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.

Proposal and ideas regarding pvp in order to avoid griefing.

135

Comments

  • "Risk vs Reward" is a design pillar of AoC.

    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    CC against greens: CC against greens has 1 restriction in L2 that he seems to have intentionally avoided to mention, that being "only CCs that cause damage could be used against non-purple players" risking PKing them.

    Yeah, but this is a new thing, which was added to the wiki after Steven announced it in the comments of the same video. You can't research things that are only announced in response to your own video.

    This is just pure proof that the discussion the video participates in did its job, and influenced the game (or at very least our information about it) in a positive way.

    I would say it's more a case of our understanding of the game growing a bit. I would assume (based on this being a thing in L2) that it was a plan all along.

    My question then becomes - can a green open combat with a combatant using CC?

    If so, this kind of puts the initiative in the hands of the attacked player, rather than the attacker.

    Not saying this is a bad thing (I think it could be good, actually), just more wondering how this works.

    Yes CC thing is great, but PK still may just attack green player while his fighting with mob's to drop his HP just enough, so the mob's kill him. But at this point I feel like it's unfortunately unavoidable evil.

    That's fun :naughty:
    September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
  • Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.
  • SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds may not experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    EDIT: Apparently the Bounty Hunter flag only even lasts for an hour in the first place. You have to go get it again every time. In summary: Almost no normal Green will be a Bounty Hunter.
  • SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Greens being immune to cc means that greens can attack corrupted and the corrupted can't even cc to try to get away, much less use cc to fight back.

    Think some additional thought might be required here.

    Fully expecting the typical "don't go red then bro" responses from the typical people. But you have to realize how utterly insane that is.

    Am I missing something? Or is that the way its actually going to be.

    If green attacks back he becomes a purple and CC effects start to work to theirs fullest extent. I think this goes without saying.

    You might need to review this handy graph. If Green attacks Red, they remain Green.

    xk1jghoygegp.png

    And of course a reminder: There's no such thing as people just "being Purple" out in the wild. You turn Green when you haven't PvPed for like 90 seconds. "Green attacks Red" will apply to anyone who happens to see a Red walk by and wants a piece of that action.

    What is Bounty Hunter then? I thought this is your status if you attack red. Bounty hunter purple for red but green for everyone else, and received a reward if he managed to kill a red.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Greens being immune to cc means that greens can attack corrupted and the corrupted can't even cc to try to get away, much less use cc to fight back.

    Think some additional thought might be required here.

    Fully expecting the typical "don't go red then bro" responses from the typical people. But you have to realize how utterly insane that is.

    Am I missing something? Or is that the way its actually going to be.

    If green attacks back he becomes a purple and CC effects start to work to theirs fullest extent. I think this goes without saying.

    You might need to review this handy graph. If Green attacks Red, they remain Green.

    xk1jghoygegp.png

    And of course a reminder: There's no such thing as people just "being Purple" out in the wild. You turn Green when you haven't PvPed for like 90 seconds. "Green attacks Red" will apply to anyone who happens to see a Red walk by and wants a piece of that action.

    What is Bounty Hunter then? I thought this is your status if you attack red. Bounty hunter purple for red but green for everyone else, and received a reward if he managed to kill a red.

    Nope, nothing to do with the Red/Green/Purple triad. I laid it out in my post above. (Sorry for the quick-succession confusion)
  • SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.
  • MixaZavrMixaZavr Member
    edited October 2022
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about some issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about the issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    Oh hey, here's that person...

    The reasons given are no reason to assume Steven has not thought this through, it is probably BECAUSE Steven and the team have been 'thinking this through' for YEARS that there's still some nuance left.

    You don't really want your developers to just 'have an answer to everything and not feel the need to change it' right at the start. Sure we're pretty far in, but we're also 'getting answers' now.
    ♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about some issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    the guy who made the video didnt think things through :D
    he left out many important things, and he was only looking at the flagging mechanics. not the whole system, and not how it interacts with other systems in the game. basically just a few things in isolation
  • Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about the issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    Oh hey, here's that person...

    The reasons given are no reason to assume Steven has not thought this through, it is probably BECAUSE Steven and the team have been 'thinking this through' for YEARS that there's still some nuance left.

