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.

Should Open World PvP be level restricted - to a degree?

2»

Comments

  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I normally make twinks for instance PvP brackets because they are a really fun dynamic. But in ashes I would also make one to clear low level bots and to help newbies. And if it gets exploited I would clear out low level clearcutter gatherers trying to clear out a zones resources.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Gui10Gui10 Member
    Liniker wrote: »
    The only restriction I'd like to see is not being able to flag or be killed by other players until you either hit level 5 or play for 20 hours, there's no point in PKing so early on and it's easy to just delete your char and make a new one if you want to troll,

    the 20h thing is to make sure people don't make alts bellow level 5 so they won't get killed

    @Vaknar hope you saw this post!
  • GalaturcGalaturc Member, Alpha Two
    Steve has mentioned that he will take every measure to not let this game be a pk friendly gang-fest but rather emphasized the notion of risk vs reward. In Alpha 2, we will all test the appropriate amount of corruption penalties for going the pk route. For all we know, after exhaustive testing, the penalty for killing a neutral player may be as harsh as a criminal act in real life... in that, corruption may impact the player so much that they will very seldom commit to killing a neutral player. By all means, let players commit crimes... As long as the penalties they will face are appropriate deterrents we rarely ever witness them, especially in bigger/safer nodes.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    By all means, let players commit crimes... As long as the penalties they will face are appropriate deterrents we rarely ever witness them, especially in bigger/safer nodes.

    What would you consider appropriate?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LinikerLiniker Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Vaknar wrote: »
    As some have pointed out, it'll be interesting to see player behaviors during Alpha Two testing! ^_^

    @Vaknar I hope the Intrepid team take in consideration that your Alpha 2 backers won't exactly represent "normal" player behaviour.

    People that pay +250$ to test a game years before launch probably consist of dedicated players that tends to follow the rules.

    Making all the decisions based on data gathered from your fans, instead of actual players might be an issue, we'll see.
    img]
    Recrutamento aberto - Nosso Site: Clique aqui
  • VaknarVaknar Member, Staff
    Liniker wrote: »
    Vaknar wrote: »
    As some have pointed out, it'll be interesting to see player behaviors during Alpha Two testing! ^_^

    @Vaknar I hope the Intrepid team take in consideration that your Alpha 2 backers won't exactly represent "normal" player behaviour.

    People that pay +250$ to test a game years before launch probably consist of dedicated players that tends to follow the rules.

    Making all the decisions based on data gathered from your fans, instead of actual players might be an issue, we'll see.

    There are many, many years of industry experience at Intrepid Studios. You can rest assured that things like this need not be worried about :)
    community_management.gif
  • GalaturcGalaturc Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    What would you consider appropriate?
    Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.

    To touch briefly back to the safe vs unsafe nodes... The current corruption system allows an ecosystem where players and guilds can contribute to the safety of a node where pk'ing is rare due to active hunting for pk's committing crimes in their nodes. There will be nodes that are assumed to be safe because local blue guilds provide extra protection to visitors and traders so their nodes are more prosperous. Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.
    If the risk outweighs the reward so greatly that there's no point in even taking said risk - you have a bad "risk vs reward" system.
    Galaturc wrote: »
    Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.
    Except I'm 99% sure that there won't be any "red guilds" in the game if the corruption is tuned to deter people from PKing as much as some people want. If even a solo player is afraid to PK someone then how can a guild support itself if their members are constantly hunted, are constantly at shitty pvp stats, and are somewhere at lvl20 pve power after they've removed their corruption? Oh, and their PK counts are through the roof so even a single kill will get them right back to that super low power lvl.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    What would you consider appropriate?
    Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.

    To touch briefly back to the safe vs unsafe nodes... The current corruption system allows an ecosystem where players and guilds can contribute to the safety of a node where pk'ing is rare due to active hunting for pk's committing crimes in their nodes. There will be nodes that are assumed to be safe because local blue guilds provide extra protection to visitors and traders so their nodes are more prosperous. Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.

