My point is that in a fighting game, I don't have to be a specific level of competent unless I'm going to a tournament, where I'd be facing the top 100 in the world. In BDO, with my lower skill and dedicated time, I could 'randomly be attacked by the #5 player on the server' because they're practicing their assassination skills as I ride across a bridge (this sort of thing is semi common for me and possibly many others).
- - - - - - - -
The same thing can happen to a lower ranked player in most fighting games, but not if they're fighting people in standard matchmaking, mostly. If there's no way to 'ensure that the #800,000th ranked player doesn't get stomped on by the #800 rank player', what's the motivation for the first player to see any value in PvP?
This is a great point, and not one I had really considered before. Although I think that player skill will largely follow a bell curve, with most players being average, which most people should have a good chance of fighting off. It sounds like the corruption system will keep top 0.5% players from genociding the new players though. I'm not exactly sure that this is a fault of action combat though. WoW is tab target, and PvP in that game is extremely dynamic, with tons of different strategies to pull off depending on the target you're fighting.
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The point i was trying to make is that different games require different amounts of skill to play and there is a ceiling to how far skill can get you. In most MMOs, the combat is not as mechanically demanding as fighting games so it doesn't take as long to understand how fights play out and it doesn't require you to constantly play to keep your muscle memory fresh. An easier example of my point is classic wow. If you look at that combat, how much practice do you think it would take for you to be able to compete with others in pvp.
The other point i was trying to make is that PvE uses the same combat as pvp. It's like you are practicing against a dummy so it's not like the two are significantly different gameplay.
So i think i have two answers for your question:
1. in most MMOs, there isn't that big of a gap between the best and the worst.
2. it's preference.
An MMO's persistent world is a little different than a match based game. If it was me, i'd be motivated for the same reason you want to train with better players in a fighting game, to learn. I also have a chance to win and get the prestige of beating the best.
I'm not sure how much experience you have with MMOs so this is hard to talk about as there is more to the game then single 1v1 matches.
I absolutely agree that there are people who will have that experience.
But when I log into ranked matches in Street Fighter, I'm choosing to fight other people. I want a chance to learn and that value is achieved through being paired against players of similar skill.
If a player never really wanted to PvP in BDO, and they get assassinated riding across a bridge while on their way to a boss that they want to participate in by someone that is so good that they never get to move... they never wanted to fight in the first place, and they stand remarkably little chance of learning anything. This is true even if the players are relatively equal in gear, and sometimes true even if they knew that the opponent was on the bridge or could be, and were prepared for combat.
I haven't played too many modern MMOs of the genre we're alluding to. I don't count Skyforge, FFXI is definitely not modern, and while what I'm saying is true in Elite Dangerous, it's easy to note that the skill cap for ED is insane. BDO is already discussed. The thing is that Apoc and their current design direction seems to be going in the direction of things like Paladins and Overwatch. Twitch reactions, precision, specific types of awareness, and 30-50 second 'TIme To Kill'.
I've had the misfortune of playing really strong players in Paladins during the 'ranking' phases of that game. It's the same thing. Practice at least 100 hours or get deleted.
But, again, at that point, I'm still choosing to play, I'll be back to my low ranked space in 10 games, and I logged in with no other objective than to 'see if I can last more than 10 seconds in a firefight'. I'm just saying that I don't see any way that the player who didn't intend to PvP and doesn't practice will see 'value' in PvP based on an open world PvP experience.
I hope that Arenas and other content like that helps, on that front.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The way to convince PvE people that PvX is worth playing is for Corruption to be a strong enough deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat that they are rarely disrupted by non-consensual PvP combat while pursuing their PvE goals.
"Non-consensual pvp" Lol, what a ridiculous phrase
0
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
If you are playing a MMO with open pvp, you are intending to pvp to some degree, the same way as you intend to engage with it's pve content.
The primary reason to Pvp in the open world is more to control the world and it's resources, not to have fair fights. Not saying there won't be people trying to do that in the world, just that it's not it's primary reason for inclusion.
