If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.
And I'm definitely one of the laziest people on this forum but I compensate for it in games, when I do play them. Maybe Dygz is the other way. Or he's just lazing around now cause he's too old to go super hardcore.
If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.
Huh? It's a game - a place where folks who are super productive in their day jobs can dedicate whatever time they want to just hanging out and chilling.
Honestly, I'm concerned about the folks that have to be productive all the time.
If all you are doing is hanging around and chilling, cool. But that is what lazy people do, they hang around and chill. Actually, I can't think of a better definition of what a lazy person is other than someone that just hangs around chilling.
And I'm definitely one of the laziest people on this forum but I compensate for it in games, when I do play them. Maybe Dygz is the other way. Or he's just lazing around now cause he's too old to go super hardcore.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
All I have to go on is what he says about how he plays MMO's. As such, how he plays MMO's is all I am commenting on.
And to me, he plays them lazily.
He's welcome to play them that way if he wishes, I don't really care. But trying to spin that to being "hardcore time but casual challenge" really is just a joke - it's like he is embarrassed or ashamed about how me plays, and so is trying to craft a new label for it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Interesting, though I think the proper term would be "griefing" in all of the cases shown. Its bad terminology. The idea of not consenting to being killed in a game where you can, and are meant to be, killed is just silly.
The interesting part is that PvPers think it somehow matters if the attacker loses the battle. As though winning the battle would make PvErs feel great about the encounter.
It wouldn’t. Who wins the battle is mostly irrelevant.
The issue is being forced to engage in an activity you’re not in the mood for.
Even in table-top RPGs, combat is really the last activity I’m interested in.
I prefer to focus on Social Skills and Stealth to bypass combat.
My Bartle Score is Killer 0.
Which is a bit of an exaggeration, but highlights how low combat is among my interests.
Gamers love the ultimate competition of fighting another player - as if they are playing an MMOFPS.
That doesn’t mean I can’t win battles.
It means I’m not interested in the battles.
Back whenI played Warcraft 2, my buddies at Activision would tell me to kill 0xp snakes.
I was all, why would I kill the snake? Is it going to attack me if I don’t?”
“Because it’s fun!”
I don’t play RPGs with an attitude that killing is fun.
I play RPGs because I like to immerse myself in a fantasy setting while playing the role of a Wizard or Rogue or Cleric or Bard.
Mostly Exploring and Socializing.
I can tolerate objective-based PvP sometimes.
But, I focus on completing the objectives, rather than on killing people.
I’m in the mood for that for about 1 hour out of an 8 hour game session.
And then I want to go do other stuff without having to be bothered by PvP.
And that’s the part that typically causes me to ragequit. Because, I’ve already spent an hour in an activity I don’t particularly enjoy much.
After that I’m full - I don’t want other players trying to shove that shit down my throat when I’m not in the mood for it.
Me winning the battle doesn’t make that any better.
Castle Sieges were fun in Alpha 1.
Lasted about an hour. Then I could go do other stuff. The great thing about those is - Sieges will be scheduled. I can choose not to defend or attack a Caravan when I’m not in the mood. Other players aren’t making those decisions for me.
If Corruption works as intended and I rarely experience non-consensual PvP. Great.
If it doesn’t work to my satisfaction, I won’t play. Which is also OK.
combat is really the last activity I’m interested in.
So why would you even consider a game where players can put you in a combat situation at literally any point?
I mean, you say
If Corruption works as intended and I rarely experience non-consensual PvP.
But this comment is totally ignoring the fact that Intrepid need to maintain a level of over all corruption gain. If that level is too low, they will have to lower the penalties associated with corruption, so that people will be more willing to gain it, as they need to ensure that at least some people are gaining corruption, so that (among other things) players following the Bounty Hunter progression can, well, progress.
Intrepid absolutely can not let corruption gain on a game wide scope get too low (nor too high, to be accurate). Realistically, the more bounty hunters in the game, the more corrupt players the game will need to have, meaning the lower the penalties for corruption will need to be set by Intrepid.