    You don't really want your developers to just 'have an answer to everything and not feel the need to change it' right at the start. Sure we're pretty far in, but we're also 'getting answers' now.

    Yeah, and now when we laid down a problem, Steven soon give us some answers to that problem, the answer always been there, but we just doesn't know about it. This is perfectly reasonable position to have, but not the most healthiest. Much more useful is to assume that developers are not omnipotent beings and can overlook some things - this guarantee that when game going to release, everything will be great.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about the issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    Oh hey, here's that person...

    The reasons given are no reason to assume Steven has not thought this through, it is probably BECAUSE Steven and the team have been 'thinking this through' for YEARS that there's still some nuance left.

    You don't really want your developers to just 'have an answer to everything and not feel the need to change it' right at the start. Sure we're pretty far in, but we're also 'getting answers' now.

    Yeah, and now when we laid down a problem, Steven soon give us some answers to that problem, the answer always been there, but we just doesn't know about it. This is perfectly reasonable position to have, but not the most healthiest. Much more useful is to assume that developers are not omnipotent beings and can overlook some things - this guarantee that when game going to release, everything will be great.

    And now you're caught up. 👍

    What you're saying is basically what she's been championing all afternoon.
  • Depraved wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about some issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    the guy who made the video didnt think things through :D
    he left out many important things, and he was only looking at the flagging mechanics. not the whole system, and not how it interacts with other systems in the game. basically just a few things in isolation

    CC effects doesn't work on green, if green attacks red he remains green. So red can't use CC effects in PVP pretty much on anybody except a bounty Hunter. Yes, system is definitely perfect, lol.
  • BaSkA_9x2BaSkA_9x2 Member, Alpha Two
    TL;DR: Let Alpha 2 play out. If the corruption system doesn't work, if there's too much or too little PvP, there's enough time to tweak it and fix it before Beta.

    Cheers
    🎶Galo é Galo o resto é bosta🎶
  • MixaZavr wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about some issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    the guy who made the video didnt think things through :D
    he left out many important things, and he was only looking at the flagging mechanics. not the whole system, and not how it interacts with other systems in the game. basically just a few things in isolation

    CC effects doesn't work on green, if green attacks red he remains green. So red can't use CC effects in PVP pretty much on anybody except a bounty Hunter. Yes, system is definitely perfect, lol.

    But this problem has a relatively easy solution, fourth state, orange for example. Green becomes orange when he attack red, red can use any ability on orange, but if red kills orange, he gains more corruption. Orange doesn't receive any reward for killing red,don't drop anything if red kills him and don't losses any EXP. If green attacks orange he becomes purple, if he kills orange he becomes red.
  • MixaZavr wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    SongRune wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    Not how it works homie.

    It's exactly how it works homie

    No, it is definitely not, check the thing again.

    If I, Red, come up to you, Green, you can beat on me all you want and never become a Combatant.

    It is intentional, to the point where people have complained about it, that you can just 'be hunted by an army of Green players who you can't even kill without becoming more Corrupted', as soon as you turn Red.

    Yes, i now, but you don't understand, if you attack somebody green you don't become red, you become purple. Only if you KILL a green player you become red. So if you start a fight, you become purple, if you kill you enemy and he doesn't even try to fight back, you become red. But if green does fight back, he to becomes a purple and if you kill him you are NOT become a red.

    We're talking about the players been Green and Red from the start, my dude. When a Green attacks a Red who STARTED Red (or the 'already Red' attacks a Green), that Green stays Green forever.

    In this case i thought green becomes a bounty hunter.

    Nope Bounty Hunters are people who sign up for a special "Bounty Hunter" flag in a military node. When THEY fight Reds they are effectively Purple, and the Reds don't experience the usual stat penalties. It's an opt-in state, though. There are quests and everything. It's an entirely separate system.

    A normal Green in the field isn't going to be a Bounty Hunter, and no action you can take out in the field can turn you into one. It's a profession of its own.

    If this is the case, it's just overlooked by developers. It doesn't make any sense.