If you have played mobas, think of it as being similar to that where you aren't looking for fair 1v1s, you are looking to secure resources for your team.
Some would argue that PVP is consensual the moment you log on and everyone else is just a carebear.
Therefore I want Intrepid to have carebear as a Tulnar race option so we can have a guild of PVP focused carebears to put this issue to bed once and for all. [sarcasm = 9.1]
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Some would argue that PVP is consensual the moment you log on.
And those people would be wrong.
1
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
@Dygz Nonsense pvp is consensual just by playing the game , corruption dose not make it non-consensual nor is it ment to. I can attack you at anytime , anywhere and not need a good reason for doing so , I have consent do that in game.
I'm just against extreme ideas, extreme flaws, teleporting for any reason not tied to a resource cost of some kind, or ideas that ruin other parts of the game whether you use it or not.
I'm relatively confident that the game is going in the correct direction it should. It's just too soon in development to really tell if core systems are going to work or not.
My main worry with PvP is that it will just be about ganking and none of the systems put into the game to deter it will even work. I'm awaiting news of new systems to further aid current systems we know about and reinforce them so they will absolutely work.
If they add nothing then the game won't be taking into account that communities have grown in other games. That will result in a lot of the deterrents not working as intended at all.
It's impossible by this point to think positively about this genre. Trolls have ruined so many of the games in this genre in the past. Botters, Cheaters, Thieves, Gatekeepers, and the list goes on have ruined the experiences of so many games in the past.
What is going to ruin the game if anything would be systems that do not limit player input into a system effectively while limiting others to the point where they either don't work or are useless. Since this exact thing has already ruined countless others not even taking balance into account. Aside from systems in games not working as intended leaving the player base bored as hell.
I will give the game the benefit of the doubt if they continue down this path, but I'm out as soon as it deviates from that path too much for it to possibly be true. Whether that be level boosts, DPS Meters, or excessive store items that ruin the visual balance of the core game.
It's done none of these, but those are the kinds of problems I'd rather not see a game repeat.
When it comes to player agency issues I'm a little hopeful that dickheads won't take advantage of the system to the point that the game ends up sucking due to it. It's very hard for a system to be that out of hand which is why I'm biding my time for more info.
This is the only game in years I've ever had a positive outlook on. It would take a lot of stupid mistakes at this point for no reason to change my mind. I will be able to tell if it ever happened though.
U.S. East
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dygz Nonsense pvp is consensual just by playing the game , corruption dose not make it non-consensual nor is it ment to. I can attack you at anytime , anywhere and not need a good reason for doing so , I have consent do that in game.
And, still, you are wrong. You can attack me whenever you want. If I don't give consent by flagging purple and you kill me anyway, you will be punished with Corruption.
Also, the Earth is not flat.
1
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
And, still, you are wrong. You can attack me whenever you want. If I don't give consent by flagging purple and you kill me anyway, you will be punished with Corruption.
Also, the Earth is not flat.
Corruption is not a consenting system , you have no choice to not give consent to a attacker, all corruption does is to reduce the griefing of being attack too many times. The flagging system used in in wow and other games is a consenting system because you get a choice to flag or not.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
Corruption is punishment for forcing non-consensual PvP combat.
0
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption is punishment for forcing non-consensual PvP combat.
There is no non-consensual pvp in the game , you already consented to pvp just by playing the game. You have no toggle or immunity to pvp , no choice in pvp effecting you in game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Consent is a choice , you have no choice in Ashes to not pvp , you give consent to be attack at anytime by anyone just by playing the game or non consent to pvp by not playing it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Punishment doesn’t eliminate the crime. It may attempt to curtail bad behavior, but it doesn’t stop it.
The psychology of a ganker is likely based on how bad the target of the attack squeals. The charitable view is they are trying to see what it’s gots in its pockets. But the type of player who ganks for the sake of ganking won’t be deterred by the punishment. It may just mean they will become more opportunistic, kind of back to the point with this thread. They really don’t need to be 100% to land the death blow while you are engaged with mobs, they just need to land the killing blow.