Since you are going to be largely on your own in game (talking to people in game streams doesn't count here), and you are likely to be under geared in comparison to others, you are likely to be an easy target.
As such, you should probably expect fairly frequent attacks - that would be corruption working as intended.
But this comment is totally ignoring the fact that Intrepid need to maintain a level of over all corruption gain. If that level is too low, they will have to lower the penalties associated with corruption to ensure that at least some people are gaining corruption, so that (among other things) players following the Bounty Hunter progression can, well, progress.
Realistically, the more bounty hunters in the game, the more corrupt players the game will need to have, meaning the lower the penalties for corruption will need to be.
I have so damn many questions about the BH system and its relation to the corruption balancing, but I realize that none of them will be answered until later on in alpha2 and that shit's months out
To be fair he said he is trying it but if its too much he will quit. So even if there is more pvp then expected maybe the gameplay and lack of other mmorpgs might win him over lol.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
That's a strange chicken or egg oxymoron.
No need for Bounty Hunters if there is no Corruption.
That is OK. Nothing for Bounty Hunters to hunt is not an issue.
Ashes is focused on PvP Battlegrounds: Sieges and Caravans; not Bounty Hunting.
That's a strange chicken or egg oxymoron.
No need for Bounty Hunters if there is no Corruption.
That is OK. Nothing for Bounty Hunters to hunt is not an issue.
Ashes is focused on PvP Battlegrounds: Sieges and Caravans; not Bounty Hunting.
You are focused on those things because those are the only things you care about on the pvp side of the game. I personally want to be a renowned BH in my node that's helping out any and all people who fall prey to the PKers. And Intrepid have a system in the game for exactly that kind of gameplay. If they didn't want to have BHs, they could've removed open world flagging completely. But they didn't (or at least haven't yet), so I expect the system to work as promised, just as you expect corruption to work as promised.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sure. And if you want to do that, you will find a server that allows you to do that.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
That's a strange chicken or egg oxymoron.
No need for Bounty Hunters if there is no Corruption.
That is OK. Nothing for Bounty Hunters to hunt is not an issue.
Ashes is focused on PvP Battlegrounds: Sieges and Caravans; not Bounty Hunting.
Sure it is. I've said many times that open world PvP is the lowest form of PvP in Ashes.
However, it still exists, and still plays a role.
Fact is, you know everything I said in my above post is correct. You just don't like it because you know it means that you will most likely not stay in Ashes for long.
But then - I've been telling you that for about two years now.
Sure. And if you want to do that, you will find a server that allows you to do that.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
And if players decide to make a fully pve server, yeah, BH won't be required. But we'll have to see if other players will let them do that.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
So if anything, I feel like the game will always need BHs. Even if Intrepid overtune corruption values so much that PKing is as rare as you hope it'll be, some dudes will still make throwaway characters just to get on pvers' nerves. And if the BH profession is super rare on some server, PKers will learn about that soon enough and just come there "to have some fun".
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?
Let the debates begin!
The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.
Making up a definition doesnt back an argument.
I am not making it up. It looks like that because some people are not heard about the definition called "non-concensual PvP" they presume it does not exist or whatever weird reason they argue against it.
Here is two examples how "non-consensual PvP" term is used. The first example is from Ultima Online wiki and the second one is a post made by Sandbox Interactive's developer (from Albion Online).
"Ultima Online began with a single world, with specific expansion packs adding additional territory and new worlds. The second world was the "Lost Lands", with additional land, dungeons, creatures, and terrain. The third was Trammel. This led the developers to distinguish the original world by making the environment more grim, and naming it "Felucca".[5] The two kinds of servers were "normal" servers with both Trammel (consensual PVP) and Felucca (non-consensual PVP) ruleset and "siege" servers with non-consensual PVP and no item insurance."
