So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest.
Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum.
The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this.
If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort.
Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding.
If you come across someone that does this, you have three options.
1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way.
2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption.
3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there.
Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... I have done the same in regards to the corruption system, mentioning alts killing corrupted players to reduce the corruption and prevent gear loss to other players. My solution is to instead of allowing the gear to be looted, simply have random gear be destroyed outright, that way even if a friend kills a overly-corrupted player they will still be at a loss.
So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest.
Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum.
The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this.
If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort.
Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding.
If you come across someone that does this, you have three options.
1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way.
2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption.
3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there.
Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit.
As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest.
Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum.
The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this.
If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort.
Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding.
If you come across someone that does this, you have three options.
1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way.
2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption.
3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there.
Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit.
As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
If the action is meant to be a system based protection feature sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit.
And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest.
Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum.
The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this.
If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort.
Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding.
If you come across someone that does this, you have three options.
1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way.
2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption.
3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there.
Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit.
As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
If the action is meant to be a system based protection system sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit.
And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
There is a massive difference between an exploit, and people having the time, ability and knowledge to work around a given system.
If people were able to always get around the penalties of corruption, then sure, exploit.
If they are able to gain corruption and then get themselves away to somewhere no one can interrupt them in order to work off corruption (note that this is only going to be worth it after gaining many kills worth of coreuption), then more power to them. That isnt an exploit, that is using the system as intended - and indeed is why the real penalty of death while corrupt is the increased experience debt - something this "work around" doesnt prevent.
If Intrepid really think that there is something here that needs to be addressed, rather than removing the reward/incentive for people attacking that corrupt player, they have many, many other things already built in to the game that they can adjust.
ITs a easy fix, honestly i don't think owPvP is needed up to lvl 10 at least, ltos of mmos are like that where once you hit a certain level it activates so that is nothing new and im not really against that.
Counter to anyone wanting to exploit bringing lowbies around, you just set level requirements to pick up certain items and you are good.
Though if corruption system are good and working as intended things will be fine either way. People expecting to never be pked, or to be able to piss people off and never get pked are seriously looking at the wrong game. It isn't even if the pk is not bad or happens once in awhile, they are just rejecting it because they are honestly looking for a mmo more akin to WoW, lost ark, etc.
Of course i expect people to say but I'm only talking about owPvP, I don't buy that at all. The input ins't is this system tweaked enough, or issues with the system they feel, or ways to make the system better, they aren't looking for a inbetween. It is black and white because they don't have any interest in pvp as a whole, they are looking to do step by step and the first step is owpvp.
Anyone who looked into ashes, listen to it, read the wiki on ashes should know its a PvX game. If you are seriously concerned about things and the systems your first option shouldn't be a nuke. You subjectively look at it, see how the system work, test and give input. And if you feel after all that things are mess or worst regardless of your input and the changes that may have happened. Then you would be at the step if it was bad and not a good design to ask for PvE servers.
Yet I don't see that, I don't really see in some of these post people being reasonable i see the attitude its my way or the high way. Regardless the game and how it is being designed, not even having a bit of faith to see the system working in alpha 2 at least first.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
Consensual PvP only.
Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something.
If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play?
In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there...
And to the people saying stuff like
"You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
Penalties for non-consensual PvP are part of the social contract. Precisely.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
That's just the risk vs reward system's implementation into the corruption system. There are rewards for killing non combatants too. Double the loot. More risk, more reward.
That is your choice to stay a non combatant and requires your consent. More broadly, by logging in, you consent to the rules of the game and thus whatever pvp the game allows.
One of the best red herrings I've ever seen before though.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
That's just the risk vs reward system's implementation into the corruption system. There are rewards for killing non combatants too. Double the loot. More risk, more reward.
That is your choice to stay a non combatant and requires your consent. More broadly, by logging in, you consent to the rules of the game and thus whatever pvp the game allows.
One of the best red herrings I've ever seen before though.
LMAO
It's not really double the loot.
You get normal loot and 4x the normal death penalties for killing a non-combatant.
And, sure, by logging in you consent to the rules of the game: 4x the normal death penalties for non-consensual PvP.
If we consented to PvP merely by logging into the game, killing non-combatants would not considered to be griefing and there would be no penalties for killing non-combatants.
Which is why MOBAs don't have penalties for killing non-combatants. When you log into a MOBA, you auto-consent to PvP. Same for First Person Shooters, etc.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him.