    The goal isn't to deter PKing, it's to deter griefing. PKing someone a couple times and moving on isn't griefing. What you suggest leaves no risk for going out to gather resources or participate in PVE. In order for this game to be PVX there must be a balance of risks for both PvP and PvE when participating in either, and incorpating both together as much as possible.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • GalaturcGalaturc Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 2023
    NiKr wrote: »
    Except I'm 99% sure that there won't be any "red guilds" in the game if the corruption is tuned to deter people from PKing as much as some people want.

    I disagree, I think the majority (including myself) desires a corruption system where pk'ing and red guilds exist and grieving other players is actively deterred. This is a process of balancing and Intrepid has the right direction and principles atm. We will all have to wait and see the feedback of our community during alpha 2, beta, and even after release, and see how Intrepid plays with their corruption penalty gauges. I expect there will be gradual adjustments as new players join our community.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    The goal isn't to deter PKing, it's to deter griefing. PKing someone a couple times and moving on isn't griefing.

    Agreed.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    What you suggest leaves no risk for going out to gather resources or participate in PVE. In order for this game to be PVX there must be a balance of risks for both PvP and PvE when participating in either, and incorpating both together as much as possible.

    I am not proposing to remove the ability to pk or create a pk guild. For instance, this system provides a scenario where a guild may decide to hunt down "trespassers" in a node, where players who "assume ownership" to a node or a particular resource in a node take the risk to kill non-combatant players who are also taking the risk of being hunted by trying to gather the rare resource they're after.

    The ultimate goal should deter from griefing and the system with appropriate deterrence should allow players the freedom to self-regulate by allowing instances of pk'ing, raids, and defense in nodes.

    Putting it into numbers based on a 10k server, I'd say, about 90% of the player community will never take part in world PvP outside caravan raids, arenas, Guild vs Guild, and other instanced activities. If a player is within one of those PvP guilds that I assume will make less than 10% of the player community who has an interest in defending free resources for their own guild within a node, and deter other players from access, only a small number of those players should take the risk for going red and hunt down other players trespassing.

    Any player should be able to kill another non-combatant player, but the system should strongly deter this at such a level that the player has a strong motive and the backing of a strong guild present within the node.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    I disagree, I think the majority (including myself) desires a corruption system where pk'ing and red guilds exist and grieving other players is actively deterred. This is a process of balancing and Intrepid has the right direction and principles atm. We will all have to wait and see the feedback of our community during alpha 2, beta, and even after release, and see how Intrepid plays with their corruption penalty gauges. I expect there will be gradual adjustments as new players join our community.
    I think we have different definitions of "a red guild". To me it means a guild whose players PK pretty much 99% of anyone they see, like this.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqInYTpzsU

    Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with in that quote.
  • GalaturcGalaturc Member, Alpha Two
    edited January 2023
    NiKr wrote: »
    Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with in that quote.

    Yes, "a red guild" may have different definitions than the one you assume. It could be a pk guild coordinating with a regular guild, tasked with only deterring non-combatant players from gathering in a node. It could be a pirate guild protecting an island node and its surrounding sea, reserving all its resources for itself. It could also be the red guild you mentioned, attacking pretty much 99% of anyone they see, but I doubt they would survive long in a well-protected node. Eventually, they'd be pushed toward the edges of the map, and hunted down... that's why I think an island node could be a good base for such a guild with all members red and with a strong naval presence. A red guild could also purely aim to grieve other players to no end and risk a ban.

