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.

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

1234579

Comments

  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Also, you experienced PvP twice as much as you might have if you had gained Corruption from the first time killing me. Your risk of losing or dying did not increase. You are way better at PvP than I am, so…you were not going to lose anything in any case.
    You have no risk. You chance of dying has not increased.
    For all we know, you could be among the top PvPers on the server.
    There's always a bigger fish. At least I hope there'll be, especially considering the RPS balancing (that is if we're talking 1v1 matchups instead of proper party content that Ashes is designed around).

    But even outside of that. You're thinking about this in the context of a stationary situation. You only have a set amount of things and, if you were to die as green or purple, you'd only lose a part of said things. I expect the open seas to give us a reason to stay in the zone for longer, which will bring more potential deaths with it.

    This is exactly why I compared it to the caravans. If Intrepid allows us to respawn during the caravan run, you'll have way more deaths from both sides of the encounter. And you'll keep dying until you either win or lose. Well, the general "you". Though, considering you like objective-based pvp, I'd assume you'd see the caravan's attack or defense to the end.

    Now there's a chance that we can't respawn during the caravan run and a chance that the open seas won't give us a reason to die many times there. I see either of those mechanics silly so definitely hope that is not the case, but we'll test it during alpha2.
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    They easily could add loot that is destroyed on death of your ship that you can collect and the more you gain the more your investment is worth but also increases the risk of you being out there. I could think of 100's of ideas and such, people more willing to pvp is default a higher risk. You can't look at things as one encounter but for the duration of you being out there. You could be getting attacked 6* more than what you might on land from random pvps (not guild/node war type stuff). So my default you are actually losing more.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    There might be bigger fish! Doesn't mean you are likely to encounter them.

    I'm not thinking of a stationary situation. I just gave the simplest example.
    The Open Seas is not going to have me staying in the zone for longer if I've met my limit of resource loss.
    And, it's most likely that the limit will match the loss that is the same for normal death penalties.
    I might choose to die twice as much, but if you kill me twice, it's not more potential deaths for you - if you are at the top of the PvP prowess.
    And... I could choose to only die once. Auto-flagging does not cause me to die more often. I might choose to engage in PvP more often because my losses are reduced. And it's not guaranteed that I will lose every time I engage in PvP.

    Of course... my issue is that I don't want to be engaging in PvP more often... regardless of whether I win or lose... but that's just me.

    Way more deaths for Caravans is irrelevant because there are no death penalties associated with Caravans.
    There isn't much risk there unless it's your Personal Caravan.
  • hleVhleV Member
    edited September 2022
    I can see it from both sides. On one hand, competition is good, on the other, it might make it less fun than intended, for a dangerously big portion of players. We're already looking into a lot of content not being instanced, and I think world bosses might be the holy grail of PvEer's non-instanced content.

    I'd prefer a different approach, where corruption-free world bosses isn't a rule, BUT we get a few corruption-free zones (on land), with special world bosses in them, for contesting. Those could even drop PvP gear (if PvE and PvP gear segregation exists in AoC), and perhaps be easier to kill due to increased risk of PvP.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    No. The gear is pvx. We don't want separate gear for pve and pvp.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    There might be bigger fish! Doesn't mean you are likely to encounter them.

    I'm not thinking of a stationary situation. I just gave the simplest example.
    The Open Seas is not going to have me staying in the zone for longer if I've met my limit of resource loss.
    And, it's most likely that the limit will match the loss that is the same for normal death penalties.
    I might choose to die twice as much, but if you kill me twice, it's not more potential deaths for you - if you are at the top of the PvP prowess.
    And... I could choose to only die once. Auto-flagging does not cause me to die more often. I might choose to engage in PvP more often because my losses are reduced. And it's not guaranteed that I will lose every time I engage in PvP.

    Of course... my issue is that I don't want to be engaging in PvP more often... regardless of whether I win or lose... but that's just me.

    Way more deaths for Caravans is irrelevant because there are no death penalties associated with Caravans.
    There isn't much risk there unless it's your Personal Caravan.

    So.. you still playing?
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    If you are risking losing or damaging your ship in pvp, is that not just another form of penalty/risk.

