PvP aspect and the likely effect to casual players

Ladies and Gentlemen,

referring to the thread “Dev Discussion #39 – Griefing”, there is a question arising in my mind that is difficult for me to be answered and I would like to see the different opinions around the fanbase.
As the thread mentioned above is more intended to griefing commonly, I’d like to focus on the PvP aspect and the most likely leading effect to casual players.

I wonder if Ashes of Creation is intended to attract the so called casual PvE players in the same way as the PvP’ers. If the answer is: “Yes!”, then I fear that the actual planned open world PvP ruleset will not contribute to keep those players playing AoC in long term. Once the casual gamer is killed the fifth time while he tries to gather a material, it is most likely, that he will turn his back to the game and leave. The actual planned corruption system will neither prevent that griefer, ganker and/or corpse camper to continuously ruin the casual gamers gaming experience, nor would it the bounty hunter system. Please remember: I only mention Open World, not caravans, sieges, etc. which are intended to be heavily PvP.
I also believe that the main problem is not the kill itself, but the loss of some (up to 40% if I memorize correctly ?) of the gathered/carried material. I can imagine that somebody who spent just two hours with gathering materials, is not very happy to loose quiet a batch of his ore. … or more, if his corpse is camped for a while …

This having said, maybe it would be an idea, to really re-think about different server types. I know Stephen rejected this idea earlier, but a separated PvX-Server with OPTIONAL PvP (on/off function) in Open World, only (this is important) would do the job and attract the casual player by far more, I assume.
Server types could be like:

PvP-FL (Full Loot) That’s really something for those who grew up with Ultima Online 😉 Additionally, this server could have an increased drop-rate of materials and loot, etc.

PvX-PL (Partial Loot) As intended right now

PVX-OF (Optional Flagged) This server might face a reduced material drop from all resources …

Of course more details could be elaborated on demand ...

The resulting question to be answered - if it keeps as it is - would be: Is the highly PvP oriented fanbase big enough to keep the game running profitable in long term ? Or would it be better for Intrepid Studios to have speculative 100K – 300K monthly paying accounts more on their finance base …? One little flag could probably do the job …

Again, please don’t get me wrong: I actually think about getting an Alpha-, and Betakey to get a deeper picture of the game, but when I join once it’s released, I should prefer it, to play on a animate world and not on desert where I meet other players one in an hour of playtime …
I really love Stephen’s and his team idealism and I believe in AoC, but Intrepid Studios is unfortunately not a charitable trust … They need to look for some profit … and profit needs paying customers …

This thread is NOT related to my personal preferred playstyle, it focusses to the view to the impact of the casual player and discuss the question, if they can be ignored from financial and server population point of view ...

Thanks for reading my humble opinions
Looking forward reading yours

Kind regards and have a nice weekend *waves*

P.S. If the Mods prefer it this thread to be moved to the Dev-discussion please feel free to do so

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

fabula

mcstackerson wrote: »

Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.

I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.

The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.

Dygz

Corruption is for killing a Non-Coma

JamesSunderland wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.

Some will, some won't, it's a free world out there.
I will certainly most of the time choose pvp that won't result in Corruption,
but i, for certain, will prey upon the weak should i judge the odds and possible benefits in my favor.

Um. Yeah. Primarily inherently means that some people will.
But, the frequency needs to reflect Steven's statement: "You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system."

It's a free world... with significant penalties for Corruption.

mcstackerson

HumblePuffin wrote: »

Why not just make combatant the baseline, and non-combatant an opt in flag. Then you will clearly know when approaching someone that “this dude is probably not gonna flag combatant, can I deal with the corruption right now”.

Sure takes a bit of the mystery out of the interaction though when compared to Steven’s vision. I kinda like that “will they or won’t they” question you have to ask yourself every time you force attack a player.

This runs into the red = dead mentality that we don't want.

Fights are supposed to happen over objectives that are naturally easier to take if you don't fight. If i'm farming, i'm not going to flag so people know i'll fight back but if attacked, i will fight back.

I'd recommend waiting for the game and seeing how it plays since there is a lot of behavior aspects to the system that are hard to understand until you have experienced it for yourself.

Dygz

Goalid wrote: »

"You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue."
---Steven

I don't know why you keep on bringing up this quote, Steven literally says there will be opportunities where the benefits outweigh the risks, and is just saying corruption will prevent griefing, not all open world PvP.

