Things we DON'T like about AoC.

While it is important to voice to the developers the things we enjoy about the game, and to encourage the game's creation, it's also equally important to voice our thoughts and opinions on things we don't like about the game and are concerned about.
What are some things you've seen that have you little concerned about or that you simply don't like?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Songcaller

I'm not about to be a BH and kill a PvPer who might be my hard counter to appease a green who refused to fight. It would purely be for the thrill and challenge - after all, a red player will be a guaranteed pvp player.

The corruption system already protects green players. I have no need to body guard or rob the rich to feed the poor.

Dolyem

Neurath wrote: »

I'm not about to be a BH and kill a PvPer who might be my hard counter to appease a green who refused to fight. It would purely be for the thrill and challenge - after all, a red player will be a guaranteed pvp player.

The corruption system already protects green players. I have no need to body guard or rob the rich to feed the poor.

There's also the incentive of reward by killing corrupted as a bounty hunter.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

But back to the BH viability. They should not be able in 100% of cases to take and give back the resources lost by the green because the PK-ers will have 0 reason to become corrupt.
How do you balance the success rate?
And once that is done, it still means that some greens will not get their resources back.

This would obviously have to be tested. I would personally tweak the amount of corruption gained and corruption lost relative to XP gained. And then counterbalance that against the common distance between any given mob and the nearest node center.

And if the design of how the bounties get given out (if I understand it correctly that is) remains the same, then BHs would have to get their targets at a tavern or a certain NPC only in a lvl4 military node. At which point there's definitely some amount of distance that a BH would have to travel from said tavern/npc to the PKer. And the time of that travel would have to determine how quickly the PKer can remove their corruption through grind.

Military NPCs could give immediate info about any new PKer and might even make announcements in "BH chat" about a new PKer, so anyone in the vicinity of the NPC could quickly get the bounty from them and try to catch the PKer before they remove their corruption. Tavern-based bounties could maybe only work if the PKer was above some corruption threshold (or a PK count one), because taverns would most likely be closer to the killer.

And we could have that only a BH kill would drop the victims resources rather than just any kill, which imo would strengthen the BHs' reputation amongst the people and would decrease the amount of greens just attacking the Red (because some maniacs consider that a bad thing). And again though, the BH still gotta kill the PKer in order to get the resources, which is never assured.

This is just the surface-lvl first-thought kind of design, I'm sure it could be refined into something much better or there might even be able a better way to satisfy all 3 sides of this equation.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

I'm not about to be a BH and kill a PvPer who might be my hard counter to appease a green who refused to fight. It would purely be for the thrill and challenge - after all, a red player will be a guaranteed pvp player.

The corruption system already protects green players. I have no need to body guard or rob the rich to feed the poor.

It's not about appeasement, it's about the system itself promoting help to others rather than just being a basic bitch system that only promotes killing. You still get the thrill and you still get to fight and even compete against other BHs for the kill, but on top of all that you also get to help others.

Songcaller

I don't mind helping others but you need to realise someone has turned red because someone else didn't turn purple.

In the Grand scheme of things, I don't feel a free loader should be helped. It means a lot of time drain when there will never be recompense.

I realise there are bounty rewards but that is par for the course. I don't see the need to pass off any loot back to a free loader.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

I don't mind helping others but you need to realise someone has turned red because someone else didn't turn purple.

In the Grand scheme of things, I don't feel a free loader should be helped. It means a lot of time drain when there will never be recompense.

I realise there are bounty rewards but that is par for the course. I don't see the need to pass off any loot back to a free loader.

And I addressed this before too. All it takes to justify what I'm suggesting is saying in lore that BHs can only operate because those "freeloaders" pay your "salaries". And if you don't return their stuff - you're a shitty BH who doesn't deserve the rewards related to that job.

It's not like only BHs can kill a red. I'm sure that green victims will just yell in chat "there's a Red in this location", so if you're just running somewhere close as a random dude - you're always free to just go kill the Red and get all the loot for yourself.

But a "bounty" system supposes that someone's paying for that bounty. And the game could just say that the greens are the ones doing that. And it is kinda already the case. Taxes collected from those "freeloaders" support the whole system, so in a way what I'm saying is already the case.