    If alot of resources to make and/or repair, then to me would be a hit harder than the land based pk penalties
  • I’m starting to lean towards world boss areas/lairs to be auto flagged as combatant. And this is coming from a PvE minded player.
    My reasons are
    1. You drop gatherables and materials on death.. But would you really need those at a boss fight?
    2. From what I understand, corruption is to prevent griefing. Low level player have no business being at end game world bosses.
    3. I see a situation (might be my own delusion) where low level greens try to get one shot by people trying to do a boss just to trigger corruption.
    4. I get the feeling Steven wants bosses to be competed for either diplomatically, or physically.

    My minds been back and forth so definitely not set in stone.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    All of those things can justify the heightened chance to die. At least for me. But if there's no real reason for the permaflag, I might be against the change too, just because I'm sure there's more people like you that won't play the game purely due to this mechanic. And I personally want the game to have as many people as possible w/o sacrificing the corruption system, and open seas got nothing to do with it.
    How is it a heightened chance to die?
    Let’s assume you are way better at PvP than I am. Even if I have a bunch of unique resources on me when you kill me, I lose a portion…half what I would normally use if I was a Non-Combatant and I suffer half the normal death penalties.

    I could choose to stay on the coast near my respawn point rather than return to the Open Seas. That is not an increased chance for me to die.
    Since it’s only half the normal penalties, I choose to return to the Open Seas right after I respawn. You kill me again. Again, I lose a portion of my resources. Half what I would normally use if I was a Non-Combatant.

    At this point, my loss equals the same as if I had died once as a Non-Combatant. So, I call it a day for the Open Seas.

    I have experienced PvP twice as often as I would have if I was a Non-Combatant. My risk of loss was the same; not higher.

    Also, you experienced PvP twice as much as you might have if you had gained Corruption from the first time killing me. Your risk of losing or dying did not increase. You are way better at PvP than I am, so…you were not going to lose anything in any case.
    You have no risk. You chance of dying has not increased.
    For all we know, you could be among the top PvPers on the server.

    You said
    Dygz wrote: »
    Corruption is designed to deter abuse; not prevent abuse.

    Assuming the same density of players in the area,
    with the flagging system active, your chances to survive are higher.
    without the flagging system you get killed more often.

    Some players don't like to be killed. That is the increased risk.
    Also you get XP debt and durability loss.
    And you lose more time trying to pass to the other side.
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • Rando88Rando88 Member
    edited September 2022
    I think the problem here is we need to look at both sides of the aisle to see where they are coming from. Each side is looking at it through a different lens.

    Corruption is risk to the one who want to fight. Open pvp is risk to the ones who don't want to fight. Both is risk in their own way. That was the point of me quoting earlier for the ones who say corruption isn't risk.

    Now since that's out of the way we need to look at what content is needed in the game and how it can be fun for most players, not just some players of course someone who mainly likes pvp will keep pushing for more.

    Open pvp at world boss can be fun, but then it will turn Into only the top few guilds can even attempt the world boss. We literally just got a big open pvp change and there are pics of world bosses that can appear in the ocean. There are many other pvp mechanics as well. This game is pvx so we can't have everything be open pvp.

    Now I'll go back to my previous suggestion that was apparently like a game I've never played. What we don't have AFAIK is multi guild/group pve content. That is where the world boss fits in. The boss is a threat to the world and needs to be taken out and if that actually happened we would all band together to defeat it.

    In contrast to the ocean change making sense logically, the world boss being open world pvp isn't logical. Of course it's a game and not everything is logical, but things like this need to make sense. In this type of situation a group wanting to take the spoils for themselves can attack the other players, but they will be corrupted. Higher risk for higher reward.
  • Rando88Rando88 Member
    edited September 2022
    Double post. How to delete?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    Liniker wrote: »
    So.. you still playing?
    No one is playing right now.
    I will still be testing Alpha 2 and the Betas.

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Strevi wrote: »
    Assuming the same density of players in the area,
    with the flagging system active, your chances to survive are higher.
    without the flagging system you get killed more often.
    You do not get killed more often, you get attacked more often.
    Being attacked does not increase your incidents of death.


    Strevi wrote: »
    Some players don't like to be killed. That is the increased risk.
    Also you get XP debt and durability loss.
    And you lose more time trying to pass to the other side.
    The XP debt and durability loss is reduced.
    You can choose to die more times if you wish to, but you also get to choose what your limit is and then leave the Open Seas. Again, more instances of PvP does not equal more instances of death. Especially if you are very good at PvP.
    You don't need to sail along the surface of the Open Seas in order to reach the other side.