"Non-consensual PvP" is a term used for years by players and developers in different games and forums. Some people might not have heard about it but it is used to help define open world PvP rules. Yeah some people might talk about person's login choise but I am talking here about ingame rules.
Interesting, though I think the proper term would be "griefing" in all of the cases shown. Its bad terminology. The idea of not consenting to being killed in a game where you can, and are meant to be, killed is just silly.
What is bad or good terminology can be subjective. Different people and different games can use terms different ways so imo it is vain to argue what is right or wrong. The most important thing is the point that a person is expressing and less emphasis should be given to the outfit. Sometimes the outfit can be misleading but too many times people grabs on something totally irrelevant and the whole discussion goes then sidetracks.
Anyhow, some people can consider "basic" ganking as griefing but e.g. in hardcore owPvP games griefing can be considered something else like a next step from non-consensual PvP to something worse. I think wiki has a decent way to describe "griefer" even there is no reason to take it as the ultimate thruth.
"A griefer or bad faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), by using aspects of the game in unintended ways, such as destroying something another player made or built.[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily, or exclusively, from the act of annoying other users, and as such, is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities. To qualify as griefing, a player must be using aspects of the game in unintended ways to annoy other players—if they are trying to gain a strategic advantage, it is instead called "cheating."
About the Bounty Hunting... I do not say it cannot work but I do not personally have high hopes that it would really work as corruption balancing system because it feels more like a fantasy than something that would really work. Bounty Hunter can be unlocked via Military nodes and therefore, it will not be a world-wide thing anyway. Some servers will have less Military nodes and that way less Bounty Hunting in general. Anyhow, I can see that Bounty Hunting can be utilized more or less depending of the server in question and how the game world shapes there.
Sure. And if you want to do that, you will find a server that allows you to do that.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
And if players decide to make a fully pve server, yeah, BH won't be required. But we'll have to see if other players will let them do that.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
So if anything, I feel like the game will always need BHs. Even if Intrepid overtune corruption values so much that PKing is as rare as you hope it'll be, some dudes will still make throwaway characters just to get on pvers' nerves. And if the BH profession is super rare on some server, PKers will learn about that soon enough and just come there "to have some fun".
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
I'm not a dick just because i want to become the lich king of a self proclaimed pve server. If server transfer became a thing and i could get my whole guild to go with me.....
Sure. And if you want to do that, you will find a server that allows you to do that.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
And if players decide to make a fully pve server, yeah, BH won't be required. But we'll have to see if other players will let them do that.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
So if anything, I feel like the game will always need BHs. Even if Intrepid overtune corruption values so much that PKing is as rare as you hope it'll be, some dudes will still make throwaway characters just to get on pvers' nerves. And if the BH profession is super rare on some server, PKers will learn about that soon enough and just come there "to have some fun".
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
I'm not a dick
You cant decide if you're a dick or not... its up to those around you.
Also i havnt paid any attention to any of your conversation. And have no opinion, just stating this one thing
Sure. And if you want to do that, you will find a server that allows you to do that.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
And if players decide to make a fully pve server, yeah, BH won't be required. But we'll have to see if other players will let them do that.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
So if anything, I feel like the game will always need BHs. Even if Intrepid overtune corruption values so much that PKing is as rare as you hope it'll be, some dudes will still make throwaway characters just to get on pvers' nerves. And if the BH profession is super rare on some server, PKers will learn about that soon enough and just come there "to have some fun".
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
I'm not a dick
You cant decide if you're a dick or not... its up to those around you.
Also i havnt paid any attention to any of your conversation. And have no opinion, just stating this one thing
And if players decide to make a fully pve server, yeah, BH won't be required. But we'll have to see if other players will let them do that.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
Ultimately, it depends on the server community.
If you want to be a Bounty Hunter, you should probably choose a server where PKing is high enough to suit your desires. But, servers with a low PK pop due to a high PvE pop is not going to suffer because of a low BH pop.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
That's a great hypothesis. We'll have to test it to see if it's valid.
