Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
This is the idea. The goal would be to manipulate the behaviour of people to actually resolve a conflict in ANY way they wish to, without innate and immediate disadvantage.
You see someone running at you, instead of 'having to flag up when they might be friendly', see if they attack you first. If they do, you can stand there and die KNOWING with CERTAINTY that they will be Red. If you want to fight, and they're willing to either 'take only the small advantage from their initial hit' or 'wait for you to heal so you can duel', then you fight, your conflict is resolved.
Or you can 'spend time explaining to the other person that you were just about to leave' or 'are willing to share with them', or any number of other things, without worrying that you will DEFINITELY be dead by the time you do so. And they in turn have more reason to talk it out rather than getting a giant pile of Corruption 'to avoid getting caught off guard'.
Similarly, since the Gauge doesn't convert for a while, if you chase off someone without killing them, you have some time to decide how to handle it.
Etc etc. Long story. Still irrelevant.
But then what about just hitting and healing as a means of harassment. Your first hit doesn't give as much gauge so the heal should reduce it completely, if I understood this correctly. Could the gauge have a hit-relative-to-hplost weight to it too? This could also positively effect differently-geared people.
This is also a requirement, yes.
Because again, remember that my goal in design is to create a PvP community.
So 'attacking someone right after a fight when they are at 30% HP' should be discouraged unless you have a very real reason you want that person dead and feel you can't beat them in a fair fight.
So if you hit someone for 10% of their HP when they were at 100%, they end up at 90%, you get 11 Dv.
You hit someone for 10% of their HP when they are at 50%, they end up at 40%, you get like 96 Dv.
It's meant to create a massive difference in situation.
You as a level 40 hit a level 20 for 100% of their HP from full? I'm seriously willing to give you 4,000 Dv. (level difference x 100% damage x 1+((100-amount of health they were at)/100) )
This applies to everyone in the attack group who actually strikes. There's other rules for 'how much Dv you absorb by healing someone with Dv'.
EDIT: Healing by the player under attack does not have exponential results in the same way, so they can in fact heal themselves a few times and you the attacker still end up with lots of Dv. But like I said, this is the simplified BASE of a really complex design I have which is not really worth discussing here.
[x] Achieve world peace
[ ] Buy more peanut butter
My intention would be to overall increase levels of violence and conflict.
Well, I guess my approach could do that too.
Make PVP be a permanant character bound choice.
Then add a timer that doesnt let you start combat with someone you've recently killed.
Under those rules, lowbies cant get killed by someone higher level.
You cant kill someone over and over.
You're not making someone PVP that doesnt want to.
Just my take on how PVP could work in an MMO and keep most happy.
If that's the case, you put PvE-Only characters on a PvE-Only server.
prefer to have them together. pvpers give peaceful crafters alot of business.
Because one thing that most PvPers hate is permanently immune players running around in the same spaces.
literally all I do is PVP and I prefer having non-pvpers on the same server.
I know it doesnt revolve around me. I was just stating that because i dont think you're right. I dont think most pvpers want seperate servers.
No need to try and call me out as self-centered, tho.
I didn't read much of anything else in this post but I am here for this. If not for the fun of it, then simply out of spite for people who clearly want a "PVX" server with absolute minimal PVP instead of a good balance of both PVE and PVP.
the more pvp the better. blood for the blood god.
i wish flagging for PVP was permanent.
Now now, there needs to be a BALANCE. I think the corruption system is a good idea, it just needs to limit griefng, not get rid of it or eliminate world pvp.
yeah i agree with you. i think corruption has a solid chance of working as intended.
but i do think there are far more simpler ways to obtain the same end result for the state and balance of pvp.
Possibly! But sometimes you need something complex to keep loopholes from popping up
indeed, I think it needs a lot of testing but currently the entire corruption system is a bit extreme, but I do believe the death penalty route is a very good one. Can't wait to test it out and provide feedback.
My understanding is there will be no PVE only servers. So will there be a way to level and enjoy the game without ever having to worry about being ganked? If not, this won't be the game for me. I'm a old timer who has no need to feel tough by ganking people in a game. So I avoid it like the plague.
Then why don't you just not gank people and play the game how you want to play it? And trust he developers to create a game people won't be grief heavily in. The barrier to entry isn't that big and you can surely find a group of people happy to have you and will look out for you.
But if you mind set any pvp means you refuse to play or try not much i can say then.
And even if that never happens, there'll still be node wars, node sieges or caravan attacks - all of which would directly influence your gameplay, mainly in the way of you getting killed and your stuff getting destroyed/taken.
As of now, there is no way to do this as a 'normal' or possibly 'significant' gameplay option.
Well it would take 45 days by playing at least 6 hours per day.
If someone can only play 3 hours per day, that's already 90 days or 3 months. That's still quite a lot.
And also, there of course will be a material benefit. The killed player will drop materials. Not finished/completed items such as a sword. But he will drop part of his ore to make that sword.
Also you should add on average about 1 day for every X deaths to the leveling process.
We don't know exactly what X is, yet, but we have:
Experience debt will scale to approximately 2 or 3 percent of the total XP for a max level player. These numbers are subject to change based on testing. [23]
I do not see any MMORPG's coming down the pipe that are of half the quality of this game. But even they have the option to avoid pvp. I guess my generation is too small or insignificant to give consideration to.
I'd say to have faith.
With UE5 coming out, and lots of machine learning and other options, it would just take 'a big company seeing that Ashes' investment worked decently' and then doing their best to do a lot of what some might call 'copying'.
Except it isn't copying, really, it's just 'the next iteration of things MMOs have been doing for years.
If it turns out that 'your generation' is too small of a slice to be profitable or sustainable, sure, but there will always be more games, and the general quality will only keep going up. (I'll assume you do in fact like PvE monster fighting and so on).
MMOs 'take long to make' mostly from companies who want to build entirely new things with no piggybacking off their old content, but 'the Clone Wars' that follow the success of a game tend to have a lot of that and they're developed much faster since people can just reverse engineer working systems from other games.
All is not lost, probably.