Feedback: We love the open sea PvP change - now, what about open PvP zones for World Bosses?

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

I see nothing mentioned on wiki, what happens if a player will cause damage to another player and an NPC kills the green one.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Green players killed by mobs (the mob deals the killing blow) do not flag attacking players as corrupt, but since the exact health of another player is not known (outside of the same party, raid, alliance, or guild), attackers run the risk of killing the player and becoming corrupt.[9]

Liniker

Dygz wrote: »

What Steven means is that the Open Waters are more dangerous in terms of higher chance to engage in PvP combat. But, the death penalties are reduced, so that's reduced risk.

@Dygz Nope, that's not what he meant, and you definitely are not the guy I would listen to talk about what Steven means as you clearly are clueless about what Ashes and Steven is all about.

Now, this is an actual quote from Steven from the last Livestream that you need to pay attention to:

"and not everyone is excited about PvP but as I've always said Ashes of Creation is not meant to be a game for everyone, there are a lot of games where it is entirely safe to exist on a server and you don't have to worry about threats or risk"

You paid 500$ to back a PvP-centric game and spent years telling people it would not be PvP-centric, and now for over a week you have been crying in every single post you can find on this forum saying you won't play it. Feels bad man.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I see nothing mentioned on wiki, what happens if a player will cause damage to another player and an NPC kills the green one.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging

Green players killed by mobs (the mob deals the killing blow) do not flag attacking players as corrupt, but since the exact health of another player is not known (outside of the same party, raid, alliance, or guild), attackers run the risk of killing the player and becoming corrupt.[9]

Nice! And thank you!
Oh well, then it is even more clear that the corruption does not work in raids because players can steal the win and help the boss.
This works near any resource too which is guarded by NPCs.
Players will learn this mechanic early in the game and by the time they level up and reach the raid, it will feel natural.

Mag7spy

Liniker wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

What Steven means is that the Open Waters are more dangerous in terms of higher chance to engage in PvP combat. But, the death penalties are reduced, so that's reduced risk.

@Dygz Nope, that's not what he meant, and you definitely are not the guy I would listen to talk about what Steven means as you clearly are clueless about what Ashes and Steven is all about.

Now, this is an actual quote from Steven from the last Livestream that you need to pay attention to:

"and not everyone is excited about PvP but as I've always said Ashes of Creation is not meant to be a game for everyone, there are a lot of games where it is entirely safe to exist on a server and you don't have to worry about threats or risk"

You paid 500$ to back a PvP-centric game and spent years telling people it would not be PvP-centric, and now for over a week you have been crying in every single post you can find on this forum saying you won't play it. Feels bad man.

In the current era of dying mmorpgs i don't blame him, we are all desperate for a new mmorpg.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

Oh well, then it is even more clear that the corruption does not work in raids because players can steal the win and help the boss.
This works near any resource too which is guarded by NPCs.
Players will learn this mechanic early in the game and by the time they level up and reach the raid, it will feel natural.

And that is intended. It's also why a flagged person drops fewer things than a green player. This system promotes fighting back and defending yourself. And even if you still die - you've lost less stuff.

You are still always free to run away too, so it's not like your only choice is to stand there and die.

Strevi

Mag7spy wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

What Steven means is that the Open Waters are more dangerous in terms of higher chance to engage in PvP combat. But, the death penalties are reduced, so that's reduced risk.

@Dygz Nope, that's not what he meant, and you definitely are not the guy I would listen to talk about what Steven means as you clearly are clueless about what Ashes and Steven is all about.

Now, this is an actual quote from Steven from the last Livestream that you need to pay attention to:

"and not everyone is excited about PvP but as I've always said Ashes of Creation is not meant to be a game for everyone, there are a lot of games where it is entirely safe to exist on a server and you don't have to worry about threats or risk"

You paid 500$ to back a PvP-centric game and spent years telling people it would not be PvP-centric, and now for over a week you have been crying in every single post you can find on this forum saying you won't play it. Feels bad man.

In the current era of dying mmorpgs i don't blame him, we are all desperate for a new mmorpg.

If he was trying to influence the game to become more PvE than PvP despite the initial intentions, then that is wrong. There are many other PvE MMOs, probably with more players than this PvP game will have.
And if those other mmprpgs are dying, then he was trying to kill this one too, at least from the perspective of PvP-ers.
I think players kill mmos not the developers. Developers just give in to what players ask for. Then the same players switch to another mmo.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Oh well, then it is even more clear that the corruption does not work in raids because players can steal the win and help the boss.
This works near any resource too which is guarded by NPCs.
Players will learn this mechanic early in the game and by the time they level up and reach the raid, it will feel natural.

