no opt in pvp?

The most fun PVX game I ever played was dark ages of camelot. Which had zone based opt in pvp.

Mostly I am concerned with the abilitity for a small group of PVP players to kill the server/world and what systems are in place to prevent that. A group of 3-4 roving pvpers on coms can generally roll any single player with no chance for them to survive. Most people enjoy solo play.
Most players are filthy casuals who play when they can and don't always have friends on at the same time to harvest or whatever. If there is not a way of stopping this conduct then solo players and casuals will just quit and play something else.

New world's biggest failure was in allowing a small group of pvp players to swap between 4 companies and take all of the territories, set the taxes to maximum and then took all of pve players gold killing servers and ending the game.

With limited towns and the same style of pvp conquest how do you prevent a small group of pvp players from ruining the entire game.

I was really hoping for a PVE server with opt in PVP, but it looks like that is not in the cards. Convince me that this won't be new world 2 "the continued shitting on of casuals."

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Corruption.
But, also, a small group of players cannot successfully Siege the entire world of Verra.

AidanKD

By logging in, you are in that moment opting into PvP! That's about the jist of it.

Dygz

If that were truly the case, I just wouldn't play the game.
Steven understands the assignment - which is why, in Ashes, non-consensual PvP is punished with Corruption...
And also why Steven has added harsher penalties than Karma.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dygz

Ultimately, if that was truly the core of the game, I just wouldn't play.
I like my socializing to be free of conflict with other people - if possible.
In RPGs, I prefer to use social skills to avoid combat - even with mobs and NPCs.
Getting good is subjective.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Dygz

I mean... you can personally label that PvP if you want to, but...
Most people use PvP as shorthand for direct PvP combat.

But, even then, if Economic conflict were too high, I also just wouldn't play the game.
Conflict with other players in an RPG is more of a deterrent than it is a draw.

Veeshan

Amrothe wrote: »

So you have a friend or more likely a second account who kills your own red account and gets you points, you lose nothing and actually benefit your second account. Once your killed I am guessing you lose your most all of your corruption. So gank or camp spawn whoever you like just make sure to slip over to your second account to die as much as needed.

You loose like 4 times (as a combatant 2 times the loss of being green) the XP or something when u die as a red so even if an alt kills you ur still loosing time in that regards

Greens (Innocent players) there death penalty will result in loss of Xp and 50% of resources (Just random numbers atm)
Purple players (Combatant green players who fight back when they get attacked) Dieing a combatant is half the XP loss and a green players and 25% of resources dropped) this is to incentivise fighting back
Red players Corrupted players killed to many people who are green and didnt defend themself these will receive 2 times the XP penalty of green players (4 times that of purple) aswell as chance to drop equipment along with there resources (Think its 100% drop on resources) equipment drop i beleive they need to be heavily corrupted

Only killing green give corruption hit so if they fight back you wont get a penalty and there reward for defending is to keep half the stuff they would of loss.

im a pvper myself however mindless killing which most people will see as ganking smaller groups as shallow/goaless if i do mindless killing it tend to be agaist even numbers or close to it where they can win cause that help increase pvp skills.
That also beingsaid what i hope for Ashes here tbh is to punish mindless/goaless killing and have emphesis on meaningful pvp this tend to be defending territories or preventing/slowing enemies faction/towns from progressing or even expanding territories.

Im hoping ashes will bring alot of dynamic with the node system where you are able to war players of other nodes and not get a penalty for killing players citizen to said node however there an upkeep of some kinda to sustain this long term so you can just war everyone, Political pvp is always a rather unique/fun experience take darkfall for example nations forms and crumbled as people form coutner nation or grew to large the broke appart it was ever changing and had a politic map and everything players made. Kingdom of wessex formed in the east which was a huge alliance of people and eventually smaller faction banded together to fight them off which they then crumbled after that was was done and then new ones formed and so on was interesting.

Mag7spy

Its better to let them kill you and take the 50% xp loss.if you are purple they stay purple and will attack you they will simply do it again and you will end up losing even more xp.

~big brain~

PenguinPaladin

Mag7spy wrote: »

Its better to let them kill you and take the 50% xp loss.if you are purple they stay purple and will attack you they will simply do it again and you will end up losing even more xp.

