Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Freehold 'Neighbourhoods' as 'Safe Zones'?

AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
So I was talking with JustVine about something that led to her question for the upcoming Q&A but there was so much potential detail and nuance to the whole thing, I figured I'd see what the community as a whole thinks of it.

If someone gives you permission to be on their Freehold, can anyone else attack you? Can people without those permissions even enter the physical boundaries of the Freehold?

Obvious if the answer is 'you are only safe on your own Freehold' nothing comes of it, but if it depends, basically at all, then a grid-like community of Freeholds (even considering that they cannot be placed next to each other as of last data) with people who all permit each other onto the Freeholds but no one else, now becomes a mini 'safe zone' for those people, and leads to some interesting development for certain types of RP communities, younger players, etc.

Since this immunity ends the moment one steps out of that 'neighbourhood', and presumably random mobs don't spawn on Freeholds, etc, then there's no 'problem' here in terms of how much the game world is affected. It's just a 'player created safe suburb'. You have to place them near Villages anyway.

But that means people can use it to get away from you, perhaps. Even if it were coded such that you couldn't enter a Freehold while in combat to 'escape' a situation.

Either way, this seems more like it would offer some limited additional protection from 'pointless ganking' or similar from people, incentivizing any such groups to actually use the Node system and siege the node if they really wanted to attack players from that area. Similarly, organized Guilds could use it to offer protections, depending on how long the permissions list could be.

I find this really interesting and not necessarily against Ashes' philosophy, but it'd depend on how big the 'required gap' between Freehold plots is, and other little things.
Sorry, my native language is Erlang.

Comments

  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    My understanding of being safe on a freehold is that this is simply how they plan on testing it out first, and then moving on from there.

    There is no suggestion so far that this is how it is intended to be in the final game, just that it is how they plan on testing it out first.
  • maouwmaouw Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I think the worst way people would try to abuse this is to create a haven for corrupted players. Which is still razable.
    What would this mean for bounty hunters, though?
    Would corrupted players be able to attack a bounty hunter in their haven?
    I wish I were deep and tragic
  • CROW3CROW3 Member
    maouw wrote: »
    I think the worst way people would try to abuse this is to create a haven for corrupted players. Which is still razable.
    What would this mean for bounty hunters, though?
    Would corrupted players be able to attack a bounty hunter in their haven?

    This is exactly what concerned me about the idea. Basically, go kill a bunch of innocents then go hide behind someone.

    I’d rather there be no safety anywhere than zones that could be exploited.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    CROW3 wrote: »
    maouw wrote: »
    I think the worst way people would try to abuse this is to create a haven for corrupted players. Which is still razable.
    What would this mean for bounty hunters, though?
    Would corrupted players be able to attack a bounty hunter in their haven?

    This is exactly what concerned me about the idea. Basically, go kill a bunch of innocents then go hide behind someone.

    I’d rather there be no safety anywhere than zones that could be exploited.

    This is why it is what is being tested first and then iterated upon, rather than being what they plan on putting in the game.

    At the very least, it is likely that if you are red or purple you will be able to be attacked on your freehold.

    Anything less makes no sense for this game.
  • Are you allowed to stop people from entering freeholder? I know they will limit access to the buildings, but freeholder are in the world environment, it should be traversible by anyone. As for safety, I'm not sure. You don't want to be camped or killed by someone who might be stronger on your own freehold, but this game is based around limited player safety.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    As far as I can tell, there will be limits on entering buildings (or likely just on opening doors), and that is about it.

    I don't see them preventing people walking on someone else's freehold.
  • JustVineJustVine Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    CROW3 wrote: »
    maouw wrote: »
    I think the worst way people would try to abuse this is to create a haven for corrupted players. Which is still razable.
    What would this mean for bounty hunters, though?
    Would corrupted players be able to attack a bounty hunter in their haven?

    This is exactly what concerned me about the idea. Basically, go kill a bunch of innocents then go hide behind someone.

    I’d rather there be no safety anywhere than zones that could be exploited.

    While I agree with your concern, there is a benefit to them just staying in safety for innocents as well, in that they are no longer hurting anyone or playing the game. Bounty Hunters still know where they went. It's not like you can farm mobs in the freehold, so they stay corrupted more or less. They are putting themselves in 'timeout'. They gotta come out eventually right?

    Meanwhile, less evil people can set up oasis near good PvE zones, sheltering people who need a rest or to prep before their hunt without a red stomping on their plans. Bonus points if the person escapes the red and complains about it in the tavern forming a bounty hunting party to clear the area for a more equal distribution of said hunting ground.

    Or hey maybe it goes the other way around and the evil doers form a green hunting part in the same manner, sparking a mini battle.

    I feel like all three things I just wrote stick to Ashes intended feeling of hot blooded passion and risk vs reward out in the wild.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited October 29
    Well, looks like the question didn't make it through this month, so we're back to thinking about it generally until next chance, though there's always the possibility that the Community Team will give a direct answer when they compile up all the questions that could be answered otherwise so we'll look out for that.

    I personally don't mind if not even one's Freehold is safe, certainly 'you can't be safe on other people's Freeholds even if you are allowed there', but it's really hard to imagine someone making the decision to go 'yeah you can be doing crafting and then some people roll up and kill you'.

    It just would seem weird to need to get together a group of guards in order to do your farming, but then again, it would remove that whole problem where the risk of Farming on your own Freehold is lower than doing other activities.