And then there's the risks, 4x death penalties, stat dampening etc. That is the ying and the yang of the risk vs reward system. And everyone has choices to make in these situations.
None of that has anything to do with it though. That's just the risk vs reward and corruption system.
No one's saying that IN game you're going to consent to every time you're killed. The most uber leet pvper in the world is going to be killed when they don't want to be sometimes. But by playing the game you consent to the game, it's systems and it's rules. By logic a 7 year old can understand, you are consenting to all potential pvp scenarios. Because you have a choice to play or not to play. Your choice to play is your consent.
The reason why mobas and fps don't have a corruption system is because that's all those games are about is killing people. Ashes isn't just about killing people.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him.
The loot a non-combatant drops when killed is normal the death penalty loot.
So someone who kills and loots a non-combatant receives the normal amount of loot.
Someone who kills a combatant recieves half the normal amount of loot.
The reward for killing and looting a non-combatant is the normal amount of loot. (Assuming the attacker grabs all of the dropped loot.)
And then there's the risks, 4x death penalties, stat dampening etc. That is the ying and the yang of the risk vs reward system. And everyone has choices to make in these situations.
Becoming Corrupted also accrues 4x the normal death penalties.
Everyone has choices. True.
No one's saying that IN game you're going to consent to every time you're killed. The most uber leet pvper in the world is going to be killed when they don't want to be sometimes. But by playing the game you consent to the game, it's systems and it's rules. By logic a 7 year old can understand, you are consenting to all potential pvp scenarios. Because you have a choice to play or not to play. Your choice to play is your consent.
Actually, that is what they are saying.
Choosing to play the game, provided that Corruption works well enough that a person is willing to play the game is different than consent.
Just because I choose to step into a boxing ring as a non-combatant does not mean I consent to being punched in the face by a boxer. And, if I am, as a non-combatant in the ring, targeted by a boxer and punched in the face, the boxer will suffer penalties for that.
The reason why mobas and fps don't have a corruption system is because that's all those games are about is killing people. Ashes isn't just about killing people.
The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him.
The loot a non-combatant drops when killed is normal the death penalty loot.
So someone who kills and loots a non-combatant receives the normal amount of loot.
Someone who kills a combatant recieves half the normal amount of loot.
The reward for killing and looting a non-combatant is the normal amount of loot. (Assuming the attacker grabs all of the dropped loot.).
Since both half and double are comparative, and since you can shift the perspective, it is correct to say that killing a non combatant gives twice the driops as a combatant, and that killing a combatant gives half the reward of killing a non-combatant.
Here's a good video that discusses why everyone who played older mmos love them so much, and imo this video supports the idea of limiting pvp to higher lvls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4Gaz8oxzJ4
Let the people enjoy the easier part of the game first and then impose difficulties on those who want to get even more enjoyment out of it. And if designed properly, you can hook more people in with a "you remember that one boss at lvl 10 that was fun and cool? Well here's an even cooler boss, but this time you'll have to work more to beat it and you'll have some competition before/during/after the fight too".
Now, of course I hope that Intrepid manages to come up with such a design where those kinds of limitations on their system are not required, but this solution to the problem of "not everyone enjoys pvp/difficulties" is a bit better than just "you don't like it? leave" one.
Though I do think that, in order to equate "pvp" and "just some progress difficulties that I can overcome" in people's heads, we do need to find a way to make pvp more appealing to people who have had bad experience with it in the past. Losing less stuff on death is definitely an attempt at that, but I dunno if that'll be enough.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Consensual PvP only.
Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something.
If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play?
In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there...
And to the people saying stuff like
"You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game.
No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game.
The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP.
This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
So, I've been watching this thread unfold with some interest.
Some of you absolutely will take some offense at this (an probably should), but this thread just emphasizes why some open world PvP centric players are generally considered little more than bottom feeding scum.
The argument about a high level gatherer, but with a low combat level is a perfect example of this.
If a group of players put the effort in to bring such a character to a high level area with good materials, then no, you shouldnt presume that the system is broken, or argue that you should be able to attack that low level player. They out the effort in to make it harder for you, they should reap the benefits of that effort.
Asking for a change for situations like this ((or expecting one) is literally bottom feeding.
If you come across someone that does this, you have three options.
1, respect the effort they put in, and let then go on their way.