Songcaller

I've said many times for 'Greens to kill reds' and many times I've been lambasted for it. I call these players free loaders because they simply will not pvp under any circumstance.

Sure, they will pay taxes and probably create the best armour but we will also pay taxes and create the best armour.

I'm not sure how often a bounty hunter will be required but the game is long term in all hopes. Doesn't matter if I complete bounty hunter tree in one year or ten years really.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

Sure, they will pay taxes and probably create the best armour but we will also pay taxes and create the best armour.

Yeah, except there will definitely be way more of those greens than the pvpers and most definitely more than of the BHs. So, if anything, we're the freeloaders. We need them to support the game in a big enough quantity so that we could just go kill each other for fun. Which is why I think that a single mechanic that supports them would be nice.

And again, I'm talking about this mechanic in the context of more frequent PKs, so even those greens do just never fight - they'll still die somewhat often.

Songcaller

They have systems that support them. We will protect caravans, nodes, ships, guild halls and whatever else those players will require help with.

I do not see why they should also get all the resources back after a bounty hunter has earned those resources.

There's meant to be resources sinks and pvp is a big one.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

They have systems that support them. We will protect caravans, nodes, ships, guild halls and whatever else those players will require help with.

Pretty much all of those are just pvp encounters, which makes them the main pvp content of the game, so while, yes, they do support greens in a way, they're mainly pvpers' domain.

Neurath wrote: »

I do not see why they should also get all the resources back after a bounty hunter has earned those resources.

The only ones who "earned" them are the greens themselves. The red then stole them through a forced kill and the BH then used that forced kill for their own benefit (double btw, if you don't return the resources).

That's like saying "well I stole this money from another robber, so I definitely earned this money". Though if you do think that, well then we just have differing povs (as if this wasn't already apparent

)

Neurath wrote: »

There's meant to be resources sinks and pvp is a big one.

The only resource sink involved in a kill of a player is the gear decay, because you'll need to use mats to repair it, instead of using those mats for another craft. The loot itself won't be sunk (unless we're talking caravans). It's just a shift of possession.

Songcaller

The main resource sink is the gold from the masses of tokens that are dropped. Also, I wouldn't take 100% from the corrupted, just 4 x. Whatever 4 x means.

You claim all the pvp encounters should be done by pvpers for free but forget that corruption is also a pvp encounter which means the green should pvp and not create reds in the first place.

We are at an impass because I see Ashes as a PvX game and you see Ashes as a PvE predominate sandbox. Ultimately, the green does not deserve to be handed the gold back or any other resources.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

The main resource sink is the gold from the masses of tokens that are dropped. Also, I wouldn't take 100% from the corrupted, just 4 x. Whatever 4 x means.

Say the red loots 10 branches off a green who had 20 (assuming 50% drop rates). The red would now have to drop 40 branches which they don't have, so they just drop the 10 that they got from the green.

If we get much lower drop rates, then I definitely want way more PKing in the game, cause the price for it would be utterly negligible for the green.

Neurath wrote: »

You claim all the pvp encounters should be done by pvpers for free but forget that corruption is also a pvp encounter which means the green should pvp and not create reds in the first place.

That's the difference in our definitions of pvp. For me, pvp is two people fighting each other. And PKing is one dude hitting a wall until it crumbles. Yes, effectively that wall is a player, but there's no reciprocation, so I personally don't see that as "pvp". Which is exactly why one doesn't give you corruption, while the other does.

Neurath wrote: »

We are at an impass because I see Ashes as a PvX game and you see Ashes as a PvE predominate sandbox. Ultimately, the green does not deserve to be handed the gold back or any other resources.

Nah, I see it as a pvx game too. I just want all part of that pvx to be as enjoyable as possible to everyone involved. I want PKers to be able to kill quite a few people a day w/o deleting their character in the process. I want pvers to enjoy the game despite of frequent PKs. And I want BHs to be the pvpers who not only benefit from killing reds, but also help the pvers enjoy the game. Ya know, the full circle.

