Strevi wrote: » So when you say "I really wish Intrepid settles on a system that satisfies everyone in this equation.", you accept the "remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up" solution too?
Strevi wrote: » Your addition with how the BH could identify the original user is nice. But what are those items? Resources like sticks and rocks and rare mushrooms? Or intermediate products? The intermediate products actually should be transported via caravans but what is the incentive to use them if corruption protects the solo mule more?
Trenker wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting. Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference. Actually, how on earth does one defend against an 'army' of any resource strippers, of any level? Nodes can be 'attacked' by node strippers and I see very little ways of defending the node without incurring corruption. These 'attacks' apparently have longer lasting effects on the environment IIRC, adding to the damage to the node.
Dolyem wrote: » Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting. Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference.
Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting.
JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters.
NiKr wrote: » Strevi wrote: » You gave as example recently players running out from the safety of the town just a little bit to taunt others into PvP and that they done this for hours. This is how the game placed the agency on the players. Each was doing this activity as long as it was fun. And I'm almost sure that there'll be a few freeholds that have the same kind of interaction (considering that you can't be attacked on your freehold). L2's cities let you do way less stuff than the freeholds will, so those who stayed within them not participating in any other content barely did anything else (mainly trading and crafting, if they were supported by farmers). So Ashes is already providing a much broader choice of content that you can participate in w/o even walking outside of a particular location. Strevi wrote: » There is no way to balance the corruption to satisfy all players. Even if we split them in 3 categories: pure PvE, PvX and PvP, the transition is smooth and any balance will end up splitting the PvX group in two where some will request harsher penalties and others more lenient ones. Having auto-flagged PvP pockets in a PvE (harsh corruption) environment is a better solution as it gives agency to both attacker and victim. They both decided to enter (or not leave) that place. This is already the case with the open seas and node ruins (and we might even get more, considering the trend). Corruption is already a pretty big threat to those who attack greens, so anyone who just wants to kill as many people as possible would probably go sailing or travel the world in the search of ruins (or obviously just fucking join any kind of war between any two groups of people). Strevi wrote: » I seen a post saying the BH were added after being requested by players as a safety net if the corruption is not doing a good enough job. That means the corruption is supposed to allow a higher risk/pain onto the attacked players and the BH are supposed to move that treshold and keep the players safe. The problem is that this does not prevent the attack to happen. It will only if the attacker knows the density of bounty hunters in the area. Their presence would increase the safety of a zone for players who want to be protected. It would be like a variable corruption which changes based on how players login and move in the game. But the game still has to transmit this information to both PvP ready and PvP reluctant players. Like you said, rn BHs don't do anything to alleviate the event of a green dying. I think that there should be a system tied to BHs that helps those green victims get back to their pre-death state. It could be an xp gaining boost, a gear repair discount (ideally tied to a bonus for the crafter that helped repair it) or a bonus to their artisan profession. Obviously this still doesn't prevent the death itself, but the whole point of open world pvp is to let people kill each other, but this way at least the victim loses less stuff (or in other words, time). And if we make green loot an unstackable item that drops first from a PKer and has the name of the victim on it - the BHs will be able to return it to the victim if they manage to catch and kill the PKer. And imo this kind of system would allow for a bit more lenient corruption gain values, because it would lead to more PKers (satisfying those kinds of people) which leads to more BHs (satisfying the pvp white knights), while not removing as many greens from the game (and also tying them tighter into the game's community, because they will have to interact with way more people now). But I'm almost sure that at the end of testing Intrepid will just remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up.
Strevi wrote: » You gave as example recently players running out from the safety of the town just a little bit to taunt others into PvP and that they done this for hours. This is how the game placed the agency on the players. Each was doing this activity as long as it was fun.
Strevi wrote: » There is no way to balance the corruption to satisfy all players. Even if we split them in 3 categories: pure PvE, PvX and PvP, the transition is smooth and any balance will end up splitting the PvX group in two where some will request harsher penalties and others more lenient ones. Having auto-flagged PvP pockets in a PvE (harsh corruption) environment is a better solution as it gives agency to both attacker and victim. They both decided to enter (or not leave) that place.