2, respect the effort they put in, kill them, take the materials and corruption.
3, respect the effort they put in, and kill that low level player with your own low level player that you put that same level of effort to get there.
Arguing for an easy way out if this where you get everything you want is actually just pathetic.
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution...
People putting in serious effort to gain some system based protection is not an exploit.
As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
If the action is meant to be a system based protection system sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit.
And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
There is a massive difference between an exploit, and people having the time, ability and knowledge to work around a given system.
If people were able to always get around the penalties of corruption, then sure, exploit.
If they are able to gain corruption and then get themselves away to somewhere no one can interrupt them in order to work off corruption (note that this is only going to be worth it after gaining many kills worth of coreuption), then more power to them. That isnt an exploit, that is using the system as intended - and indeed is why the real penalty of death while corrupt is the increased experience debt - something this "work around" doesnt prevent.
If Intrepid really think that there is something here that needs to be addressed, rather than removing the reward/incentive for people attacking that corrupt player, they have many, many other things already built in to the game that they can adjust.
Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit. My point is that if that was not meant to be able to be used as a mechanic in that way (which neither of us know for sure if it is or isn't) then it is potentially an exploit, so pointing it out is simply allowing them to see it, and if it isn't meant to be there they can change it. If it was meant to be a mechanic used in such a way then it'll stay. What was most advantageous though was the strengths of going against that mechanic in efforts to fight botting.
Yes in regard to corruption they specifically put the system in to allow players to work off corruption over time, hence it isn't an exploit to do that. However what I said was exploiting via avoiding penalties altogether by utilizing an alt with which you kill your main character to remove the corruption and not risk losing gear to other players who may kill you. And I never said to remove incentive, I simply was recommending a change in the reward. An item gets destroyed from the corrupted player and grants materials or currency of similar value. That way if that corrupted player does intend to exploit by executing themselves with an alt to remove their corruption, they still are at a loss instead of just passing their gear back and forth to their other character.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
Clueless.
What an exceptionaly wonderful attitude you have there... The world is definitely better of having you around
Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit.
Yes, this is true.
Sticking with that high level gatherer, low level combat character, from Intrepids perspective, not only would this kind of thing not be unintended use of the game systems, it would be an actual designed use case. They will design the game with the idea in mind that at least some of the time, high level players will bring high level gatherers to specific areas to harvest materials for them. You don't put materials that require a high level gathering class in to areas with high level mobs without taking this in to account - it's not like Intrepid are amateurs or anything.
As such, it is blatantly not an exploit. It is not even close - it is a designed use case.
It is the idea and/or assumption that many PvP players have that this would even be considered an exploit and as such need the developers to hand them a way to deal with this situation that is telling of said players.
It is an unflattering look - even for PvP players.
Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit.
Yes, this is true.
Sticking with that high level gatherer, low level combat character, from Intrepids perspective, not only would this kind of thing not be unintended use of the game systems, it would be an actual designed use case. They will design the game with the idea in mind that at least some of the time, high level players will bring high level gatherers to specific areas to harvest materials for them. You don't put materials that require a high level gathering class in to areas with high level mobs without taking this in to account - it's not like Intrepid are amateurs or anything.
As such, it is blatantly not an exploit. It is not even close - it is a designed use case.
It is the idea and/or assumption that many PvP players have that this would even be considered an exploit and as such need the developers to hand them a way to deal with this situation that is telling of said players.
It is an unflattering look - even for PvP players.
Clearly you didnt read about the discussion of bots exploiting what youre defending. No worries though, I asked if it is intended in this weeks discussions. I honestly don't care about ganking low class lvl/high crafting characters, but the fact that someone brought to light that negating low level protection for high level artisans would make it more difficult for bot farmers vs giving them an advantage. But you keep holding onto that "PVP bad" argument dude.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
The two have nothing to do with each other, at least not in the way you were implying. That statement is a red herring. A false equivalency. You conveniently leave out that there's not only risk for killing non combatants but reward as well.
It is part of Ashes risk vs reward and corruption systems and has nothing to do with the fact that when you log in and play, you are consenting to pvp you want and don't want. Because you don't have a choice once logged in. You had a choice before you logged in. You chose to log in.
Moving on to your stepping into a boxing ring as a noncombatant analogy. This is another false equivalency. You would have been better off using an analogy of being an actual boxer against whom a foul is committed, a low blow or something.