The other strategy would be gangs of gankers who could distribute the punishment. That’s been discussed. While it’s probably a huge waste of time to the average player, the group that would engage in this style of play probably doesn’t consider it a waste of time.
And let’s not ignore bots should they sneak past Intrepid’s defenses against them. Stay vigilant Intrepid.
I don’t think you will see very many long term career gankers. First because I think these players are basically bored and will move on after they’ve had their fun. The second reason being the number of PVP themed opportunities just provide a better experience.
Now I could see a guild of bounty hunters recruit a number of players to play the role of criminals. For those players, it may be more of a role playing thing than PVX effectiveness. Plus, as I said, you don’t need to be 100% to land the killing blow with the right opportunity.
Bottom line, generalized rules and punishments tend to fail if they assume everyone has the same motivations and values.
For example, I can easily see players who will want to make the gankiest ganker despite the huge penalties for doing so, then picking the right moment to get their gank in. If they could run around with a rubber chicken to deal the killing blow they would do so only to be that more obnoxious. They are after your reaction. In essence they are role players, probably the worst kind too. It’s like the streakers who run out onto the football field. And banning them would be their Super Bowl.
They don’t value what you value. When the ban hammer starts coming down they will then find ways to blend in with the opportunistic PVXers, but will find other ways to perform their shenanigans. They evolve, and not necessarily for the better.
Was that evil enough? BTW, any and all of these options would bore me to death. It would be tedious for me.
I honestly think Intrepid has better things to do than police this. I don’t think it’s an issue that will require much attention, and GMs are there to observe and protect. Where it might get difficult is in opportunistic PVX play where they are after resources. There will be players who won’t like that and may abuse the reporting system.
0
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Does a girl going into a bar mean that she consents to a jerk grabbing her butt? Of course not.
Does logging into a game mean you consent to pvp? Of course not.
Sure you can grab her butt, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD grab her butt. In life there are consequences, including getting slapped, getting your butt kicked, or being arrested for grabbing her butt. In AoC you can attack anyone, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD attack anyone. In AoC the consequences are corruption, maybe other players kicking your butt and also getting the rep for being a jerk.
Does a girl going into a bar mean that she consents to a jerk grabbing her butt? Of course not.
Does logging into a game mean you consent to pvp? Of course not.
Sure you can grab her butt, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD grab her butt. In life there are consequences, including getting slapped, getting your butt kicked, or being arrested for grabbing her butt. In AoC you can attack anyone, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD attack anyone. In AoC the consequences are corruption, maybe other players kicking your butt and also getting the rep for being a jerk.
You are agreeing to rules of a open world pvp just by logging in knowing that it can happen to you. The consent is already given as soon as you start playing. Non-consent cant exist when its already given. Corruption is not a system of consent because its doesnt give you the choice not having your but kick by a pvp player.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption is a penalty for forcing non-consensual PvP combat.
And that penalty increases the more you do it.
0
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption is a penalty for forcing non-consensual PvP combat.
And that penalty increases the more you do it.
You already consented to pvp by playing in a open world pvp game. Your are permanently flagged for pvp in Ashes. You have no choice in that. No one is forcing pvp in a game that allows it.
Sure, 'no one is forcing you'. No one is forcing you to stay logged in to life either. Others have said the 'bar' analogy does not apply to a video game, but they also don't answer the question op actually poses. Do we want people who aren't interested in pvp to join the game. Are we satisfied with it being possible to harass crafters? The corruption system is designed to make the game more appealing and less frustrating to crafters and other less combat oriented people. Without them you'd have to significantly rethink the economy of Verra. Just as we'd have a problem irl if society didn't keep other people from harrassing others. It is consent because you as a ganker are breaking the rules of civility. Going 'I'm allowed to kill you because you are playing my game and we have no flags >;3 is a quick way to lose a lot of people's interest in you and your 'game'. This is why IS has had the sense to make it a risk.