    And now you're caught up. There have been some... heated... discussions on these forums about this topic in the past.

    I think the original intent for this is just to punish red some more, but since the video come in, Steven give us some rushed comment on the corruption system and BOOM, system doesn't make sense. It's telling me that's Steven definitely doesn't thought about some issues in the video untill today. This is perfect example why good communication with the playerbase is key to success, and why i believe in AoC so much.

    the guy who made the video didnt think things through :D
    he left out many important things, and he was only looking at the flagging mechanics. not the whole system, and not how it interacts with other systems in the game. basically just a few things in isolation

    CC effects doesn't work on green, if green attacks red he remains green. So red can't use CC effects in PVP pretty much on anybody except a bounty Hunter. Yes, system is definitely perfect, lol.

    but if red kills orange, he gains more corruption.

    But less than killing a green.
  • SongRuneSongRune Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    BaSkA13 wrote: »
    TL;DR: Let Alpha 2 play out. If the corruption system doesn't work, if there's too much or too little PvP, there's enough time to tweak it and fix it before Beta.

    Cheers

    I mean, this would work if players were seriously invested in their characters, and their economic progression during an Alpha.

    Without those factors (not remotely present in Alpha 1, for certain), Corruption won't be treated the same as it would in release by a large enough number of players to make it matter.

    When you can create a new character, or expect yet more wipes. When you know your new character will just get set to max level for the next siege test, and when there's nothing long-term to DO with your money anyway, the reasons NOT to go red are weaker, and your reasons TO go red are weaker. Which one wins? It might not be the same one as would win out on release.

    Not saying you CANT get some information on how Corruption is working. But it's not as straightforward as you might assume.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    MixaZavr wrote: »
    CC effects doesn't work on green, if green attacks red he remains green. So red can't use CC effects in PVP pretty much on anybody except a bounty Hunter. Yes, system is definitely perfect, lol.
    For the purpose of punishing the Red player - yes, it works just fine. For the purpose of limiting genocidal actions of those Red players - yes, it works perfectly.
  • I saw a video by Lucky Ghost called "Ashes of Creation is in Trouble" about pvp and how it would be the end of AOC if the flagging system isnt improved or something else is added. Even though i dont agree with everything he said, it still got me thinking, so here is some ideas:

    I would like to suggest some ideas, some may be bad and some may be good, or maybe they are all bad, i dont know xD. Also some of these ideas may or may not have already been added to the game or talked about, so i apologize in advance if that is the case. Also sorry for the bad english xd.

    1:Overall i think that the reward to pvp players for protecting pve players against getting griefed in certain areas should be desirable and perhaps unique. Atleast to the point where it is atleast just as desirable to defend players as it is to attack players, and perhaps the reward for defending and reviving a certain amount of pve players inside of cetain areas should maybe even be a bit greater in certain cases or in certain areas, perhaps even unique.
    Maybe there could be like a system where for example: if you complete 2 quests, and keep the time in between you taking a new quest short, like some sort of time limit, while you simultaneously havent attacked any other player, then you get categorized as a pve player until atleast one of those criteria is broken, then defending and reviving those people could give desirable rewards. This system could be implemented in certain areas and perhaps be implemented or removed under certain situation, like if a siege is taking place in your area then it is removed regardless of whether you fullfill the criteria. The flagging system could also be tuned acording to whether you are categorized as a pvp or pve player.

    2: In terms of dungeons: maybe make it so that you enter a sort of portal at the entrance to the dungeons, just like in WoW. Or maybe make it so there is a heavy penalty for killing players inside of dungeons.

    3: Maybe there could be like a speciel kind of quest, where you are suppose to protect players inside of your node or a cetain owned territory, and get unique or atleast valuable rewards for succeeding. Perhaps like a type of bodyguard quest.

    4: Making sure that atleast the starting lvl areas are heavily protected by npc´s, like to the point where you wouldnt just be able to go in with like 5 of your friends and grief low lvl players.

    5: Maybe make it so that if there hasnt been created like a sort of guild which main purpose is to protect the node and the players questing inside of the node or the owned territory, then the node itself cant be upgraded past a certain lvl, and if certain goals where you have to protect lvling players arent reached maybe on a weekly or monthly basis, then the node will decrease in lvl, or other sort of penalties.