But you'd be wrong there too. Why? Because in both of those instances, an illegal act has been taken against you. In the first, you've been illegally punched. He's breaking the law of the city, state and country you are in.
In the second, a boxer is cheating against you. He's breaking the rules of the game to try to hit you with a low blow.
Describe to me the rules of the game that are being broken when a non combatant is killed in Ashes.
Your analogy doesn't apply. The only thing it can apply to is when the rules are broken. In the context of Ashes, that means things like cheating, hacking, exploiting, racial slurs, RMT, and anything else against Ashes' TOS. The Ashes player who does these things to you will face suspensions and bans. The boxer who punched you will face the real life equivalents.
It's hard to think of analogies that fit the uniqueness of a video game with a corruption system. But at the end of the day, the corruption system is just a system and feature of the game, no different than the fact that it takes 10 yards for a first down in football, or that the field is 100 yards long.
When you play football, you consent to those very basic features, whether you like it or not. You also consent to being tackled, even though you probably try to avoid it in every way possible.
Who is "they"? lol I'm jk but, I don't know how "they" can say that. I won't generally "consent" to being killed in a video game. I will try to run away. Who wouldn't? But I did indeed consent to it happening to me either way if it is a feature of the game and I knew it when I decided to play.
If logging in were consenting to PvP, there would be no penalties for nonconsensual PvP.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
Clueless.
What an exceptionaly wonderful attitude you have there... The world is definitely better of having you around
Clearly you didnt read about the discussion of bots exploiting what youre defending.
If "bots" put in enough time to get a low level character in this area, I would wager you are not dealing with actual bots. The reason I didn't bother mentioning anything in regards to that is because "if" they are indeed bots, the appropriate means of dealing with them is for Intrepid to take action on the account.
The notion of changing an aspect of the game like this so that players can "deal with bots" is laughable. Killing a bot isn't dealing with them, and if anything, it makes it harder for Intrepid to take action on their account. I mean, if you report a bot, and then kill it, when Intrepid get around to looking at it, they have a character that is likely just sitting at the respawn point doing nothing - they are for all intents and purposes just some random AFK player.
But you keep holding onto that "PVP bad" argument dude.
This is not something I have said, nor that I think. PvP is fine.
I have, however, said that the bulk of open PvP players are bottom feeders, but that is about it.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Consensual PvP only.
Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something.
If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play?
In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there...
And to the people saying stuff like
"You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game.
No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game.
The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP.
This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
accidental double post
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Consensual PvP only.
Everyone keeps saying the game is designed for PvX and I get that. You can have the mandatory PVP associated with the things that would require it such as node sieges and the PVP zone around caravans, etc. Without having the full open world flagging. Corruption can still be a thing, it could come into play if someone goes on an NPC killing spree or something.
If ashes launches and has 20 servers to choose from and 2-4 are for the people that don't care for PvP but want to play the game, then let them play there. Why should the other 80% of players care how that 20% portion wants to play?
In my opinion saying it shouldn't be there is similar to me saying non combat pets are dumb, and just a waste, and not how the game should be played.... 80% of the population doesn't walk around with them anyways, only 20% collect and enjoy them, but I don't want them to enjoy themselves over there...
And to the people saying stuff like
"You are selfish for not willing to offer a bit of fun to PvP-ers." and "You would not be there for me to PK". Those are the exact reasons some people want the PvE servers, to get away from players that act like that.
I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The fact that you're playing a PvX game makes open world PvP consensual by default, because you agree to the rules by playing a game with set and public rules.
Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Logging in is consenting to PvP.
Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game.
No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game.
The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP.
This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
Now you are arguing against standard terminology which has been out there at least from the beginning of EvE online. Therefore, it is not a new thing or meant to offend anyone rather used to make difference between different owPvP rules. You can easily google this if you do not take my word of it.
On top of that now this term non-consensual PvP has taken out of the context. We were originally talking about ingame PvP flagging rules which has nothing to do with logging in to the game.
In open world game where no-one is forced to PvP and you need to flag to do so, has consensual PvP rules. These games can have arenas, battlegrounds or even caravans like in Ashes but the common thing is that players can choose if they want to participate or not to the PvP action.
In open world games where players can be attacked by other players (typically in context of ganking) even if they do not want that at that moment has non-consesual PvP rules. Someone can be okay with that but this happens because the rules allows it.