And that is intended. It's also why a flagged person drops fewer things than a green player. This system promotes fighting back and defending yourself. And even if you still die - you've lost less stuff.

You are still always free to run away too, so it's not like your only choice is to stand there and die.

Weak single players should run. No problem.
But players who can barely survive in a raid... you just have to pay attention and apply some damage as soon as the other team healer healed the tank.
Or even better, as soon as he healed himself. The healer will run out of mana fast and will not heal others in the team.
Will the other team try to run?
I don't know what will happen but is hard to see how a raid designed to be extremely hard can be completed with other players interfering.
Maybe that is the intention of the developers.

If the raid has an entrance, I bet another team will guard that.

hleV

Morg7x7 wrote: »

It's also why a flagged person drops fewer things than a green player. This system promotes fighting back and defending yourself. And even if you still die - you've lost less stuff.

Except in the unfortunate event of being killed by a corrupted player, where you'll experience full death penalty as you can't flag against them. Unless you're a bounty hunter, in which case the corrupted are free to attack and kill you without any drawbacks, but you do lose less stuff as technically you're a combatant then.

Songcaller

Going corrupted is half the fun. It will be too mundane without the corruption system. For all we know a world boss kill might clear all corruption.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

I don't know what will happen but is hard to see how a raid designed to be extremely hard can be completed with other players interfering.

And that's the big question Intrepid need to answer. We don't have info about how they're planning to design super difficult bosses in the context of an open world fight.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I don't know what will happen but is hard to see how a raid designed to be extremely hard can be completed with other players interfering.

And that's the big question Intrepid need to answer. We don't have info about how they're planning to design super difficult bosses in the context of an open world fight.

Let's say their intention is to add that raid and make is really impossible.
You may ask why add bosses if their loot cannot be obtained.
I have a similar question: how do you protect the resources near your node if the game tells you that harvesting them too much destroys the land and increases the shortage?

Songcaller

Strevi wrote: »

I have a similar question: how do you protect the resources near your node if the game tells you that harvesting them too much destroys the land and increases the shortage?

You stock pile the resources until supplies are shorter and then make huge profits.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

I have a similar question: how do you protect the resources near your node if the game tells you that harvesting them too much destroys the land and increases the shortage?

You just do the same thing to the new node that those resources spawn in. And if you're trying to prevent a directed "attack" from another node's citizens - you just declare a war on their node. Or make singular players enemies of the state.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I have a similar question: how do you protect the resources near your node if the game tells you that harvesting them too much destroys the land and increases the shortage?

You just do the same thing to the new node that those resources spawn in. And if you're trying to prevent a directed "attack" from another node's citizens - you just declare a war on their node. Or make singular players enemies of the state.

is it that easy?
That might be the answer to the other question too, how to protect the boss and be sure you are the only one farming it.
Thread solved.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

is it that easy?
That might be the answer to the other question too, how to protect the boss and be sure you are the only one farming it.
Thread solved.

Wouldn't call it easy, but yes, that is supposedly an option.

Dygz

Liniker wrote: »

You paid 500$ to back a PvP-centric game and spent years telling people it would not be PvP-centric, and now for over a week you have been crying in every single post you can find on this forum saying you won't play it. Feels bad man.

LMAO
Steven, himself, claimed for 5 years that Ashes is not a PvP-centric game.
I've asked him several times. I bet if someone asks him today, he will still say that Ashes is not PvP-centric.
And, saying that I won't play the game is not crying.
Lot's of stuff feels bad to you. That's a you problem; not a me problem.

ClintHardwood

Dygz wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

You paid 500$ to back a PvP-centric game and spent years telling people it would not be PvP-centric, and now for over a week you have been crying in every single post you can find on this forum saying you won't play it. Feels bad man.

LMAO
Steven, himself, claimed for 5 years that Ashes is not a PvP-centric game.
I've asked him several times. I bet if someone asks him today, he will still say that Ashes is not PvP-centric.
And, saying that I won't play the game is not crying.
Lot's of stuff feels bad to you. That's a you problem; not a me problem.

Ashes is a PvX game, meaning it's PvX centered. Ever since the naval update, you've been losing your shit Dygz, and I doubt your overreaction has anything to do with AoC. Maybe your girlfriend dumped you. Maybe you lost your job. Maybe you've let your dreams slip you by. I don't know. In any case, rather than spending your life doomposting on this forum, may I suggest looking into other games or perhaps fixing what has you so down?