    6: Making it so that the reward for killing other players gets lower or higher depending on the diffrence between your lvl and the player you are attckings lvl, or perhaps the flag meter increases faster depending on the lvl difference. Maybe even making it so that killing very low lvl players as a very high lvl player, gives some sort of penalty, perhaps even a heavy penalty, on top of that the penalty could perhaps also be adjusted to whether the low lvl player who were killed were in a starting lvling area or not.

    7: Since fast travel dosent seem to be a huge thing in aoc, then perhaps being strategic with where the low lvl areas are placed on the map is a good idea, in order to avoid griefing.

    Feel free to add ideas or objections. All i want is a great mmorpg game :smiley:


    As for point 1. The reward for killing corrupted players is already greater than the reward for going corrupted. If you go corrupted by killing a green you get a small portion of theaterials they had on them. However if killed when corrupted you lose 300% to 400% more materials then greens and have a chance of dropping non material items. IDK about you but red for me will be KOS because I will operate under the assumption that they are going to drop a lot of something that was worth killing a green for.

    As for point 2. There will be instance based dungeons. Don't want to get killed in a dungeon only do the instance based ones.

    As for number 3. If you want to help out your fellow citizens or guildies just do so to be a good neighbor or guildy. Hopefully by helping them out they will help you out when you need it. You don't need a quest to help someone.

    On to number 4. As of right now we don't know the exact details of the system but killing far lower level players gives you way more corruption and with the negatives that corruption gives you would effectively be making your own character completely in effective for a decent amount of time.

    Number 5. this makes no sense why punish a node because no one wants to make a guild to help people??? Also bounty hunters are a thing and can go around killing corrupted so the formation of guilds to do this isn't needed.

    Number 6. If you kill low level players they will have low level materials and depending on the market those will most likely be worth less then high level materials. Also with the amount of corruption you get it will more than likely not be worth it.

    Number 7. I don't think you need to put low level areas anywhere specific as the nodes that get built up first will be by the gates (low level areas/spawn areas) and as such will have the higher level content.
  • edited October 2022
    Azherae wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    Mag7spy wrote: »
    I knew about the aoe thing, but did not know you can't cc a green. Looks like some people that played L2 a lot knew about some of the issues with this type of flagging more than the youtuber realized. Or well youtuber just hasn't fully researched the game, there is a lot of information to it.

    I assume the youtuber in question knowledge regarding Lineage 2 and Ashes of Creation is quite limited considering his video, he almost directly correlates both systems(L2 Karma and AOC Corruption) as perfect equals throughout the video, even tho its straight up false, may it ignorance or straight up malice is up for debate, i certainly do believe it to be the former.

    Honestly i don't expect most people to know everything with Aoc, there isn't an official document technically. Even if you are super into like AoC like me for example you may forget or just not know everything. There is a lot to the game.

    From a youtuber perspective they aren't going to hardcore research, they are just trying to get a banger video out. He just knows the basics and the inspiration and bits about the system without knowing all the more fine details.

    Me neither, but i would expect a little more effort from the youtuber, like atleast reading the wiki regarding corruption to understand that even currently, AOC corruption system is already exeted to be Harsher than Lineage 2's Karma system...

    But yeah, can't expect alot from the majority of youtubers, they gotta make that bag a way or the other, expecting effort and reliable information in their videos is quite the optimism.

    Yeah, see, I don't like this perspective.

    The video didn't even try to address the HARSHNESS of the system. It looked at two scenarios that explicitly AVOID that harshness, one that exploits the (now non-existent I guess) CC vs Greens, and the other making use of 'groups that literally don't care how harsh it is'.

    So no amount of research would have changed the core video at all. It wasn't POSSIBLE to know the counter to the first, and there is still no counter to the second. There was no 'due diligence to do' that wasn't done.

    Many parts of the video correlates L2 Karma system and AOC Corruption system as direct equals 9:52 for example there is no way to deny the ignorance when he make such blunt statements.

    Regarding those 2 scenarios, you do understand that they require alot of assumptions using Lineage 2 as a base to understand a system yet to be tested or understood on how it works.