~big brain~

Their is no fast travel... you spawn at your home node..... unless they killed you in your own town, you probably will not see them again that day...

Amrothe

Well I do appreciate the responses. A small group of players not being able to control the entire server is good.

It seems like spawn camping and repeatedly hunting new players coming into the game in starting areas won't occur as frequently as I feared.

I actually really like that there will be opt in pvp experiences and that it will be meaningful pvp where things change because you engage in it. I am glad this was pointed out to me.

I am very interested to see how nodes will be run in practice, to me that will be the make or break of the game.

I am now wondering about fast travel. You say there is no fast travel, does this mean traveling in the open world to a spot for opt in pvp instead of a queuing system where you are teleported to the arena/battleground whatever?

Second follow up question is there anyway planned for people to quickly get to their friends or a meeting place or absolutely no fast travel at all?

No fast travel has its benefits in early everquest before people got teleports I remember joyfully running around gathering my party with selo's, but it also severely limits the amount of time filthy casuals can play with their friends and it will require careful planning on logging in and out at similar spots and similar times.

Lastly I hope training monsters will not be possible otherwise the corruption system will be pointless and people will just PK by running monsters over other players.

PenguinPaladin

Amrothe wrote: »

No fast travel

Ah, a real topic of discussion and concern

.

Nothing is in stone yet with the family system. But the family system is the answer to your "truly no fast travel" question.

The concept is you can add up to around 10 players to your family. And family members can summon one another. Now this hasnt been fully designed and balanced yet. A lot of people are worried for how it could be abused as 10 people could summon 100 people to one place quickly.... bit thats what to look into for that question

Mag7spy

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Amrothe wrote: »

No fast travel

Ah, a real topic of discussion and concern .

Nothing is in stone yet with the family system. But the family system is the answer to your "truly no fast travel" question.

The concept is you can add up to around 10 players to your family. And family members can summon one another. Now this hasnt been fully designed and balanced yet. A lot of people are worried for how it could be abused as 10 people could summon 100 people to one place quickly.... bit thats what to look into for that question

Honestly I hope its not like that, like between your family it all shares a cooldown, but we will see.

CROW3

Otr wrote: »

I think this means some servers will be balanced to have opt-in PvP (very high corruption penalties) while others will have low corruption penalties to favor spontaneous PvP fights.

Heh - I read this as communities of people are different, and since each server will be a different community there will be a variance in the amount of player / node conflict. I didn't read this as different servers will have varying configurations of node, corruption, siege rules.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

I think this means some servers will be balanced to have opt-in PvP (very high corruption penalties) while others will have low corruption penalties to favor spontaneous PvP fights.

Neither of the references mention anything about in-system balancing. I think what they mean is "some server will be populated with people who are more ok with pvping and some servers will be more pve-friendly". Society will decide which side the server leans in.

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

Heh - I read this as communities of people are different, and since each server will be a different community there will be a variance in the amount of player / node conflict. I didn't read this as different servers will have varying configurations of node, corruption, siege rules.

I even refreshed my page before commenting and still didn't see this and posted literally the same thing. Gdi

CROW3

Otr wrote: »

Would lead to same result.

Interesting - why?

Bot

Amrothe wrote: »

So you have a friend or more likely a second account who kills your own red account and gets you points, you lose nothing and actually benefit your second account. Once your killed I am guessing you lose your most all of your corruption. So gank or camp spawn whoever you like just make sure to slip over to your second account to die as much as needed.

That's not sustainable. It'd get old fast doing that every time.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

On a server with 80% PvP-ers who most of the time switch from green to red, it will be expected to enter combat, so the casuals will not be able to rely on being protected. They would not feel comfortable and would switch server.

PvP servers would not go green to red. They'd just be permapurple. The only reds would be the assholes who prey upon the lowbies, cause anyone who gets above a certain lvl on a "pvp" server would just fight back.

CROW3

Otr wrote: »

On one server, if 80% are PvE-ers who ignore open world PvP, it becomes a habit to ignore greens. Could be very dangerous to try to kill them.

On a server with 80% PvP-ers who most of the time switch from green to purple, it will be expected to enter combat, so the casuals will not be able to rely on being protected. They would not feel comfortable and would switch server.

It will be interesting to see how a player population will attempt to determine what their server disposition is - and whether that's accurate.

Child Item