There will be huge open world fights over rare materials and prime hunting grounds, just as Steven experienced in Lineage II.

Um. It won't be just like Steven experienced experienced in Lineage II because he's made Corruption more debilitaitng than Karma.

Steven's quote does not state that it will prevent griefing. It states that griefing will be rare - due to the Corruption mechanic.
If you want rare resources, the best place to get them is from Caravan attacks, where Corruption is not a factor; not from PKing Non-Combatants.

If you want to understand why I posted that quote, you can't simply ignore the other quote in the same post:
"I think that the intent behind the Corruption is that, like, during a rise in passion and, like, anger and whatever, you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later."

Hence, why I said people should primarily be choosing other forms of open world PvP, like Caravans and Sieges, rather than PKing Non-Combatants.

You need to take the post as whole. Not just cherry-pick portions out of context in order to strawman.

TheDarkSorcerer

What would be nice if there was some sort of toggle you could turn on "Don't want to be bothered" or "Busy". A toggle that would make you neutral somewhat so you can go about your day without being interrupted by others. Because sometimes we have things to do and places to be and simply not in the mood to PvX. Because if you are a casual, you most likely lead a busy life and don't have the time to play as much, and you don't want your limited fun time to play to be stuck at one spot being killed over and over by campers. Having this toggle could pretty much just make you non-targetable, like an NPC. I don't see the issue with this at all.

Dygz

That toggle completely bypasses the degree of risk Steven wants as the foundation of the game...

mcstackerson

fabula wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.

I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.

The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.

Just because i'm telling you the issue with your solution (at least as i see it) doesn't mean i don't understand the issue you are trying to solve. If they are doing damage, they are risking getting that last hit and gaining corruption. I'm not against someone getting corruption if they CC someone and the person dies in the CC. To me, the issue is the penalty for corruption is steep and because of that, should only be handed out if the person intended to kill someone.

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

TheDarkSorcerer

Dygz wrote: »

That toggle completely bypasses the degree of risk Steven wants as the foundation of the game...

But i like it :'(

HumblePuffin

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.

Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.

I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.

Dygz

We need to test to learn how the devs will be preventing those easy to imagine exploits.

HumblePuffin

Dygz wrote: »

We need to test to learn how the devs will be preventing those easy to imagine exploits.

Fair. This isn’t necessarily something I’m concerned about because I’m on the killing people side of this. I just feel this stuff is worth bringing up to make sure the people with your similar mindset on owpvp can be happier with the system so we don’t end up with people screaming till they get a system like TheDarkSorceror suggested.

Bonfield

Right now it seems like the answer is clear - give corruption to people who are on the "threat table" (or however you label it), not just the person with the KB. Otherwise there will just be roving gang of gankers that will rotate KBs, while burning off corruption with killing mobs. (I'm sure there will be bands of gankers regardless, but the current system will allow them to essentially bypass the system, especially if they're stealthed)

Dygz

HumblePuffin wrote: »

Fair. This isn’t necessarily something I’m concerned about because I’m on the killing people side of this. I just feel this stuff is worth bringing up to make sure the people with your similar mindset on owpvp can be happier with the system so we don’t end up with people screaming till they get a system like TheDarkSorceror suggested.

The only people screaming are newbies who want a separate PvE-Only server.
Once folks are around long enough to accept that's not going to happen - it's just a wait to test the efficacy of Corruption.
(Well, we also have newbies screaming that Corruption is too harsh - with the same result.)

SirChancelot

TheDarkSorcerer wrote: »

What would be nice if there was some sort of toggle you could turn on "Don't want to be bothered" or "Busy". A toggle that would make you neutral somewhat so you can go about your day without being interrupted by others. Because sometimes we have things to do and places to be and simply not in the mood to PvX. Because if you are a casual, you most likely lead a busy life and don't have the time to play as much, and you don't want your limited fun time to play to be stuck at one spot being killed over and over by campers. Having this toggle could pretty much just make you non-targetable, like an NPC. I don't see the issue with this at all.

As convenient as that sounds... That's what NW did, and we saw how that turned out for them...

mcstackerson wrote: »

fabula wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.

I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.

The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.