    CC against greens: CC against greens has 1 restriction in L2 that he seems to have intentionally avoided to mention, that being "only CCs that cause damage could be used against non-purple players" risking PKing them.

    The second scenario depends entirely on the moderation team properly dealing with bots and rmt, something way beyond the mere discussion about the flagging system.

    Yes, it sounds moreso like we agree. You could argue 'they should never have made this video, it makes no sense' to make it, as Atama has, but I still don't see a point at which they 'should have done more research' and 'didn't do it'.

    Nothing in particular would change about the specific situation mentioned in the case of CCs that do damage. The attacker is already purple. Unless the Healer is going to explicitly figure out a way to make their own HP lower for the CHANCE that their CC-er kills them, the same situation given occurs.

    But either way, it seems that Steven at least responded in the way I would have hoped for, so I guess it doesn't matter if people here have that opinion of the content. I wasn't arguing 'this person isn't making assumptions'. I'm saying that given how little we know, there is nothing BUT assumptions to make. Now we know a little more, and that's great.

    I believe Atama's opinion is a bit extreme even with its reasonable parts, but i still believe there was either a lack of knowledge in the Lineage 2 side of things or simple purposeful negligence.

    As someone who experienced that directly i can assure you it changes the dinamics, let me add a feel more L2 informations to that equation, CC isn't 100% chance to work in L2(throught the versions it varied from 5-20% min chance to 80-95% max chance), Healers had skills to remove said CCs, people could remove their whole gear(or enough pieces of it to not get oneshoted by monsters but possible by players) extremely fast (or even preemptively play without them to purposifully become vulnerable to one shots, Baiting PK was a very common practice sadly disregarded by the youtuber in the video.

    I cannot deny that his video had value because of the extra AOC information we received.from Steven.
    But without that, i would honestly consider his video worthless.
    6wtxguK.jpg
    Aren't we all sinners?
  • tbh, I think open world pvp kind of sucks in practice. it's usually just unfair and tilting for everyone involved.

    Victims get frustrated when they can't play the game.

    PKers get toxic when they lose.

    No matter what someone is having a bad day.

    In normal PvP it's usually a distinct goal that both parties agree to. So if someone loses they are much more understanding.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    worddog wrote: »
    tbh, I think open world pvp kind of sucks in practice. it's usually just unfair and tilting for everyone involved.

    Victims get frustrated when they can't play the game.

    PKers get toxic when they lose.

    No matter what someone is having a bad day.

    In normal PvP it's usually a distinct goal that both parties agree to. So if someone loses they are much more understanding.

    what about people annoying, griefing or trying to mob drop you? open world pvp allows you to swiftly dispatch them and go on with your day. ive had the worst experiences in games where i cant kill my "allies" or where there isnt any open world pvp. ow pvp allows me to deal with that.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    worddog wrote: »
    tbh, I think open world pvp kind of sucks in practice. it's usually just unfair and tilting for everyone involved.

    Victims get frustrated when they can't play the game.

    PKers get toxic when they lose.

    No matter what someone is having a bad day.

    In normal PvP it's usually a distinct goal that both parties agree to. So if someone loses they are much more understanding.
    In my 10h of playing WoW I felt more triggered than in my 12 years of playing L2. Mainly because I couldn't remove a dude from my faction from a farming location. And running a dungeon several times just for the drop from, pretty much, one mob, w/o any variance in the runs was also boring as hell.

    Both of those things are solved with owpvp.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    tbh, I think open world pvp kind of sucks in practice. it's usually just unfair and tilting for everyone involved.

    Victims get frustrated when they can't play the game.

    PKers get toxic when they lose.

    No matter what someone is having a bad day.

    In normal PvP it's usually a distinct goal that both parties agree to. So if someone loses they are much more understanding.
    In my 10h of playing WoW I felt more triggered than in my 12 years of playing L2. Mainly because I couldn't remove a dude from my faction from a farming location. And running a dungeon several times just for the drop from, pretty much one mob, w/o any variance in the runs was also boring as hell.

    Both of those things are solved with owpvp.