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
Being a BH can be rewarding and useful - most likely on servers with a high PK population.
It's not absolutely needed on a server with a low PK population.
But, BH is not core gameplay. Low PK pop servers are not going to suffer without a bunch of BHs.
If a player wants to progress a BH, but their character is on a low PK pop server...well... that's what alts are for.
Roll a BH alt on a high PK pop server.
0
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The real magic trick , if the players are going to try to sway a server more PvP or PvE. Will be determining this pre-launch and being effective at it. I can see many working to form this and setting traps for those that don't want PvP that much or looking at what is forming and taking their PvP guild to a server they can control through fear and disruption.
Never discount the baser human instincts of some people and their desire to cause disruptions just for the lol's.
Hopefully the community at large can contain it.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
Comments
Online games arent made with lowest difficulty at their base design. Rather competition.
Watch a series, read a book, collect stamps and trading cards. Why go throught the trouble of gameplay?
Huh? It's a game - a place where folks who are super productive in their day jobs can dedicate whatever time they want to just hanging out and chilling.
Honestly, I'm concerned about the folks that have to be productive all the time.
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.
All I have to go on is what he says about how he plays MMO's. As such, how he plays MMO's is all I am commenting on.
And to me, he plays them lazily.
He's welcome to play them that way if he wishes, I don't really care. But trying to spin that to being "hardcore time but casual challenge" really is just a joke - it's like he is embarrassed or ashamed about how me plays, and so is trying to craft a new label for it.
It wouldn’t. Who wins the battle is mostly irrelevant.
The issue is being forced to engage in an activity you’re not in the mood for.
Even in table-top RPGs, combat is really the last activity I’m interested in.
I prefer to focus on Social Skills and Stealth to bypass combat.
My Bartle Score is Killer 0.
Which is a bit of an exaggeration, but highlights how low combat is among my interests.
Gamers love the ultimate competition of fighting another player - as if they are playing an MMOFPS.
That doesn’t mean I can’t win battles.
It means I’m not interested in the battles.
Back whenI played Warcraft 2, my buddies at Activision would tell me to kill 0xp snakes.
I was all, why would I kill the snake? Is it going to attack me if I don’t?”
“Because it’s fun!”
I don’t play RPGs with an attitude that killing is fun.
I play RPGs because I like to immerse myself in a fantasy setting while playing the role of a Wizard or Rogue or Cleric or Bard.
Mostly Exploring and Socializing.
I can tolerate objective-based PvP sometimes.
But, I focus on completing the objectives, rather than on killing people.
I’m in the mood for that for about 1 hour out of an 8 hour game session.
And then I want to go do other stuff without having to be bothered by PvP.
And that’s the part that typically causes me to ragequit. Because, I’ve already spent an hour in an activity I don’t particularly enjoy much.
After that I’m full - I don’t want other players trying to shove that shit down my throat when I’m not in the mood for it.
Me winning the battle doesn’t make that any better.
Castle Sieges were fun in Alpha 1.
Lasted about an hour. Then I could go do other stuff. The great thing about those is - Sieges will be scheduled. I can choose not to defend or attack a Caravan when I’m not in the mood. Other players aren’t making those decisions for me.
If Corruption works as intended and I rarely experience non-consensual PvP. Great.
If it doesn’t work to my satisfaction, I won’t play. Which is also OK.
I mean, you say But this comment is totally ignoring the fact that Intrepid need to maintain a level of over all corruption gain. If that level is too low, they will have to lower the penalties associated with corruption, so that people will be more willing to gain it, as they need to ensure that at least some people are gaining corruption, so that (among other things) players following the Bounty Hunter progression can, well, progress.
Intrepid absolutely can not let corruption gain on a game wide scope get too low (nor too high, to be accurate). Realistically, the more bounty hunters in the game, the more corrupt players the game will need to have, meaning the lower the penalties for corruption will need to be set by Intrepid.