Thus, consensual and non-consensual PvP terms have used to make difference between certain rules and help with the defining.
Comments
Or...orrrrrrr....we see a possible exploit in a system so we mentioned a solution... I have done the same in regards to the corruption system, mentioning alts killing corrupted players to reduce the corruption and prevent gear loss to other players. My solution is to instead of allowing the gear to be looted, simply have random gear be destroyed outright, that way even if a friend kills a overly-corrupted player they will still be at a loss.
As to your point about gear being destroyed rather than dropped on corrupt death, PvP is Ashes way of redistributing gear, destroying it goes against that. Gear dropping is less a penalty for the corrupt player, and more of a reward for the attacker.
If the action is meant to be a system based protection feature sure. But if it is not designed specifically for that reason, thats a potential exploit.
And yes, you can still provide a reward for players such as materials or currency. But at the same time causing a punishment for the corrupted player while preventing another possible exploit is just a good idea. Or should we just say "nah its fine" and just ignore possible exploits to the systems we are being presented with?
There is a massive difference between an exploit, and people having the time, ability and knowledge to work around a given system.
If people were able to always get around the penalties of corruption, then sure, exploit.
If they are able to gain corruption and then get themselves away to somewhere no one can interrupt them in order to work off corruption (note that this is only going to be worth it after gaining many kills worth of coreuption), then more power to them. That isnt an exploit, that is using the system as intended - and indeed is why the real penalty of death while corrupt is the increased experience debt - something this "work around" doesnt prevent.
If Intrepid really think that there is something here that needs to be addressed, rather than removing the reward/incentive for people attacking that corrupt player, they have many, many other things already built in to the game that they can adjust.
Counter to anyone wanting to exploit bringing lowbies around, you just set level requirements to pick up certain items and you are good.
Though if corruption system are good and working as intended things will be fine either way. People expecting to never be pked, or to be able to piss people off and never get pked are seriously looking at the wrong game. It isn't even if the pk is not bad or happens once in awhile, they are just rejecting it because they are honestly looking for a mmo more akin to WoW, lost ark, etc.
Of course i expect people to say but I'm only talking about owPvP, I don't buy that at all. The input ins't is this system tweaked enough, or issues with the system they feel, or ways to make the system better, they aren't looking for a inbetween. It is black and white because they don't have any interest in pvp as a whole, they are looking to do step by step and the first step is owpvp.
Anyone who looked into ashes, listen to it, read the wiki on ashes should know its a PvX game. If you are seriously concerned about things and the systems your first option shouldn't be a nuke. You subjectively look at it, see how the system work, test and give input. And if you feel after all that things are mess or worst regardless of your input and the changes that may have happened. Then you would be at the step if it was bad and not a good design to ask for PvE servers.
Yet I don't see that, I don't really see in some of these post people being reasonable i see the attitude its my way or the high way. Regardless the game and how it is being designed, not even having a bit of faith to see the system working in alpha 2 at least first.
Technically, there aren’t any penalties for non-consensual pvp - only for murdering greens. So really anything short of non-consensual murder is condoned and encouraged.
This is the social contract that Steven is not just authoring, but authorizing.
Edit: To bring the point home, let’s say a Red has learned the errs of his way and renounced attacking others. He’s still red, and out picking elderberries. He doesn’t want to pvp anymore - a non-consensual pvp’r.
Yet, if he’s killed by a green, the green stays green. If he’s killed by a purple, the purple stays purple. The red didn’t consent to either of those fights, yet the social contract allows and supports both kills without a corruption penalty.
Ah, another person who is not familiar with consensual and non-consensual PvP terminology.
That's just the risk vs reward system's implementation into the corruption system. There are rewards for killing non combatants too. Double the loot. More risk, more reward.
That is your choice to stay a non combatant and requires your consent. More broadly, by logging in, you consent to the rules of the game and thus whatever pvp the game allows.
One of the best red herrings I've ever seen before though.
It's not really double the loot.
You get normal loot and 4x the normal death penalties for killing a non-combatant.
And, sure, by logging in you consent to the rules of the game: 4x the normal death penalties for non-consensual PvP.
If we consented to PvP merely by logging into the game, killing non-combatants would not considered to be griefing and there would be no penalties for killing non-combatants.
Which is why MOBAs don't have penalties for killing non-combatants. When you log into a MOBA, you auto-consent to PvP. Same for First Person Shooters, etc.