Strevi wrote: » I seen a post saying the BH were added after being requested by players as a safety net if the corruption is not doing a good enough job. That means the corruption is supposed to allow a higher risk/pain onto the attacked players and the BH are supposed to move that treshold and keep the players safe. The problem is that this does not prevent the attack to happen. It will only if the attacker knows the density of bounty hunters in the area. Their presence would increase the safety of a zone for players who want to be protected. It would be like a variable corruption which changes based on how players login and move in the game. But the game still has to transmit this information to both PvP ready and PvP reluctant players.
novercalis wrote: » the thought of a BH returning items to players.... FUCKING LULZ that aint gonna happen. Most people signing up as a BH are ppl who were interested in PKing for loot. But because of the corruption system - deterred them. Now how can they PK and still get loot? Oh yeah, be a BH. if I'm a BH and recovered your loot - that shit is mine. you can buy it off me or get gud and not die. not my problem. There will be many people like this.
novercalis wrote: » BH is there to prevent griefing an area or those spawn camping, it should have ZERO mechanics dealing with the green victim. That's not their job or purpose. It's even in the damn name. All they get is an indicator of a PKer is active nearby - go make a play and chase the Pker down. that's it. Too many BH in the game --- ya gonna be disppointed when there isnt much content to do, cause some BH prolly killed the PK by the time you arrive.
novercalis wrote: » Trenker wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting. Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference. Actually, how on earth does one defend against an 'army' of any resource strippers, of any level? Nodes can be 'attacked' by node strippers and I see very little ways of defending the node without incurring corruption. These 'attacks' apparently have longer lasting effects on the environment IIRC, adding to the damage to the node. I made a post about this. The solution is - after a certain threshhold is met of nodes being removed - a guardian of sorts spawns. High level NPC that only aggros on anyone gathering. Defeating guardian will require a group of 8 players MINIMUM. This NPC aggro range is huge and will beeline to anyone gathering and attack. It will not attack random players moving by it. It will defend itself if attacked.
Dolyem wrote: » novercalis wrote: » Trenker wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting. Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference. Actually, how on earth does one defend against an 'army' of any resource strippers, of any level? Nodes can be 'attacked' by node strippers and I see very little ways of defending the node without incurring corruption. These 'attacks' apparently have longer lasting effects on the environment IIRC, adding to the damage to the node. I made a post about this. The solution is - after a certain threshhold is met of nodes being removed - a guardian of sorts spawns. High level NPC that only aggros on anyone gathering. Defeating guardian will require a group of 8 players MINIMUM. This NPC aggro range is huge and will beeline to anyone gathering and attack. It will not attack random players moving by it. It will defend itself if attacked. Still a negative for the nodes citizens. But at least that sort of deals with individual griefers
novercalis wrote: » There should be very little BH because there should be very little PKing. If Corruption system is good/strong enough - we shouldnt be seeing much of it. With that said - Incentivizing BH would also discourage PKers/PKing
DrPlague wrote: » No factions - without them we can't have open world pvp without penalties. It would have been nice to have actual reds 24/7 than have everyone being green. Corruption is a punishment. So if bots are taking all the nodes then you have to get punished to get rid of them. We all know there will be bots, lots of them.
novercalis wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » novercalis wrote: » Trenker wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Abarat wrote: » JamesSunderland wrote: » I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters. Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting. Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference. Actually, how on earth does one defend against an 'army' of any resource strippers, of any level? Nodes can be 'attacked' by node strippers and I see very little ways of defending the node without incurring corruption. These 'attacks' apparently have longer lasting effects on the environment IIRC, adding to the damage to the node. I made a post about this. The solution is - after a certain threshhold is met of nodes being removed - a guardian of sorts spawns. High level NPC that only aggros on anyone gathering. Defeating guardian will require a group of 8 players MINIMUM. This NPC aggro range is huge and will beeline to anyone gathering and attack. It will not attack random players moving by it. It will defend itself if attacked. Still a negative for the nodes citizens. But at least that sort of deals with individual griefers Mother earth dont give a fuck about it's node citizens. These guardians can be spawn even by the citizens themselves. Mother earth looking out for herself.
