Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
What if a select few nodes could become a PvE only zone?
akabear
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Whilst I am a pvx player, not so skilled at pvp but do enjoy it and have no issues being in a pvx environment, I feel for those that are and/or want to be PvE only.
I also believe PvE players often make up a large portion of most player bases and this base of players should not be neglected to ensure a rich, varied, prosperous and well populated community.
Primarily this means a lot of pve content needs to be included, but that may not be enough, so thinking more so of "what if`s"
Now I do understand that there are plenty systems already created that require pvp to work and disabling those may put systems out of kilt, but I don`t think things are so intertwined that exceptions and/or variations could not be entertained.
So, thinking out loud with no fully fleshed out solution just a very broad objective; how about as a select number of nodes evolve and based on very particular criteria, that as a result of the community of a particular node working together they can drive its result of achieve x, y, z criteria then portions of that nodes realm become open up to become non-pvp zones.
Or something to that effect?
I also believe PvE players often make up a large portion of most player bases and this base of players should not be neglected to ensure a rich, varied, prosperous and well populated community.
Primarily this means a lot of pve content needs to be included, but that may not be enough, so thinking more so of "what if`s"
Now I do understand that there are plenty systems already created that require pvp to work and disabling those may put systems out of kilt, but I don`t think things are so intertwined that exceptions and/or variations could not be entertained.
So, thinking out loud with no fully fleshed out solution just a very broad objective; how about as a select number of nodes evolve and based on very particular criteria, that as a result of the community of a particular node working together they can drive its result of achieve x, y, z criteria then portions of that nodes realm become open up to become non-pvp zones.
Or something to that effect?
1
Comments
More than anything, if the node is strictly PvE then it wouldn't be available to be sieged or to be in a war. This means that it is free to level up whilst also locking out adjacent nodes.
This means that, ultimately, it will never be able to be torn down, locking out people from different content in the game. Mostly PvE content. So it's self defeating for the kind of people it would even attract.
To me, this would have a greater impact on who you would vote for mayor, or give money to support a mayoral bid to than any buildings or amenities they may opt to build or not build.
And it would still be possible to declare a siege, just like you could for any other village/town/city.
Players just would not be able to attack other player characters outside of a battlegrounds in that ZOI.
Seems like battlegrounds would still have to be PvX.
an agreement with adjacent node to not go to war for x period
I cannot see all systems deleted of pvp but I can see work arounds to make an area more pleasant for pve`er but to make it work, there must be a tradeoff.
If you wanted something like this better to have a central map node that is permanently neutral, at a lower stage like village stage for players to stay in if that is their preference.
But keep this node from having any affect on others.
Can be like a starting area if you will.
But the players should be encouraged to wander out and join an active node and be part of the node system eventually.
But from my perspective better to make players a part of the journey than exclude them by giving an area that means they can actively not participate.
Bottom line, I'd rather have that freedom of choice available rather than potentially a hard lock-out of pvp. I feel even just getting close to that would undermine what Ashes wants to be.
The truth is, we won't know how everything is going to play out until everyone is in game. If something becomes an issue, AoC can revisit it.
Read the comic here!
I think the Node would still have to be subject to Siege Declaration.
Battlegrounds would all still have to be open for PvP combat.
Those who want to reclaim the area as a PvP ZOI could declare a siege and try to destroy the Node.
Seems to me that motivates Meaningful Conflict.
Also ironically might motivate PvEers to declare sieges for the reward of creating a PvE-Only ZOI.
Dunno how easy it would be to create those kinds of flagging mechanics though.
Interesting idea.
There will probably be other nodes which are low conflict areas, again from their low drama inhabitants. Since there are a lot of low drama people, they will be drawn to settle in the peaceful area nodes, thus potentially making those nodes grow and prosper economically and become rich.
Whether that will attract the high PvP folks or not will depend on the diplomatic skills of the rulers of the peaceful areas, as some posters have already wisely commented above. If they can keep the drama high between the PvPers, they might create their own little Switzerland. We will have to watch for that (pun intended, har har).