On the other hand if you want that to not be /possible/ I'd have to ask you why you want to play ashes.? To op @SpiralMadheart , I'd have to ask you 'what risk is acceptable'? AoC does have various corruption systems. You are asking the reassurance from other people willing to gank you if they can 'break the system'. As you can see, they aren't able to answer you. So instead I ask you 'is what is currently there not enough assuming they can't 'cheat the system'?'
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
@JustVine
I am a pvp player I will thrive in the game as it is currently planned. I also believe the corruption system will still be too much for the majority of traditional pve only players to deal with. A traditional flagging system is the best compromise and would actually make it a true pvx game because you will have free will in consenting to pvp or not and that solution would draw in a lot more pve players to the game. Rest assured a lot of pvp players are not concerned about civility nor care about a non-combatants feelings in matter of being gank in pvp.
I'll keep it simple, it's an MMORPG. You can't control what other players do but you can prepare yourself to effectively deal with troublesome players. And if that is too scary for you, the thought of risk attached to your reward, you should go elsewhere.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited May 2021
Can`t see much ganking happening after the game has settled a few months in and players have started to find their homes in various guilds.
Solo players will be largely left alone. PvE only guilds will be left mostly alone, just depends a little who they ally with.
Those that are part of a PvX clan that want a bit of peace for a while will de-tag and go solo or be unofficial guild members for a while.
Ganking if part of guild will influence reputation and relationships so, again can`t see that happening so much.
And there will just be a smattering of those that gank infrequently
1
Options
ThexBlackxKnightMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am not sure what open world world pvp game you played that this actually happens. Steven said one of the reasons for the corruption system is that guilds can deal with random players showing on their turf and gathering resources. These places will be guarded , pvp guilds will be that petty. I can't see this game not being a gank box because of how looting rights are set up and the fact the pve content is always changing because of node destruction. Its hard to keep a lasting peaceful setup with Guilds when they always going to have to fight for new loot spots.
Comments
This is a great point, and not one I had really considered before. Although I think that player skill will largely follow a bell curve, with most players being average, which most people should have a good chance of fighting off. It sounds like the corruption system will keep top 0.5% players from genociding the new players though. I'm not exactly sure that this is a fault of action combat though. WoW is tab target, and PvP in that game is extremely dynamic, with tons of different strategies to pull off depending on the target you're fighting.
The other point i was trying to make is that PvE uses the same combat as pvp. It's like you are practicing against a dummy so it's not like the two are significantly different gameplay.
So i think i have two answers for your question:
1. in most MMOs, there isn't that big of a gap between the best and the worst.
2. it's preference.
An MMO's persistent world is a little different than a match based game. If it was me, i'd be motivated for the same reason you want to train with better players in a fighting game, to learn. I also have a chance to win and get the prestige of beating the best.
I'm not sure how much experience you have with MMOs so this is hard to talk about as there is more to the game then single 1v1 matches.
But when I log into ranked matches in Street Fighter, I'm choosing to fight other people. I want a chance to learn and that value is achieved through being paired against players of similar skill.
If a player never really wanted to PvP in BDO, and they get assassinated riding across a bridge while on their way to a boss that they want to participate in by someone that is so good that they never get to move... they never wanted to fight in the first place, and they stand remarkably little chance of learning anything. This is true even if the players are relatively equal in gear, and sometimes true even if they knew that the opponent was on the bridge or could be, and were prepared for combat.
I haven't played too many modern MMOs of the genre we're alluding to. I don't count Skyforge, FFXI is definitely not modern, and while what I'm saying is true in Elite Dangerous, it's easy to note that the skill cap for ED is insane. BDO is already discussed. The thing is that Apoc and their current design direction seems to be going in the direction of things like Paladins and Overwatch. Twitch reactions, precision, specific types of awareness, and 30-50 second 'TIme To Kill'.
