In line with my question 1, isn't this just more reason or incentive for other communities to band together, to fight them - thus creating more action and player-based content? 3) Don't most PvP guilds completely fall apart when the leader or the top 2 or 3 officers can no longer sustain a no-life level of gameplay, anyways? Aren't the nature of the Nodes similarly impermanent? 4) If players don't like one server, aren't there others to which they can emigrate? From Ashes to Empires, friend - and back again! I think you're forgetting about corruption, or in this case the lack of due to the war flagging system. This removes the risk and penalties of corruption allowing a guild to freely gank others. If a pvp guild wants to control a server, there needs to be risks involved. It's not just nodes in this scenario but dungeons, mob spawns and resources. Without corruption they could camp anywhere, preventing others from gaining access and not suffer any consequences. Leaving a server should never be considered an answer or solution embraced by developers. Most games require payment for that and I'm not certain what plans interpid, if any at this time, has for transfers. The corruption system is not in place to disincentive PvP, just giefing where the playground is not fair mostly. The gameplay loop is expecting you to fight over resources and if you are getting locked out by players at your level because they are using teamwork or are just better they shouldn't be punished. If you don't want to PvP you don't have too, but both you and the player killing you will be penalized because you chose not to fight back and they chose to kill you either way which gained them corruption. There is still plenty of risk for PvP players, as they choose to engage in PvP they will still be subjects to getting into exp debt and losing some supplies even without corruption.
Rhuric wrote: » Blandmarrow wrote: » Rhuric wrote: » Tyranthraxus wrote: » Yours truly isn't attempting to in-validate any of your concerns. Some of the things you are pointing out as problems, though.... Maybe they aren't? Let's say that the current limitations weren't in-place: 1) Why would it be bad for a PvP guild to control most of the most-important areas of the game, through PvP? Isn't this a reasonable goal, for them to have? 2) In line with my question 1, isn't this just more reason or incentive for other communities to band together, to fight them - thus creating more action and player-based content? 3) Don't most PvP guilds completely fall apart when the leader or the top 2 or 3 officers can no longer sustain a no-life level of gameplay, anyways? Aren't the nature of the Nodes similarly impermanent? 4) If players don't like one server, aren't there others to which they can emigrate? From Ashes to Empires, friend - and back again! I think you're forgetting about corruption, or in this case the lack of due to the war flagging system. This removes the risk and penalties of corruption allowing a guild to freely gank others. If a pvp guild wants to control a server, there needs to be risks involved. It's not just nodes in this scenario but dungeons, mob spawns and resources. Without corruption they could camp anywhere, preventing others from gaining access and not suffer any consequences. Leaving a server should never be considered an answer or solution embraced by developers. Most games require payment for that and I'm not certain what plans interpid, if any at this time, has for transfers. The corruption system is not in place to disincentive PvP, just giefing where the playground is not fair mostly. The gameplay loop is expecting you to fight over resources and if you are getting locked out by players at your level because they are using teamwork or are just better they shouldn't be punished. If you don't want to PvP you don't have too, but both you and the player killing you will be penalized because you chose not to fight back and they chose to kill you either way which gained them corruption. There is still plenty of risk for PvP players, as they choose to engage in PvP they will still be subjects to getting into exp debt and losing some supplies even without corruption. You are correct and I misworded my statement. In things like caravans and guild wars there are no death penalties. If a guild is going around declaring war on everyone then they are able to contest and control those areas without risk of losing anything. I may have confused corruption in my statements but the rest of it is still valid. said that they have plans to limit guild wars. Without those limits a guild or alliance could just swamp an area without risk of death penalties. Guild wars are supposed to be objective based and limited in duration not for locking other players out of an area without risk. If they want to horde a dungeon to themselves they should have to risk death penalties for it.
mcstackerson wrote: » Guild wars are supposed to be a little different than in other games that just allow you to kill members of another guild for free. They are supposed to be objective based but we don't know much about what those objectives could be. With it being objective based, it's also unclear how many you are allowed to declare at one time.
Jam21 wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Guild wars are supposed to be a little different than in other games that just allow you to kill members of another guild for free. They are supposed to be objective based but we don't know much about what those objectives could be. With it being objective based, it's also unclear how many you are allowed to declare at one time. Have devs said anything about that? Can you maybe quote them, or you mean this is just how you want it to be? I am not against goal-based GvGs alltogether, but it should be implemented alongside "traditional" wars, not instead of them. Because guilds fight over resources, over honor, and their rilvalries/interperson grievances. If you don't give the guilds option to fight other guilds freely, they will still fight, even risking the penalties of PK. The only thing that lack of traditional free guild wars will do, is frustrate players for nor reason because they would have to use PK on enemy guilds instead of fair game.
Rhuric wrote: » https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_warshttps://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_PvP
Jam21 wrote: » Rhuric wrote: » https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_warshttps://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_PvP I was not asking you but thanks, you are correct here. Still, the point remains - in addition to objective based guild wars, there should be normal guild wars that allow players to fight without PK penalties in the world. In the page you mentioned, only guild wars with objectives are mentioned. It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system.
Jam21 wrote: » It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system.
Merek wrote: » Everything to do with PVP outside of randomly killing people sounds more and more mechanically unpleasing. Why must everything be locked into some objective based minigame? Anyway, at the end of the day, we need to wait until we've played to figure out if a system sucks or not.
daveywavey wrote: » Jam21 wrote: » It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system. That's right. And, you have to decide whether or not it's worth taking that PK chance. This is a basic Ashes concept, and isn't going to change.
Atama wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Jam21 wrote: » It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system. That's right. And, you have to decide whether or not it's worth taking that PK chance. This is a basic Ashes concept, and isn't going to change. Mitigating the situation is also the fact that it's a risk/reward situation on both sides. You are running around and you see a green guy harvesting. You want his stuff. So do you attack him? If you attack him, and kill him, and he doesn't fight back then you get corruption. Is it worth it? Keep in mind that if he dies as a green player he will drop twice the resources. On the other side, you are a green guy harvesting stuff and you get attacked. Do you fight back or stay green? If you fight back and lose, you only suffer half of the usual XP debt and only drop half of the resources. But if you stay green, maybe the attacker will back off and leave you alone. On top of that is the risk that both people have around whether or not they will win or lose. Whoever loses will drop stuff, so the winner will get a loot reward. It is an interesting dynamic.
Asgerr wrote: » Atama wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » Jam21 wrote: » It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system. That's right. And, you have to decide whether or not it's worth taking that PK chance. This is a basic Ashes concept, and isn't going to change. Mitigating the situation is also the fact that it's a risk/reward situation on both sides. You are running around and you see a green guy harvesting. You want his stuff. So do you attack him? If you attack him, and kill him, and he doesn't fight back then you get corruption. Is it worth it? Keep in mind that if he dies as a green player he will drop twice the resources. On the other side, you are a green guy harvesting stuff and you get attacked. Do you fight back or stay green? If you fight back and lose, you only suffer half of the usual XP debt and only drop half of the resources. But if you stay green, maybe the attacker will back off and leave you alone. On top of that is the risk that both people have around whether or not they will win or lose. Whoever loses will drop stuff, so the winner will get a loot reward. It is an interesting dynamic. Correct me if I'm wrong. But won't a player drop items only if corrupted? Or is that only for completed items (as in, the opposite of materials and resources)?