    To your first issue here, just be better than them. If someone is farming an area, and you are taking even 2/5ths of the resources/mobs, that player is probably going to go somewhere else. No PvP doesn't mean no competition - you just need to know how to compete. While it may not seem all that fun - keep in mind that you are in the area to farm, which is the definition of not fun. This competition is ALWAYS going to be more fun than just mindlessly farming.

    To your second point, that is just bad PvE design. The best fix to that is good design, not PvP. The bad design there is in the fact that you feel the need to get that one item - that should never be the case other than absolute top end where the item you are after is literally best in slot.
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    You know what's funny Nikr. Don't take this too seriously, I'm saying it kind of tongue in cheek. But what's funny is that based on a lot of the stuff I see you say, I kinda identify you as the "reasonable" guy. The middle ground guy, always trying to be conciliatory to the other camp. Bending over backwards to do so at times. And it's ok, commendable even.

    But now, in what is (was?) a game with open world pvp competition over resources/content, you're getting told to just get good at pve bro LOL. Harvest harder bro, press E faster. Which was always going to be the case. Because you're a barbarian, one of those uncivilized pvp lovers. It doesn't matter how conciliatory you are, many people in the other camp have one goal. Any goodwill you build up won't 'make a lick of difference come decision time, if they had the decision making power.

    You're probably thinking go fuck yourself Okey. I just think it's funny though lol
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    worddog wrote: »
    tbh, I think open world pvp kind of sucks in practice. it's usually just unfair and tilting for everyone involved.

    Victims get frustrated when they can't play the game.

    PKers get toxic when they lose.

    No matter what someone is having a bad day.

    In normal PvP it's usually a distinct goal that both parties agree to. So if someone loses they are much more understanding.
    In my 10h of playing WoW I felt more triggered than in my 12 years of playing L2. Mainly because I couldn't remove a dude from my faction from a farming location. And running a dungeon several times just for the drop from, pretty much one mob, w/o any variance in the runs was also boring as hell.

    Both of those things are solved with owpvp.

    To your first issue here, just be better than them. If someone is farming an area, and you are taking even 2/5ths of the resources/mobs, that player is probably going to go somewhere else. No PvP doesn't mean no competition - you just need to know how to compete. While it may not seem all that fun - keep in mind that you are in the area to farm, which is the definition of not fun. This competition is ALWAYS going to be more fun than just mindlessly farming.

    To your second point, that is just bad PvE design. The best fix to that is good design, not PvP. The bad design there is in the fact that you feel the need to get that one item - that should never be the case other than absolute top end where the item you are after is literally best in slot.

    you can say the same about pvp. just be better than them and get the spot for yourself (:
    also not all players go somewhere else if you are taking half of the mobs..and consider that "somewhere else" might be occupied too. also, what do you do if the other dude starts healing and buffing the mobs you are trying to kill, or starts mob dropping you? or aggro and resetting your mbos before you can kill them? also if you are a melee class, how can you even take more mobs than an archer or a mag by the time you even get halfway to your target mob, the archer will have already killed it. what do you suggest he does in that situation?

    how is that bad pve design? fun is subjective. id rather stay in the same farming spot for 10 hours farming the same mob and talking to ppl on discord (or ventrilo/teamspeak back then) than having to spend 10-15 mins walking to a different area every 10 mins cuz of quests or whatever, i dont like running/exploring simulators but other people do. at least id be using my character if im in combat, instead of holding W until i arrive at my destination.

    and i cant believe you said that to him after what u replied to me in the other post, "The bad design there is in the fact that you feel the need to get that one item". literally what i asked dygz about why he has to just do open seas and you replied with "yeah basically dont play the game, its what you are saying". what if he really wants that item? maybe he is trying to farm gold? maybe a cosmetic or an end game item or a crafting material? i mean, you could always go somewhere else, farm something else, sell it and buy the item, but you are the one agains tthat idea i guess, because to you, that constitutes as not playing the game (only when its convenient for you to say)
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    To your first issue here, just be better than them. If someone is farming an area, and you are taking even 2/5ths of the resources/mobs, that player is probably going to go somewhere else. No PvP doesn't mean no competition - you just need to know how to compete. While it may not seem all that fun - keep in mind that you are in the area to farm, which is the definition of not fun. This competition is ALWAYS going to be more fun than just mindlessly farming.
    That's the deal though, iirc it was a location with quest mobs (or at least the ones that dropped items needed for a quest). Even if I did farm 2/3 of the location, I'm a greedy bastard and want to have the location on lock. Once I'm done with my 2/3, which is the upper limit of what I could farm at the time, I want to immediately switch to the remaining 1/3, but that 1/3 is either dead and I need to wait or it's being farmed and I'll need to wait even longer.