Savic Prosperity

short answer to this is no

leave it up to the groups to decide if they want to fight each other over bosses since then there would be no corruption from that anyway
most groups will just fight each other for it if they really wanted it

Dygz

ClintHardwood wrote: »

Ashes is a PvX game, meaning it's PvX centered. Ever since the naval update, you've been losing your shit Dygz, and I doubt your overreaction has anything to do with AoC. Maybe your girlfriend dumped you. Maybe you lost your job. Maybe you've let your dreams slip you by. I don't know. In any case, rather than spending your life doomposting on this forum, may I suggest looking into other games or perhaps fixing what has you so down?

LMAO
How am I losing my shit? And how have I doomposted anything.
I haven't said Ashes is doomed. I haven't said nobody will like it.
I haven't said no PvEer will play Ashes.
I haven't started a petition or a poll to try to get the devs not to make the Open Seas auto-flag.
I haven't said people should not love the Open Seas change.
I have said it's great that people do love it.

You say that Ashes is PvX. Liniker says Ashes is PvP-centric.
Which one of you is correct?

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Hell, I'd even agree for those kinds of bosses to be the "goal" of a war.

This is one viable, possible way for Intrepid to remove corruption from open world bosses (which again, is something I have assumed they would do ever since announcing that there wouldn't be corruption with caravans or sieges).

However, I personally think it would be easier/better to simply have a popup similar to a caravan - where you get a popup asking what side you want to join.

If I were Steven, the following is how I would handle world bosses;

First, the spawn itself is random between all possible world bosses that the specific node state of the server has unlocked. One boss will spawn per week, on a weekday night (leaving weekends for sieges and such, primarily).

There is a server announcement perhaps 30 minutes before the spawn of the boss, alerting players to which boss is spawning.

Upon nearing the spawn point, players (individual players, or group or raid leaders) are given a popup similar to that seen with caravans. Rather than simply attack, defend or ignore, players are given the option to join any side that has declared an intention to take on the boss, declare themselves a new side to take on the boss, or just ignore it and go about their day.

Any side is automatically flagged as a combatant to any other side, within a fairly large area around the boss (undecided if I would want respawn points inside this area, or outside it).

Next, I would make it so the bosses HP never heals, and the boss does not reset at all - ever.

Then you make it so the loot system of "most damage done to the mob gets the rewards" applies, based on the sides players form themselves up to via the popup above.

To me, this would create a unique content type that isn't in any game to date, but would be incredibly enjoyable. It would see more people participate in world bosses than anything else I can think of, would increase the PvP around said world bosses to damn near legendary status, yet would do so in a way where players are also encouraged to work together with other players and other guilds - potentially forming a temporary alliance to take on the world boss.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

If I were Steven, the following is how I would handle world bosses;

First, the spawn itself is random between all possible world bosses that the specific node state of the server has unlocked. One boss will spawn per week, on a weekday night (leaving weekends for sieges and such, primarily).

There is a server announcement perhaps 30 minutes before the spawn of the boss, alerting players to which boss is spawning.

Upon nearing the spawn point, players (individual players, or group or raid leaders) are given a popup similar to that seen with caravans. Rather than simply attack, defend or ignore, players are given the option to join any side that has declared an intention to take on the boss, declare themselves a new side to take on the boss, or just ignore it and go about their day.

Any side is automatically flagged as a combatant to any other side, within a fairly large area around the boss (undecided if I would want respawn points inside this area, or outside it).

Next, I would make it so the bosses HP never heals, and the boss does not reset at all - ever.

Then you make it so the loot system of "most damage done to the mob gets the rewards" applies, based on the sides players form themselves up to via the popup above.

To me, this would create a unique content type that isn't in any game to date, but would be incredibly enjoyable. It would see more people participate in world bosses than anything else I can think of, would increase the PvP around said world bosses to damn near legendary status, yet would do so in a way where players are also encouraged to work together with other players and other guilds - potentially forming a temporary alliance to take on the world boss.

Have that for world event bosses and give those bosses some nice loot to justify the pvp and I'd be down for it. But I dunno about the regular ones having that kind of mechanic.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

If I were Steven, the following is how I would handle world bosses;

First, the spawn itself is random between all possible world bosses that the specific node state of the server has unlocked. One boss will spawn per week, on a weekday night (leaving weekends for sieges and such, primarily).

There is a server announcement perhaps 30 minutes before the spawn of the boss, alerting players to which boss is spawning.