I've had the misfortune of playing really strong players in Paladins during the 'ranking' phases of that game. It's the same thing. Practice at least 100 hours or get deleted.
But, again, at that point, I'm still choosing to play, I'll be back to my low ranked space in 10 games, and I logged in with no other objective than to 'see if I can last more than 10 seconds in a firefight'. I'm just saying that I don't see any way that the player who didn't intend to PvP and doesn't practice will see 'value' in PvP based on an open world PvP experience.
I hope that Arenas and other content like that helps, on that front.
The primary reason to Pvp in the open world is more to control the world and it's resources, not to have fair fights. Not saying there won't be people trying to do that in the world, just that it's not it's primary reason for inclusion.
If you have played mobas, think of it as being similar to that where you aren't looking for fair 1v1s, you are looking to secure resources for your team.
"I just want to kill the creeps. I want to feel safe when I kill Roshan or Baron Nashor. I just like to craft items."
At this rate everybody feels comfortable wording any entitled demand.
Anyway enough attacking from me for today.
Therefore I want Intrepid to have carebear as a Tulnar race option so we can have a guild of PVP focused carebears to put this issue to bed once and for all. [sarcasm = 9.1]
I'm relatively confident that the game is going in the correct direction it should. It's just too soon in development to really tell if core systems are going to work or not.
My main worry with PvP is that it will just be about ganking and none of the systems put into the game to deter it will even work. I'm awaiting news of new systems to further aid current systems we know about and reinforce them so they will absolutely work.
If they add nothing then the game won't be taking into account that communities have grown in other games. That will result in a lot of the deterrents not working as intended at all.
It's impossible by this point to think positively about this genre. Trolls have ruined so many of the games in this genre in the past. Botters, Cheaters, Thieves, Gatekeepers, and the list goes on have ruined the experiences of so many games in the past.
What is going to ruin the game if anything would be systems that do not limit player input into a system effectively while limiting others to the point where they either don't work or are useless. Since this exact thing has already ruined countless others not even taking balance into account. Aside from systems in games not working as intended leaving the player base bored as hell.
I will give the game the benefit of the doubt if they continue down this path, but I'm out as soon as it deviates from that path too much for it to possibly be true. Whether that be level boosts, DPS Meters, or excessive store items that ruin the visual balance of the core game.
It's done none of these, but those are the kinds of problems I'd rather not see a game repeat.
When it comes to player agency issues I'm a little hopeful that dickheads won't take advantage of the system to the point that the game ends up sucking due to it. It's very hard for a system to be that out of hand which is why I'm biding my time for more info.
This is the only game in years I've ever had a positive outlook on. It would take a lot of stupid mistakes at this point for no reason to change my mind. I will be able to tell if it ever happened though.
U.S. East
Also, the Earth is not flat.
Corruption is not a consenting system , you have no choice to not give consent to a attacker, all corruption does is to reduce the griefing of being attack too many times. The flagging system used in in wow and other games is a consenting system because you get a choice to flag or not.
There is no non-consensual pvp in the game , you already consented to pvp just by playing the game. You have no toggle or immunity to pvp , no choice in pvp effecting you in game.
Corruption is punishment for forcing non-consensual PvP combat.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Talk:2020-07-19_Steven_Sharif_Interview_-_Asmongold
Consent is a choice , you have no choice in Ashes to not pvp , you give consent to be attack at anytime by anyone just by playing the game or non consent to pvp by not playing it.
The psychology of a ganker is likely based on how bad the target of the attack squeals. The charitable view is they are trying to see what it’s gots in its pockets. But the type of player who ganks for the sake of ganking won’t be deterred by the punishment. It may just mean they will become more opportunistic, kind of back to the point with this thread. They really don’t need to be 100% to land the death blow while you are engaged with mobs, they just need to land the killing blow.
The other strategy would be gangs of gankers who could distribute the punishment. That’s been discussed. While it’s probably a huge waste of time to the average player, the group that would engage in this style of play probably doesn’t consider it a waste of time.