My understanding is that if the green starts fighting he turns purple. So I don't think he can kill someone and be green.
Clueless.
Green can kill Red and stay green. They only go purple if they hit a Green or Purple. It's part of the penalty for being Red.
The loot you get killing a non combatant instead of a combatant is exactly double. No more, no less, precisely double, according to the wiki. That is the reward for killing a non combatant - the loot, and whatever other goals the killer had for killing him.
And then there's the risks, 4x death penalties, stat dampening etc. That is the ying and the yang of the risk vs reward system. And everyone has choices to make in these situations.
None of that has anything to do with it though. That's just the risk vs reward and corruption system.
No one's saying that IN game you're going to consent to every time you're killed. The most uber leet pvper in the world is going to be killed when they don't want to be sometimes. But by playing the game you consent to the game, it's systems and it's rules. By logic a 7 year old can understand, you are consenting to all potential pvp scenarios. Because you have a choice to play or not to play. Your choice to play is your consent.
The reason why mobas and fps don't have a corruption system is because that's all those games are about is killing people. Ashes isn't just about killing people.
So someone who kills and loots a non-combatant receives the normal amount of loot.
Someone who kills a combatant recieves half the normal amount of loot.
The reward for killing and looting a non-combatant is the normal amount of loot. (Assuming the attacker grabs all of the dropped loot.)
Becoming Corrupted also accrues 4x the normal death penalties.
Everyone has choices. True.
What is "it"?
Corruption and 4x the normal death penalties are the penalties for forcing nonconsensual PvP on another player.
Actually, that is what they are saying.
Choosing to play the game, provided that Corruption works well enough that a person is willing to play the game is different than consent.
Just because I choose to step into a boxing ring as a non-combatant does not mean I consent to being punched in the face by a boxer. And, if I am, as a non-combatant in the ring, targeted by a boxer and punched in the face, the boxer will suffer penalties for that.
Pretty sure I said that. Yes.
Since both half and double are comparative, and since you can shift the perspective, it is correct to say that killing a non combatant gives twice the driops as a combatant, and that killing a combatant gives half the reward of killing a non-combatant.
You cant say one is correct and the other isn't.
Let the people enjoy the easier part of the game first and then impose difficulties on those who want to get even more enjoyment out of it. And if designed properly, you can hook more people in with a "you remember that one boss at lvl 10 that was fun and cool? Well here's an even cooler boss, but this time you'll have to work more to beat it and you'll have some competition before/during/after the fight too".
Now, of course I hope that Intrepid manages to come up with such a design where those kinds of limitations on their system are not required, but this solution to the problem of "not everyone enjoys pvp/difficulties" is a bit better than just "you don't like it? leave" one.
Though I do think that, in order to equate "pvp" and "just some progress difficulties that I can overcome" in people's heads, we do need to find a way to make pvp more appealing to people who have had bad experience with it in the past. Losing less stuff on death is definitely an attempt at that, but I dunno if that'll be enough.
As others have said logging into an FPS and getting mad because other people shot you is the player not understanding the nature of the game.
No such thing as non-consentual PvP in an OWPvP game.
The idea is a logical fallacy. By choosing to log in you are saying to everyone else that logged in you are ok with unplanned random PvP.
This helps keep the world interesting and exciting.
Just because someone is putting time into something doesn't mean that it isn't an exploit. My point is that if that was not meant to be able to be used as a mechanic in that way (which neither of us know for sure if it is or isn't) then it is potentially an exploit, so pointing it out is simply allowing them to see it, and if it isn't meant to be there they can change it. If it was meant to be a mechanic used in such a way then it'll stay. What was most advantageous though was the strengths of going against that mechanic in efforts to fight botting.
Yes in regard to corruption they specifically put the system in to allow players to work off corruption over time, hence it isn't an exploit to do that. However what I said was exploiting via avoiding penalties altogether by utilizing an alt with which you kill your main character to remove the corruption and not risk losing gear to other players who may kill you. And I never said to remove incentive, I simply was recommending a change in the reward. An item gets destroyed from the corrupted player and grants materials or currency of similar value. That way if that corrupted player does intend to exploit by executing themselves with an alt to remove their corruption, they still are at a loss instead of just passing their gear back and forth to their other character.