NiKr wrote: » Strevi wrote: » So when you say "I really wish Intrepid settles on a system that satisfies everyone in this equation.", you accept the "remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up" solution too? Nope, I'd hate that. It not only removes 99.9% of non-event-based owpvp, but also removes a system that I think has great potential for both pvp and socialization. Strevi wrote: » Your addition with how the BH could identify the original user is nice. But what are those items? Resources like sticks and rocks and rare mushrooms? Or intermediate products? The intermediate products actually should be transported via caravans but what is the incentive to use them if corruption protects the solo mule more? Just anything that the green player drops, but it wouldn't autostack with other similar resources in the Red's inventory and they'd definitely drop from the Red if the BH kills them. Ideally they wouldn't drop if greens kill the Red, but there's a ton of abuse potential with that kind of mechanic, so it would have to be tested and addressed properly, but I do think that with a proper design this mechanic would lead to fewer "greens gang up on a red" situations and would instead only support the BH system even more. And considering that the "greens>red" interaction has been complained before, I think this would be a way to address even that issue.
Strevi wrote: » IMO the game should try to discourage the feeling that the resources belong to the player as soon as he picked them up from the environment. Only after the resources reached the safety of a storage should be considered as belonging to the player.
Strevi wrote: » The game already has integrated the possibility to get back 50% of the resources instantly if the attacked player flags himself before he dies. Trying to keep all 100% is a sign of greed. It is justified if those were gathered over a long time, like a few hours, but why would a weak player stay away from the city with valuable resources so long? In AoC the city is just 5 minutes away.
Ironhope wrote: » I don't think Intrepid realizes how important combat is and how much it matters to people first coming into contact with the game (be it an early alpha, people don't understand and don't care). They could deliver on every system they promised and more, if the combat isn't top tier, it's all for nothing. The fact they're still asking for stuff like ''stamina or no stamina'' is very worrying. On one side I understand that 1) combat, ironically is one of the easiest to crate aspects of the game comapred to systems like the nodes function and sieges, sea travel and combat, raids and dungeons, castle sieges, etc and it makes sense why they would focus on it towards the end 2) combat and class design (on which combat depends) is one of those things you need to think more about so it's better to give it 1-2 years of deep design and brainstorming and them implement in more detail, rather than jump into it from the start but still, I don't think Intrepid realizes the risk here and I'm worried they will lose more and more support if they release pre-alpha combat the way it is (it's one of the main reasons why the november stream was so poorly received). People don't understand this is a pre-alpha. Open development like Intrepid is doing is nearly unseen. Most MMO developers release ''alphas'' when their game is nearly finished and do it as a publicity move, they don't have actual development alphas, so people don't even understand what alpha means, which is even less relevant since they don't care and judge the game first sight as it is as if it would never change in the years of development to come. And the first thing they judge the game by, besides first sight graphics and models is the combat. And the combat better be in far better shape in the future streams involving it and in very good shape when alpha 2 arrives, otherwise it iwll bleed more and more support.
Ironhope wrote: » The fact they're still asking for stuff like ''stamina or no stamina'' is very worrying.
DarkTides wrote: » so, if not really a combat demo...we were shown a status effects demo
NiKr wrote: » Strevi wrote: » The game already has integrated the possibility to get back 50% of the resources instantly if the attacked player flags himself before he dies. Trying to keep all 100% is a sign of greed. It is justified if those were gathered over a long time, like a few hours, but why would a weak player stay away from the city with valuable resources so long? In AoC the city is just 5 minutes away. I think it's about the value of time more so than the value of the resources themselves. Or, well, at least that's how I see it. If I spent an hour or two farming some juicy location deep in a dungeon (be it mobs or rare gatherables there) and then I get PKed and lose a big chunk of the resources, my immediate reaction would be "a shit I wasted a ton of time". And while I'm a person who would immediately go and try fuck that PKer up, I'd assume most (or at least majority) of true greens would just feel bad about their, already limited, playtime being wasted by another player. And with travel times being longer than just "tp here then tp there", if you tell all greens to just run to the city every time they pick up an item - they'll tell you "you're crazy" And that's not even considering that leaving your location usually means giving it up to someone else, so even if you do go to the city often you'll be losing out on more of the same resource (especially if it's rare and only has a few limited spawn points). Flagging up and fighting back removes that part of the equation and obviously lets you lose less stuff if you die, which is why I like this mechanic. But I'm sure you've seen several threads where people complained about being constantly killed or having only 10 minutes a day to play the game or anything along those lines (or just not wanting to pvp if they're not in the mood like Dygz does). To those people the thought of "protect your spot and you'll get to enjoy the game more" seems to be as alien as "I want everything to be instanced" for me. And I feel like giving them some potential insurance for the time spent, while also letting the PKers kill a few more people a day, would go a long way. Though those PKers would still have to be caught first, so it's not a 100% insurance.