Since you are going to be largely on your own in game (talking to people in game streams doesn't count here), and you are likely to be under geared in comparison to others, you are likely to be an easy target.
As such, you should probably expect fairly frequent attacks - that would be corruption working as intended.
*edit
I hope Alpha 2 is only months out xD
No need for Bounty Hunters if there is no Corruption.
That is OK. Nothing for Bounty Hunters to hunt is not an issue.
Ashes is focused on PvP Battlegrounds: Sieges and Caravans; not Bounty Hunting.
But, Bounty Hunting does not NEED to be popular on every server.
That's why Steven and Jeffrey stated that there will be a way for us to determine which servers we prefer to play on based on the dominate playstyle communities on each server.
I don't think I said anyting about the devs not wanting Bounty Hunters in the game.
Sure it is. I've said many times that open world PvP is the lowest form of PvP in Ashes.
However, it still exists, and still plays a role.
Fact is, you know everything I said in my above post is correct. You just don't like it because you know it means that you will most likely not stay in Ashes for long.
But then - I've been telling you that for about two years now.
I'd assume that PvE servers will be the ones who require BHs the most, because those servers will be "pve" only in players' minds, not in its system limitations. And if there's an idyllic place somewhere, sooner or later some dick will come and try to destroy it.
And on any "PvP" server PKers will be present because competitive players will be using corruption system as a tool to get an upper hand, so BHs will probably be quite popular too.
So if anything, I feel like the game will always need BHs. Even if Intrepid overtune corruption values so much that PKing is as rare as you hope it'll be, some dudes will still make throwaway characters just to get on pvers' nerves. And if the BH profession is super rare on some server, PKers will learn about that soon enough and just come there "to have some fun".
Which is why imo being a BH should be quite rewarding and useful. But until we learn about all the balancing details of these systems, we won't know how exactly Intrepid is planning to make that profession either of those things.
What is bad or good terminology can be subjective. Different people and different games can use terms different ways so imo it is vain to argue what is right or wrong. The most important thing is the point that a person is expressing and less emphasis should be given to the outfit. Sometimes the outfit can be misleading but too many times people grabs on something totally irrelevant and the whole discussion goes then sidetracks.
Anyhow, some people can consider "basic" ganking as griefing but e.g. in hardcore owPvP games griefing can be considered something else like a next step from non-consensual PvP to something worse. I think wiki has a decent way to describe "griefer" even there is no reason to take it as the ultimate thruth.
"A griefer or bad faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately irritates and harasses other players within the game (trolling), by using aspects of the game in unintended ways, such as destroying something another player made or built.[1] A griefer derives pleasure primarily, or exclusively, from the act of annoying other users, and as such, is a particular nuisance in online gaming communities. To qualify as griefing, a player must be using aspects of the game in unintended ways to annoy other players—if they are trying to gain a strategic advantage, it is instead called "cheating."
I'm not a dick just because i want to become the lich king of a self proclaimed pve server. If server transfer became a thing and i could get my whole guild to go with me.....
You cant decide if you're a dick or not... its up to those around you.
Also i havnt paid any attention to any of your conversation. And have no opinion, just stating this one thing
mostly just memeing and having fun.
If you want to be a Bounty Hunter, you should probably choose a server where PKing is high enough to suit your desires. But, servers with a low PK pop due to a high PvE pop is not going to suffer because of a low BH pop.
That's a great hypothesis. We'll have to test it to see if it's valid.
Being a BH can be rewarding and useful - most likely on servers with a high PK population.
It's not absolutely needed on a server with a low PK population.
But, BH is not core gameplay. Low PK pop servers are not going to suffer without a bunch of BHs.
If a player wants to progress a BH, but their character is on a low PK pop server...well... that's what alts are for.
Roll a BH alt on a high PK pop server.
Never discount the baser human instincts of some people and their desire to cause disruptions just for the lol's.
Hopefully the community at large can contain it.