Ah
I forgot that part, I thought attacking anything would move you to purple
What an exceptionaly wonderful attitude you have there... The world is definitely better of having you around
Edit: *edited to remove actual opinion*
Sticking with that high level gatherer, low level combat character, from Intrepids perspective, not only would this kind of thing not be unintended use of the game systems, it would be an actual designed use case. They will design the game with the idea in mind that at least some of the time, high level players will bring high level gatherers to specific areas to harvest materials for them. You don't put materials that require a high level gathering class in to areas with high level mobs without taking this in to account - it's not like Intrepid are amateurs or anything.
As such, it is blatantly not an exploit. It is not even close - it is a designed use case.
It is the idea and/or assumption that many PvP players have that this would even be considered an exploit and as such need the developers to hand them a way to deal with this situation that is telling of said players.
It is an unflattering look - even for PvP players.
Clearly you didnt read about the discussion of bots exploiting what youre defending. No worries though, I asked if it is intended in this weeks discussions. I honestly don't care about ganking low class lvl/high crafting characters, but the fact that someone brought to light that negating low level protection for high level artisans would make it more difficult for bot farmers vs giving them an advantage. But you keep holding onto that "PVP bad" argument dude.
The "it" pertains to what you said here
The two have nothing to do with each other, at least not in the way you were implying. That statement is a red herring. A false equivalency. You conveniently leave out that there's not only risk for killing non combatants but reward as well.
It is part of Ashes risk vs reward and corruption systems and has nothing to do with the fact that when you log in and play, you are consenting to pvp you want and don't want. Because you don't have a choice once logged in. You had a choice before you logged in. You chose to log in.
Moving on to your stepping into a boxing ring as a noncombatant analogy. This is another false equivalency. You would have been better off using an analogy of being an actual boxer against whom a foul is committed, a low blow or something.
But you'd be wrong there too. Why? Because in both of those instances, an illegal act has been taken against you. In the first, you've been illegally punched. He's breaking the law of the city, state and country you are in.
In the second, a boxer is cheating against you. He's breaking the rules of the game to try to hit you with a low blow.
Describe to me the rules of the game that are being broken when a non combatant is killed in Ashes.
Your analogy doesn't apply. The only thing it can apply to is when the rules are broken. In the context of Ashes, that means things like cheating, hacking, exploiting, racial slurs, RMT, and anything else against Ashes' TOS. The Ashes player who does these things to you will face suspensions and bans. The boxer who punched you will face the real life equivalents.
It's hard to think of analogies that fit the uniqueness of a video game with a corruption system. But at the end of the day, the corruption system is just a system and feature of the game, no different than the fact that it takes 10 yards for a first down in football, or that the field is 100 yards long.
When you play football, you consent to those very basic features, whether you like it or not. You also consent to being tackled, even though you probably try to avoid it in every way possible.
Who is "they"? lol I'm jk but, I don't know how "they" can say that. I won't generally "consent" to being killed in a video game. I will try to run away. Who wouldn't? But I did indeed consent to it happening to me either way if it is a feature of the game and I knew it when I decided to play.
Why thank you
The notion of changing an aspect of the game like this so that players can "deal with bots" is laughable. Killing a bot isn't dealing with them, and if anything, it makes it harder for Intrepid to take action on their account. I mean, if you report a bot, and then kill it, when Intrepid get around to looking at it, they have a character that is likely just sitting at the respawn point doing nothing - they are for all intents and purposes just some random AFK player. This is not something I have said, nor that I think. PvP is fine.
I have, however, said that the bulk of open PvP players are bottom feeders, but that is about it.
accidental double post
Now you are arguing against standard terminology which has been out there at least from the beginning of EvE online. Therefore, it is not a new thing or meant to offend anyone rather used to make difference between different owPvP rules. You can easily google this if you do not take my word of it.
On top of that now this term non-consensual PvP has taken out of the context. We were originally talking about ingame PvP flagging rules which has nothing to do with logging in to the game.
In open world game where no-one is forced to PvP and you need to flag to do so, has consensual PvP rules. These games can have arenas, battlegrounds or even caravans like in Ashes but the common thing is that players can choose if they want to participate or not to the PvP action.
In open world games where players can be attacked by other players (typically in context of ganking) even if they do not want that at that moment has non-consesual PvP rules. Someone can be okay with that but this happens because the rules allows it.
Thus, consensual and non-consensual PvP terms have used to make difference between certain rules and help with the defining.