And let’s not ignore bots should they sneak past Intrepid’s defenses against them. Stay vigilant Intrepid.
I don’t think you will see very many long term career gankers. First because I think these players are basically bored and will move on after they’ve had their fun. The second reason being the number of PVP themed opportunities just provide a better experience.
Now I could see a guild of bounty hunters recruit a number of players to play the role of criminals. For those players, it may be more of a role playing thing than PVX effectiveness. Plus, as I said, you don’t need to be 100% to land the killing blow with the right opportunity.
Bottom line, generalized rules and punishments tend to fail if they assume everyone has the same motivations and values.
For example, I can easily see players who will want to make the gankiest ganker despite the huge penalties for doing so, then picking the right moment to get their gank in. If they could run around with a rubber chicken to deal the killing blow they would do so only to be that more obnoxious. They are after your reaction. In essence they are role players, probably the worst kind too. It’s like the streakers who run out onto the football field. And banning them would be their Super Bowl.
They don’t value what you value. When the ban hammer starts coming down they will then find ways to blend in with the opportunistic PVXers, but will find other ways to perform their shenanigans. They evolve, and not necessarily for the better.
Was that evil enough? BTW, any and all of these options would bore me to death. It would be tedious for me.
I honestly think Intrepid has better things to do than police this. I don’t think it’s an issue that will require much attention, and GMs are there to observe and protect. Where it might get difficult is in opportunistic PVX play where they are after resources. There will be players who won’t like that and may abuse the reporting system.
You cant not consent to something you cant prevent in the first place , think on that one.
Does logging into a game mean you consent to pvp? Of course not.
Sure you can grab her butt, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD grab her butt. In life there are consequences, including getting slapped, getting your butt kicked, or being arrested for grabbing her butt. In AoC you can attack anyone, but that doesn't mean you SHOULD attack anyone. In AoC the consequences are corruption, maybe other players kicking your butt and also getting the rep for being a jerk.
You are agreeing to rules of a open world pvp just by logging in knowing that it can happen to you. The consent is already given as soon as you start playing. Non-consent cant exist when its already given. Corruption is not a system of consent because its doesnt give you the choice not having your but kick by a pvp player.
And that penalty increases the more you do it.
You already consented to pvp by playing in a open world pvp game. Your are permanently flagged for pvp in Ashes. You have no choice in that. No one is forcing pvp in a game that allows it.
On the other hand if you want that to not be /possible/ I'd have to ask you why you want to play ashes.? To op @SpiralMadheart , I'd have to ask you 'what risk is acceptable'? AoC does have various corruption systems. You are asking the reassurance from other people willing to gank you if they can 'break the system'. As you can see, they aren't able to answer you. So instead I ask you 'is what is currently there not enough assuming they can't 'cheat the system'?'
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I am a pvp player I will thrive in the game as it is currently planned. I also believe the corruption system will still be too much for the majority of traditional pve only players to deal with. A traditional flagging system is the best compromise and would actually make it a true pvx game because you will have free will in consenting to pvp or not and that solution would draw in a lot more pve players to the game. Rest assured a lot of pvp players are not concerned about civility nor care about a non-combatants feelings in matter of being gank in pvp.
Solo players will be largely left alone. PvE only guilds will be left mostly alone, just depends a little who they ally with.
Those that are part of a PvX clan that want a bit of peace for a while will de-tag and go solo or be unofficial guild members for a while.
Ganking if part of guild will influence reputation and relationships so, again can`t see that happening so much.
And there will just be a smattering of those that gank infrequently
I am not sure what open world world pvp game you played that this actually happens. Steven said one of the reasons for the corruption system is that guilds can deal with random players showing on their turf and gathering resources. These places will be guarded , pvp guilds will be that petty. I can't see this game not being a gank box because of how looting rights are set up and the fact the pve content is always changing because of node destruction. Its hard to keep a lasting peaceful setup with Guilds when they always going to have to fight for new loot spots.