Just because i'm telling you the issue with your solution (at least as i see it) doesn't mean i don't understand the issue you are trying to solve. If they are doing damage, they are risking getting that last hit and gaining corruption. I'm not against someone getting corruption if they CC someone and the person dies in the CC. To me, the issue is the penalty for corruption is steep and because of that, should only be handed out if the person intended to kill someone.

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

What about some kind of timer after a hit? If you hit me or cc me and then a mob kills me in the next 10-15 seconds you get blamed for it and get corruption.

Okeydoke

I just have to post a wall of text about "griefing". If you are killed by someone and they take the 25% or 50%, whatever it is, of your gatherables, you have not been griefed. You are playing a game where that is a purposeful design element. It would be akin to feeling like you're getting griefed by God because you voluntarily walked out into the rain and got wet.

The goal of the corruption system is in part to diminish griefing. Everyone has a kill count of how many non combatants they've killed. You can work that kill count off by grinding mobs and what have you, but in the meantime, that's your kill count. Each kill added to that kill count sends you deeper into corruption with worse consequences. Your character gets weaker, easier to track by bounty hunters, your death penalties are harsher, leading up to even dropping equipped gear.

So to use spawn camping as an example, (we don't even know if it will be possible in Ashes) but just to use it as an example that you can extrapolate out to other scenarios - the PKer knows he has X amount of kills before the consequences become too harsh for his risk tolerance. The idea is that he's not going to spend 5 kills of that kill count to grief a player by spawn killing him 5 times in a row. The consequences are adding up with each kill, yet he's getting nothing tangible for it. Any substantial amount of loot that he got was only from the first kill.

Most players that play the corruption system/kill count game will look to maximize their gains for each finite kill. There will certainly be isolated instances where a player doesn't act like "most players" but that will be a slim minority if the system is done right.

Any actual griefing (not some of the ridiculous definitions of griefing I've seen on this forum) ACTUAL griefing which essentially requires either some form of breaking the rules, or unwarranted, targeted harassment of another player, should be reported and ultimately punished by the devs/GMs.

There's too much we don't know right now. There's a lot of numbers that, depending on how far they're pushed in one direction as opposed to the other, could make the vision of the system Steven has presented feel vastly different from what an individual player is envisioning in their mind.

It all has to be tested and tweaked. The forum warrioring is going to be out of this world when this all goes down lol.

mcstackerson

HumblePuffin wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.

Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.

I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.

That isn't an exploit. Someone is still going to deal the killing blow and eat the corruption penalty. Why does it matter if the kill was done with 1 or 5 people, especially if the person isn't going to fight back? It's still a penalty for someone. I don't think it needs to spread for it to have it's intended impact on player behavior.

SirChancelot

mcstackerson wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.

Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.

I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.

That isn't an exploit. Someone is still going to deal the killing blow and eat the corruption penalty. Why does it matter if the kill was done with 1 or 5 people, especially if the person isn't going to fight back? It's still a penalty for someone. I don't think it needs to spread for it to have it's intended impact on player behavior.

5 people beat someone to death. Only one charged with murder because he hit him last.... Yeah that will hold up well...

If all 5 tagged someone and assisted in his death, they should all get a little corruption.

Goalid

I think it's fair that we have to wait for the Alpha 2 to see how the corruption system works and how, or if, the Devs will deal with loopholes. But I think it's also fair for people to express concerns here and show some skepticism towards the currently planned system.

Caeryl

Assisting in a non-combatant kill shouldn’t flag you corrupt, but it should feed into that invisible body count number so that future Corruption penalties hit them appropriately harder than a player that doesn’t run with groups that go corrupt frequently.

mcstackerson

SirChancelot wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

HumblePuffin wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.

I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.

Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.

I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.

That isn't an exploit. Someone is still going to deal the killing blow and eat the corruption penalty. Why does it matter if the kill was done with 1 or 5 people, especially if the person isn't going to fight back? It's still a penalty for someone. I don't think it needs to spread for it to have it's intended impact on player behavior.

5 people beat someone to death. Only one charged with murder because he hit him last.... Yeah that will hold up well...

If all 5 tagged someone and assisted in his death, they should all get a little corruption.

This is a game with open pvp. You shouldn't try to compare it's systems to our real life criminal system.

Corruption is only given to someone who executes the killing blow on a noncombatant. People do not get corruption for attacking someone. Someone will suffer the penalty for the kill, i don't think multiply the penalty because more people were present when it has no additional impact on the person who was killed.

Child Item