    I'm all too familiar with outfarming people because that's how I usually removed people from farming locations in L2. And only when they didn't leave even though I was outfarming them did I start attacking them or straight up PKing them.
    Noaani wrote: »
    To your second point, that is just bad PvE design. The best fix to that is good design, not PvP. The bad design there is in the fact that you feel the need to get that one item - that should never be the case other than absolute top end where the item you are after is literally best in slot.
    But how do you balance difficulty against speed of progress then? If a location or a quest immediately gives you what you want, it'd mean that the game would have to have hundreds and hundreds of these locations and quests in order to fill up your gametime.

    And if the difficulty of the content, that gives you what you want immediately, is so high that you can't beat it on the first try - we go back to running the dungeon over and over until you get the thing. Which was my issue in the first place.

    In other words, I'm just at too far end of the spectrum to be enticed with pve. Yes, I know that you'll say that I just haven't experienced proper pve, but I'd counter that with a "if I was interested in that kind of pve - I would've sought it out in the first place".
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    But now, in what is (was?) a game with open world pvp competition over resources/content, you're getting told to just get good at pve bro LOL. Harvest harder bro, press E faster. Which was always going to be the case. Because you're a barbarian, one of those uncivilized pvp lovers. It doesn't matter how conciliatory you are, many people in the other camp have one goal. Any goodwill you build up won't 'make a lick of difference come decision time, if they had the decision making power.
    Nah, it's a good advice in the context of pve competition. It's just that I find pve competition dull. In L2 (at least in my experience with it) barely anyone partook in pve competition. If someone came into a room and saw that someone was already farming it - they'd just attack the farmer.

    Yes, there were cases where the pvp didn't start out immediately as 2 people saw each other, but those were way rarer than the immediate pvp. And I liked it that way. The mobs were just a means to the end of fighting another person or getting gear so that I can fight more people.

    Even when I had guildmates that wanted to farm the same location, I'd instead try to help them fight over their own room than farming with them (and same applied with party farming too).
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    You're probably thinking go fuck yourself Okey. I just think it's funny though lol
    Nah, I can appreciate some
    5yunb2al2i7p.png
    things too :)
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited October 2022
    Depraved wrote: »

    you can say the same about pvp. just be better than them and get the spot for yourself (:

    Indeed you can.

    I'm not anti-PvP at all (I wouldn't be here at all). I am anti people not understanding things well. Sure, you can compete with a player in PvP to take over a spot - but you can also do it on PvE, its just harder.

    Your suggestion of the other player healing or buffing mobs - that isnt a thing outside of one or two games. It absolutely isnt a thing in a PvE game. As such, what you do in this situation is report the player for hacking.

    I have no real idea what you mean by "mob dropping". I assume you mean training, but surely you wouldn't be getting an MMO term that has been around since the 90's wrong. Since the only google reault for "mob drop" in relation to an MMO is loot, I'll leave it at that and wait for you to clarify.
    how is that bad pve design?
    Its bad because the design made people feel a need to do one specific thing for one specific result.

    If you want to do one specific thing, it would be bad game design to not allow you to do so. However, it is also bad game design to make people feel they need to do one specific thing.

    The above is also a response to tour final paragraph. It is bad game design if players feel the need to do something they would rather not, or are unable to do something they want to do that is a reasonable thing for them to expect to be able to do.

    If you like farming one spot for 10 hours, I would consider it bad game design if a game forced you to get up and move every 10 minutes. I'm sure you would consider that bad as well. The above bad game design examples are simply related to people that are not you.
Sign In or Register to comment.