    So... no. You simply choose to engage in as much PvP as you like.
    But, there is reduced risk. Because death penalties are reduced and there is no Corruption.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    Rando88 wrote: »
    Corruption is risk to the one who want to fight. Open pvp is risk to the ones who don't want to fight. Both is risk in their own way. That was the point of me quoting earlier for the ones who say corruption isn't risk.
    Reduced risk of death penalties; higher incidence of PvP. Yes, I said that.
    It's not really a risk of PvP since everyone is auto-flagged for PvP. You choose that by going into the Open Seas.
    People who don't want to fight won't venture into the Open Seas.
    "Why are you in the Open Seas if you don't want to PvP!!??"
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    https://youtu.be/ehWkpC2uppY

    I found this to be a really interesting video with a great suggestion, it's somewhat related to the discussion here so I thought I'd share
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    What was the suggestion? Territorial corruption? Or faster resource respawn rate in areas where pvp is happening?

    I watched the video, just not sure what suggestion you're referring to.
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    What was the suggestion? Territorial corruption? Or faster resource respawn rate in areas where pvp is happening?

    I watched the video, just not sure what suggestion you're referring to.

    both, but specially the corruption thing that you lose standing with your node to kind of "protect" players inside their ZOIs with less chances of ganking by fellow node citizens
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    It's complex, but I still like linking corruption to node settlement. Then corruption is associated with the presence of law, instead of some omniscient/omnipresent (sorta) force.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Gods.
    I think gods make more sense because Corrupted are monsters; not criminals, but…
    That’s really a nitpick.
  • Rando88Rando88 Member
    edited September 2022
    Dygz wrote: »
    Rando88 wrote: »
    Corruption is risk to the one who want to fight. Open pvp is risk to the ones who don't want to fight. Both is risk in their own way. That was the point of me quoting earlier for the ones who say corruption isn't risk.
    Reduced risk of death penalties; higher incidence of PvP. Yes, I said that.
    It's not really a risk of PvP since everyone is auto-flagged for PvP. You choose that by going into the Open Seas.
    People who don't want to fight won't venture into the Open Seas.
    "Why are you in the Open Seas if you don't want to PvP!!??"

    My post was related to the OP suggestion of changing world bosses to open pvp, not the ocean change. An open pvp zone is risk of death to ones who don't want to pvp. Corruption is risk to the ones who want to pvp in a normal zone. Both is risk.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    No. An Open PvP Zone might colloquially be referred to as "risk" of PvP for those who don't want to PvP. But, that's not "risk". That is choice.
    People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone".
    People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes.

    The person chose to go into the PvP zone. The person chose not to fight back.
    If the person chooses to fight back, they might not die.
    Not wanting to PvP is not the same thing as sucking at PvP.
    But, if you refuse to fight in a PvP zone, you are very likely to die...sure.
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    Dygz wrote: »
    People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone".
    People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes.

    you are wrong - and people who don't want to PvP should not be playing or backing Ashes of Creation, not in 2017 and not now. This is a PvX game with Multiple forced PvP themes that auto flag you.

    Guild Wars.
    Node Sieges.
    Battlegrounds.
    Freeholds getting attacked.
    Caravans.
    Enemy of the State.

    all open pvp zones that auto flag you and are Essential for playing the game, all was in the game since 2017, and now.. theres also Open Sea PvP - but i guess that's where you draw the line (?)
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 2022
    Yep. People who do not want to play a PvP-centric game, should not play a PvP-centric game like Ashes.
    And, yes, auto-flagging in the Open Seas will be fun for people who love PvP-centric games.
    We agree.
    LMAO
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. An Open PvP Zone might colloquially be referred to as "risk" of PvP for those who don't want to PvP. But, that's not "risk". That is choice.
    People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone".
    People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes.

    The person chose to go into the PvP zone. The person chose not to fight back.
    If the person chooses to fight back, they might not die.
    Not wanting to PvP is not the same thing as sucking at PvP.
    But, if you refuse to fight in a PvP zone, you are very likely to die...sure.