And, if you feel disadvantaged regarding trade, you could make your own ZOI PvE-Only for a time if you want.
Pve Guilds could a have lock down on any raid content and pve mob farming spots. Gathering resources goes unchallenged so pve guilds can gather a lot more resources giving pve nodes a bigger economic advantage. The point of open pvp is to contest any of that and besides as you like to remind people on forums its not in Steven's vision of the game to have pve only nodes.
I highly doubt that Steven would ever implement it.
Which would require that the PVE players ban together and forbid the PVP players from coming into their nodes, and then enforcing the ban...which would make them PVP players.
OR they could hire mercenaries. Or pay the PVPers in the adjacent nodes to be enforcers. Or....well, there are lots of possibilities, which is exactly why we are so eager to see what happens in AoC!
They found a way.
And as you say. PvE players tend to outnumber PvP players. So I would think if you outnumber the PvP players and the PvP players need to become corrupted to target non-combatant PvE players.
The problem will solve itself.
Also I figure certain nodes will attract certain types of players. For example a Trading node, would theoretically need peace to encourage trade.
Where a military node makes war right?
Surely the problem will solve itself, we wont know until we are ingame.
If the local community on a server got together to do it I fail to see any problem. Intrepid wasting resources to make special rules I think is a bad idea. Let the local community work it out.
That most likely would be a waste of resources before launch.
Need to get back to this.
So I suppose there would still be PvP at caravans, sieges, node and guild wars and other 'allowed' circumstances.
Even though I have PvX tendencies, as compared to PvP....I don't think I would play on that server.
* I used '3' just so someone doesn't ruin their high level with a bad click.
I think it may end up being more likely that most PVP players will gravitate toward active PVP zones leaving PKers who will face the corruption system until they decide it’s not worth their time. Of course, the PVE zone might be more likely for resource PVP attacks. So declaring a zone PVE could end up having the opposite desired effect. And that could be a prime location for bounty hunters.
I think either way you go you will have PVP in your zone. Just a matter of which flavor. For me having friendly PVPers nearby tends to lower the PK incidents.
We've been told they dont want alternate ruleset servers.
I am still of the opinion that something like this could fit in to the game.
It can't/won't be a hard PvP prevention like in games with PvP free zones, but they could very easily allow nodes to select various options that can impact PvP within their ZoI.
This could be the option to add more roaming guards, as I said above, but it could also be an option in a religious building to increase corruption based penalties, or perhaps a barracks option to increase non-corruption penalties associated with PvP. They could make a marketplace option that reduces the percentage of materials an attacker gets if they successfully attack a caravan that originated from that node (since that attacker has to go to that node to claim those materials anyway).
These options should all be expensive, have ongoing costs (monthly upkeep perhaps), and also be tied to a specific building that can be destroyed in sieges or monster coin events.
These things wouldn't stop PvP from happening in that nodes ZoI - but I think we all know that would be a non-starter with Intrepid anyway.
I see no reason why they cant allow players in a node to shape - in a small way - the feel of that nodes ZoI in relation to PvP.
ZOI 1
Choose A,B,D,F.. not able to do E,G,K.
or
Spend the 10 points A 6 points, B 2 points, D 1 point, a F 1 point but have no points to do E,G,K
ZOI 2
Spend the 10 points A 3 points, B 3 points, D 3 point, a K 1 point but have no points to do E,G,F
I haven`t re-read what they are planning for a while, but always thought it would be a great dynamic if each Node depending on type had the same core utilities, and then a range to choose from, but the choice larger than the available spaces such that there will be a need to move between nodes and create inter-activity and inter-dependencies and successes and failures based on meeting or not meeting needs.
And to me, there is also no reason why these options can't go the other way. Reducing PvP penalties in a nodes ZoI if that is the option taken.
Seems to me to fit right in with the general concept of the game.