Upon nearing the spawn point, players (individual players, or group or raid leaders) are given a popup similar to that seen with caravans. Rather than simply attack, defend or ignore, players are given the option to join any side that has declared an intention to take on the boss, declare themselves a new side to take on the boss, or just ignore it and go about their day.

Any side is automatically flagged as a combatant to any other side, within a fairly large area around the boss (undecided if I would want respawn points inside this area, or outside it).

Next, I would make it so the bosses HP never heals, and the boss does not reset at all - ever.

Then you make it so the loot system of "most damage done to the mob gets the rewards" applies, based on the sides players form themselves up to via the popup above.

To me, this would create a unique content type that isn't in any game to date, but would be incredibly enjoyable. It would see more people participate in world bosses than anything else I can think of, would increase the PvP around said world bosses to damn near legendary status, yet would do so in a way where players are also encouraged to work together with other players and other guilds - potentially forming a temporary alliance to take on the world boss.

Have that for world event bosses and give those bosses some nice loot to justify the pvp and I'd be down for it. But I dunno about the regular ones having that kind of mechanic.

The reason I would want all world bosses to be like this (with a one per week spawn regime) is because it will build tension and drama over time. Different guilds and alliances will make agreements to join up for world bosses in order to dislodge the top tier guilds - and while these alliances will be system based, they will also be very temporary.

If it is only for event bosses, they would be too infrequent for anything like this to happen. You really need a weekly spawn for this kind of drama to play out.

Keep in mind, I am also only talking about world bosses - I fully expect there to also be raid level bosses in dungeons that I would not expect (or want) this system to be used on at all. They would be fully corruption based PvP.

CROW3

@Noaani - do you think that if the corruption system as is was applied to world bosses, that it would dampen any of the tension and drama on a weekly basis?

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani - do you think that if the corruption system as is was applied to world bosses, that it would dampen any of the tension and drama on a weekly basis?

In short, yes.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

The reason I would want all world bosses to be like this (with a one per week spawn regime) is because it will build tension and drama over time. Different guilds and alliances will make agreements to join up for world bosses in order to dislodge the top tier guilds - and while these alliances will be system based, they will also be very temporary.

My main doubt with this kind of system would be, in fact, the drama part. If everyone's alerted and "invited" to these bosses and can then sign up to sides - it'd be similar to LFRs and the stuff like that, where solo players wouldn't really need to socialize too much because they could just come to the boss and take a side of the farm party. All while the randomness would kinda defeat the point of guilds being truly prepared for the raid.

If there's, say, 10 potential bosses all across the server and only one of those respawns at random and has 30 minutes of warning - no guild from more than 30 minutes away (which could potentially be ~60% of the server) would be able to attempt the boss. Well, maybe not 30 but 40, but you get the point. And imo that removes the "drama" part of the equation. You can't have drama when it's physically impossible for the guilds to participate in said drama.

In L2 the guild/alliance drama came from guilds partying up exactly because they knew the window of respawn of each particular boss and would be prepared to fight for it on the day. And quite often the alliance between the guild would be kept a secret, so that the opposing force would not bring enough people to the fight. But if your guild from the south part of the western continent partied up with another guild from that region and you wanted to farm a few bosses on your continent and even moved your force to the center of the continent to be able to go anywhere in time - you might get fucked by the rng with several bosses respawning on the other continent. This wouldn't lead to any drama, only to frustration because you couldn't do anything against the rng.

And if you remove the respawn rng, you'd pretty much be inviting everyone on the server to participate in the raid. And, while it might be a cool even in and of itself, the balancing against that kind of zerg would have to be very harsh. Which is exactly why I said that it'd be a nice mechanic for the event bosses. You'd not only have the event itself as the attractor, but also a huge fun pvp fight between all sorts of players.

Mag7spy

I'm sure there will be plenty of already player made tension between declaring on another guild or node. Simply being there is less tension doesn't mean there isn't already plenty of tension. This will depend how things play out in game with people.

There is no reason for every boss to be an extreme of pvp depending on what the intent for their design and how many people are able to get loot.

Rando88

I like the ocean change, but I don't like this at all. Maybe some bosses can spawn in the ocean. That's as far as I'd go on that one.

Lethality

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

Mag7spy

Lethality wrote: »

Just to correct the original post, ‘we’ do not agree that it’s a good change. It’s a highly inconsistent change. With no basis for why.

It is a great change, they added more areas and have them more towards the pvp side

Volgaris

lol classic give em an inch. just eat the corruption if you want the rb that badly. i think rb robbing will be bad enough without turning it into a free murdering event.