    Corruption is choice to so im not sure what you are saying here. You have choice on doing any kind of content in the world be it going to a pvp zone , life skilling, flagging on someone, etc. Choice has nothing to do about the amount of risk is involved though. On land you have a choice to flag for corruption so you have a safety net since we know that is what it is designed for. On sea there is no safety net you have to deal with the people you encounter. Everyone has incentive to attack someone, do to more incentive it means there is more risk in losing what you have on boat, your boat being destroyed and your gear taking durability damage, mats, etc.
  • Rando88Rando88 Member
    edited September 2022
    Dygz wrote: »
    No. An Open PvP Zone might colloquially be referred to as "risk" of PvP for those who don't want to PvP. But, that's not "risk". That is choice.
    People who don't want to PvP should not be in an "open PvP zone".
    People who refuse to PvP will very likely die if someone in an "open PvP zone" chooses to kill them. Yes.

    The person chose to go into the PvP zone. The person chose not to fight back.
    If the person chooses to fight back, they might not die.
    Not wanting to PvP is not the same thing as sucking at PvP.
    But, if you refuse to fight in a PvP zone, you are very likely to die...sure.

    Was this a reply to me? It is more risk for someone to explore an open pvp area vs an area with corruption. Idk how you think it isn't. More risk to get ganked. Maybe they want to explore or look for treasure, they can go there if they want. You don't always go to an open pvp are just to pvp.

    I'll give you an example. In new world you can have pvp on or off. The ones who have it on get bonuses like extra luck. I have my pvp on 24/7 and sometimes get ganked when fishing. Is it not more risk having pvp on when I could have it off and not get ganked?

    As for ones looking to gank or remove player obstacles in a corruption enabled area they risk corruption.
  • LethalityLethality Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk

    That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out.

    Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either.

    If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.)

    You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat).

    Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green.

    What's the risk for the attacker?

    World Class Indoorsman
  • Mag7spyMag7spy Member, Alpha Two
    Lethality wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk

    That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out.

    Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either.

    If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.)

    You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat).

    Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green.

    What's the risk for the attacker?

    The risk is PvP and losing what you have from any player on the sea. TH same person that is attacking can be a defending next.

    The fact you are looking at attacks and defending being different is also wrong, you are all players, and their is a much higher risk of PvP meaning it is naturally more difficult to get all the loot you have and any other gameplay concepts they have.

    If you are trying to insinuate there needs to be punishment for pvp, you are simply saying you want less pvp which equals less risk.

  • WarthWarth Member
    edited September 2022
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Lethality wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Less draw back = More PvP = more chance to die and lose your mats = more risk

    That is fine if you are losing half the amount or whatever they decide, the chance of dying out there is higher with the amount of people willing to PvP so it helps balance that out.

    Increased corruption does not inherently mean more deaths either.

    If they have no death penalty than there wouldn't be more risk, you just suicide and go to land. (but now we are making too many assumptions, i dont see they doing that as their goal.)

    You are well aware that corruption is a deterrent to PvP that is why you needed to test it to see if it would be strong enough. That deterrent being strong enough should stop pvp from being as active on the water (even more so if you can make someone red by having them kill a lower level member on your boat).

    Meaning if the goal with corruption is to lower the amount of pvp it would effectively do that on the ocean causing less risk if people wouldn't deem the punishment worth to kill a green.

    What's the risk for the attacker?

    The risk is PvP and losing what you have from any player on the sea. TH same person that is attacking can be a defending next.

    The fact you are looking at attacks and defending being different is also wrong, you are all players, and their is a much higher risk of PvP meaning it is naturally more difficult to get all the loot you have and any other gameplay concepts they have.

    If you are trying to insinuate there needs to be punishment for pvp, you are simply saying you want less pvp which equals less risk.

    @Mag7spy PvE Carebear wills never see that points my friend. They see themselves as perpetual victims as they wont/will rarely be the ones attacking. They will never admit to it, even if they are open minded enough to see the point you are making (and the point Intrepid is clearly pushing), as that would go against the agenda they have been trying to push for a very long time.

    Trying to talk logic in an emotional argument will never serve any results. It will merely extend this thread (where everything has been said already) forever, same as the DPS Meter one.
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Lethality wrote: »
    What's the risk for the attacker?

    Dying (??) this isn't Archeage where someone will insta kill you, everyone has a chance of fighting back the time to kill is 30 seconds to a minute and gear represents 40% of your overall power
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • This content has been removed.
Sign In or Register to comment.