And obviously on top of that there's all kinds of opt-in pvp events/locations in the game.

Songcaller

It's not a full circle though. Bounty Hunters might do nothing else but bounty hunt. Thus, bounty hunting might be their only source of extra income.

The green has no right to take what they haven't earned. Also, how would a bounty hunter even know who the victims are if there is random respawns and a corrupted player has killed mules instead of players?

In my mind, unless it is banked it is not yet owned. In my eyes a player would perhaps turn purple in the next confrontation but in your scenario there would be corruption factories because the green would have lost nothing.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

They have systems that support them. We will protect caravans, nodes, ships, guild halls and whatever else those players will require help with.

Pretty much all of those are just pvp encounters, which makes them the main pvp content of the game, so while, yes, they do support greens in a way, they're mainly pvpers' domain.

Neurath wrote: »

I do not see why they should also get all the resources back after a bounty hunter has earned those resources.

The only ones who "earned" them are the greens themselves. The red then stole them through a forced kill and the BH then used that forced kill for their own benefit (double btw, if you don't return the resources).

That's like saying "well I stole this money from another robber, so I definitely earned this money". Though if you do think that, well then we just have differing povs (as if this wasn't already apparent )

Neurath wrote: »

There's meant to be resources sinks and pvp is a big one.

The only resource sink involved in a kill of a player is the gear decay, because you'll need to use mats to repair it, instead of using those mats for another craft. The loot itself won't be sunk (unless we're talking caravans). It's just a shift of possession.

There are ways to make sure systems arent parasitic in nature.

Such as plunder being flagged as such on a timer and makes it so in the event of a PK, the Corrupted just can't go and mule it over to another character for safe keeping.

Then after a while, a BH kills the Corrupted and a portion of that returns to the Greens who opted not to partake in PvP.

Makes the systems complete.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

It's not a full circle though. Bounty Hunters might do nothing else but bounty hunt. Thus, bounty hunting might be their only source of extra income.

The green has no right to take what they haven't earned. Also, how would a bounty hunter even know who the victims are if there is random respawns and a corrupted player has killed mules instead of players?

In my mind, unless it is banked it is not yet owned. In my eyes a player would perhaps turn purple in the next confrontation but in your scenario there would be corruption factories because the green would have lost nothing.

Well Solvryn pretty much explained what I was about to say, because I've described my suggestion before in other threads.

The loot would be marked with the victim's name and would be returned to the green through the BH system. All the BH would have to do is to kill the PKer and give the marked loot to an NPC at a node. Btw, the PKer would still drop their own loot too and obviously that remains with the BH. All I want is to only the victim's stuff to be returned to them.

As for the factories, yes there'd be more corruption, because people would kill more readily. But the scale of those factories can just be balanced through the PK counter removal costs (both money and time).

And as I discussed here before, the resources in your storage are just as yours as the ones in your inventory. Mainly because the stuff in your storage can be taken through a siege, so how would it be any different from just someone killing you directly and taking it (well outside of the obvious cost of the siege itself). This is the main reason for me seeing resources being "someone's" as soon as those resources are acquired.

But, as a weaker point of my argument, I mainly want those resources to be marked only after a PK has occurred and not if the victim fought back. Mainly because tying named loots into the bigger pvp systems could lead to other unneeded complexities, due to the very fact I mentioned (stuff will be looted during sieges).

Songcaller

I was more focused on the tokens than the resources. Death is the only way tokens can be lost because gold can not drop and gold can not be taken in a siege. You've fixated on resources rather than the tokens but resources are used differently to gold.

In your system the bounty hunter would have to retrieve the resources for the green player, the green player would have lost nothing and then the bounty hunter would have to buy those resources from the green player for repairs.

I do not see how such a system is fair at all. Why should a none pvx player be given so much in reward for no pvp whatsoever?

Solvryn

Neurath wrote: »

I was more focused on the tokens than the resources. Death is the only way tokens can be lost because gold can not drop and gold can not be taken in a siege. You've fixated on resources rather than the tokens but resources are used differently to gold.