    I'm kind of concerned now that at this rate, the most effective and safest way for a 'targeted' person (corrupted or not, since it would imply that you could be killed on your Freehold if your Guild was at war, for example) to play and make progress in the game would be... using the out of game apps and playing the economic markets.

    I mean, I'm not concerned for me, that's my jam, but it seems... restrictive? Is everyone else as 'okay' with that as I am? (you can effectively 'win' at BDO now without logging into the actual game for more than 20m, it's 'great')
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • ConradConrad Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I would say the only permissable safety I would be for is if you put your freehold in such a good hiding spot, no one can find it except you, cuz either you have the marker, or you remember where to go 🤣

    Hence why it would be cool to be able to make underground bases and tree bases. I know it's usually a survival games thing but...
  • SathragoSathrago Member
    edited October 31
    Honestly I don't see why freeholds should be safe zones if even cities wont be safe zones.
    5000x1000px_Sathrago_Commission_RavenJuu.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • Sathrago wrote: »
    Honestly I don't see why freeholds should be safe zones if even cities wont be safe zones.

    Because freeholds don’t have guards to react to people trolling, so making them PvP-free zones is the only real stop gap to trolling in those spaces.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Honestly I don't see why freeholds should be safe zones if even cities wont be safe zones.

    Because freeholds don’t have guards to react to people trolling, so making them PvP-free zones is the only real stop gap to trolling in those spaces.

    But all that does is open up other trolling.

    If freeholds are safe from PvP, then freeholds next to a major thoroughfare will be a bandit safehouse.

    The only way you should be safe on a freehold is if you lock yourself inside so I can't physically get you.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Well, we're back.

    Obviously it can still change, but now we have at least some concept that Freeholds are safestyle/protected zones.

    Even if it is only for the player that owns the Freehold (Steven's answer from the stream is very slightly ambiguous, but that just means we get to discuss both sides).

    Responses so far in thread seem to be against it as a concept, other than myself I guess. I'm ambivalent in terms of my personal experience, but I do believe that not even guaranteeing safety on Freehold property would be a bad design decision.

    Either way, if we assume that it will happen, and therefore that it might be useful to give feedback beyond just "I don't like this idea" is required, what then?

    I think this has been considered already by making sure that Freeholds can't be too close to each other. If navigating on and off Freeholds is related to fences, then you get sort of a 'fighting in the streets' sort of situation.

    Main concern would be skills like Javelin, or skills like Hallowed Ground that could 'maybe reach their area of effect into a Freehold's space'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    I would like to see the freehold as a safe zone for the owner, UNLESS the owner is flagged or corrupt. But when non-combatant, yeah, safe zone is fine I think. I think that should go for in-node housing as well.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Nerror wrote: »
    I would like to see the freehold as a safe zone for the owner, UNLESS the owner is flagged or corrupt. But when non-combatant, yeah, safe zone is fine I think. I think that should go for in-node housing as well.

    Oh yeah, thanks for pointing that out. For clarity, I mean only 'when the player is in non-combatant state'. In my initial post, when I mentioned 'getting away from people' I meant 'staying green and fleeing into the Freehold Safe Space' when someone tries to attack you.

    This would be most important relative to Guild Wars, since the code will overlap in various complex ways.

    So as an extension to your wish @Nerror - What if your guild is at war, you're not flagged or corrupt, and an enemy guild member wants to attack you?

    I gotta admit I get a bit tired of 'being murdered on my farm in BDO' but that's explicitly intended (you can't place the farm in a Safe Zone at all) and there's no death penalty there. In Ashes, it's unlikely one would bother having a 'farming Alt' or any of the other nonsense BDO requires, so 'not being safe from enemy guilds because they know where I live' might be rough, but that, at least, is two-sided.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited November 20
    I just want to say that the arguement about corrupted players benefiting from safe freeholds is just paranoia:

    Will there be good mobs around that freehold so that they can lower their corruprion points and return to non combatant status? Unlikely.

    Will they manage to kill players far away from their freeholds and return safely without dying and losing items? Unlikely.

    Is it gamebreaking if people that want to often go corrupt establish a "danger zone" around their freeholds? No. If anything, it will be exciting.

    Should players that are afraid of open world pvp approach unknown freeholds without taking in consideration that a red player could b there 24/7? Sure, but they shouldnt complain if their get floored.

    I like that freeholds are safezones. The world is massive anyway, and if you didnt buy that freehold, move along.

    Node destructions is a different story.
  • Just make it so corrupted players cant enter a freehold zone.

    Easy.
  • In the recent dev update they said freeholds are indeed safe zones until the node is successfully sieged.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    Just make it so corrupted players cant enter a freehold zone.

    Easy.

    And also not necessary at all. Corrupted players should be able to enter their (or their allies’) freeholds just like they would normally.
  • George BlackGeorge Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    Just make it so corrupted players cant enter a freehold zone.

    Easy.

    Or not
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Hutchy1989 wrote: »
    Just make it so corrupted players cant enter a freehold zone.

    Easy.

    But then that's still limiting gameplay in some ways. As long as they don't disappear off bounty hunter radar, it should still be mostly okay, since otherwise they'd just have logged off.

    I'm looking forward to 'bandit towns' if this goes the other way.

    Obviously this will come down to 'how far apart Freeholds must be spaced' but the good part is, if drama comes up because someone causes issues and then hides on someone else's Freehold, you can negotiate for that person (or the entire Verran Homeowners Association) to remove them from the permissions list and kick them out.

    Bonus if it just moves them outside the Freehold immediately. You can 'give people up to the law'.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
Sign In or Register to comment.