In your system the bounty hunter would have to retrieve the resources for the green player, the green player would have lost nothing and then the bounty hunter would have to buy those resources from the green player for repairs.

I do not see how such a system is fair at all. Why should a none pvx player be given so much in reward for no pvp whatsoever?

I think you're forgetting the factor that a Logistics person in their guild just went out and farmed a shit ton of material for their guild and was PK'd.

A portion of that returned to them fulfilled the "Bounty" requirement in order to deter players, it also adds Justice and purpose to the Military nodes.

Not to mention, Corrupted will begin to drop their loot, so its not like a Bounty Hunter is walking away with nothing, they're fulfilling "The Bounty" put on that Corrupt players head instead of just being a PKer themselves and anti-Pking.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

I was more focused on the tokens than the resources. Death is the only way tokens can be lost because gold can not drop and gold can not be taken in a siege. You've fixated on resources rather than the tokens but resources are used differently to gold.

In your system the bounty hunter would have to retrieve the resources for the green player, the green player would have lost nothing and then the bounty hunter would have to buy those resources from the green player for repairs.

Do you mean certificates? Cause I include those in the "resources". Just anything that drops from a person is their resource. I should've made that more clear.

The loss for the green player is time out of his preferred content. Especially if that green was farming mobs in a lucrative (at least relative to the green themselves) location. That green player might've lost their farming location because they vacated it through death and now they might have to lose even more time because they need to move to a whole different location.

The BH not only partook in their preferred content (that is the pvp), but also got rewarded for doing so. The reward being anything else that dropped from the PKer and the system-based reward that they'll get for successfully hunting that PKer.

And the PKer obviously got to kill a defenseless victim and could've potentially even gotten away, if they were good enough (though I have a separate suggestion for these situations, but that's beside the point rn).

Neurath wrote: »

I do not see how such a system is fair at all. Why should a none pvx player be given so much in reward for no pvp whatsoever?

And what about the PKer? He literally did fuckall in terms of farming mobs, but he potentially got the rewards for it. Hell, he might've gotten multiple hours worth of pve rewards for literally hitting a wall for a minute. How is that fair?

And the BH not only gets rewarded for only doing pvp, but they could potentially get the PKer's gear, which could amount to literal weeks worth of work of several people across several content mediums. Also for just killing a single dude. How in the hell is that any fair?

You seem to really dislike any pvers. And while I do also want everyone to be the ultimate pvxer who pves as much as they pvp - that's a very unreasonable ask of the majority population of the mmo genre. Pvers (and obviously pure artisans) will most likely be the ones producing all the gear and food and potions and whatever else you'd use in your day-to-day gameplay for the pvpers, who will most likely just serve as mercs or just participate in pvp events most of the time. So saying that pvers are all freeloaders, just because they decline to fight back when they're already preoccupied with other content (that they prefer more than the pvp), seems quite unreasonable to me.

Songcaller

The game does not need to cater to such people. Where is the risk to someone who can turn someone corrupted and loses nothing in return?

If a dude is farming the dude should be in a group. I have no pity for money bags who walk alone in a pvx world. Bounty Hunters are pvp players and not care bears for green players.

In my view a guild who allows guild resources to go around unprotected deserve to lose the resources. Same for the merchants and crafters who venture out alone.

The fact remains the gatherers take the risks and I would be a gatherer too. Does that mean I'll be on my tod? No. I'd be with my friends or my guild. It's not wise to keep molly coddling those players who want to be pve only and not pvx.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

The game does not need to cater to such people. Where is the risk to someone who can turn someone corrupted and loses nothing in return?

If a dude is farming the dude should be in a group. I have no pity for money bags who walk alone in a pvx world. Bounty Hunters are pvp players and not care bears for green players.

In my view a guild who allows guild resources to go around unprotected deserve to lose the resources. Same for the merchants and crafters who venture out alone.

The fact remains the gatherers take the risks and I would be a gatherer too. Does that mean I'll be on my tod? No. I'd be with my friends or my guild. It's not wise to keep molly coddling those players who want to be pve only and not pvx.

Got it.

Hope this kind of approach doesn't destroy the game in the long run.

Child Item