    In my opinion, ideally, many red guilds will be local, they will always need the backing and control of a base node, and they will have certain motives that most other players will be aware of. The pk activity should not be random or widespread in Verra, and the corruption system should effectively deter and reduce it to rare occurrences in safe and protected nodes. I welcome dangerous nodes with red guilds well known to traders and other players so they avoid them.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    Yes, "a red guild" may have different definitions than the one you assume. It could be a pk guild coordinating with a regular guild, tasked with only deterring non-combatant players from gathering in a node. It could be a pirate guild protecting an island node and its surrounding sea, reserving all its resources for itself. It could also be the red guild you mentioned, attacking pretty much 99% of anyone they see, but I doubt they would survive long in a well-protected node. Eventually, they'd be pushed toward the edges of the map, and hunted down... that's why I think an island node could be a good base for such a guild with all members red and with a strong naval presence. A red guild could also purely aim to grieve other players to no end and risk a ban.

    In my opinion, ideally, many red guilds will be local, they will always need the backing and control of a base node, and they will have certain motives that most other players will be aware of. The pk activity should not be random or widespread in Verra, and the corruption system should effectively deter and reduce it to rare occurrences in safe and protected nodes. I welcome dangerous nodes with red guilds well known to traders and other players so they avoid them.
    Again though, I don't really see how a guild full of red players can survive for anything longer than a day or two (if that). Any character that has gear better than utter trash would become a juicy piñata for any other player. A "red guild" suggests that its members have good enough gear to PK anyone, or they're running around in PKing groups, at which point it's bordering on griefing.

    If a guild is known for being red and known for operating in a certain node - pretty much any guild even remotely close to their location will constantly be on the hunt for those red players. They'll have a single BH to know the location of the reds, but they'll be attacking with their greens, so that it's way easier to kill the reds. And then those red guilds will just lose a shitton of time and money on trying to get back to their full powerlvl. And with each PK they'll just keep making it worse for themselves.

    Also, seas won't have corruption, so if some group of people want to protect an island (I'd assume it's gonna have something valuable to protect?) - they can just attack any nearing ship, instead of risking corruption for no reason.

    This is why I'm saying that I'm sure there's gonna be no red guilds, especially if the corruption is tuned harshly enough to deter corruption to the point you're describing. The risk is too assured and too great to attempt it.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Galaturc wrote: »
    ... the system should strongly deter this at such a level that the player has a strong motive and the backing of a strong guild present within the node.

    I disagree, there should be a risk for attacking another player but the level of that risk via corruption should only be increased due to level disparity or griefing that player. Otherwise, initial corruption should be a simple bet of "is this player worth risking 30mins of being pinged on the map and put at a disadvantage for that time?"
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • GalaturcGalaturc Member, Alpha Two
    We can disagree all day long. At the end of the day, Intrepid will decide on the appropriate corruption and penalties pks will receive based on the amount of lash back from the player community. They will assess how often the players are being grieved and how often killing a non-combatant player is fair game. I am fairly certain that an appropriate amount of corruption and a balanced penalty system will allow local variation of criminal activity. In that, the existence of pk activity will be highly localized where some nodes will be fairly safe and some nodes will be more dangerous based on the players and guilds inhabiting these nodes, as well as due to their geographical attributes.

    To recap my opinion: the appropriate amount of pk instances should be rare but not inexistent in most prosperous nodes as these nodes will be protected by highly invested guild members and citizens. In comparison, the pk instances should be fairly common (but with a healthy measure of deterrence for grieving) in some far edges of Verra, in undeveloped nodes under the control of players and guilds who care little to less about their trade or economy but rely solely on piracy and raiding of other nearby players or ships in neighboring nodes.

    Perhaps, in each server, the location of safe versus dangerous nodes will vary... More likely, there will be geographically advantageous nodes that are well-situated for trade and prosperity, and therefore, corrupt players will be hunted endlessly in these regions... and then, some other nodes better situated for free-for-all activity. Given how the open sea is currently free-for-all, I predict that the island nodes will host more dangerous players and guilds.
  • VillefortVillefort Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    A shitty PKer will still be able to kill quite a few players, but then they'll have such a high PK count across their whole account that any single PK will push them below pvping strength and then make them spend a shitton of time trying to remove that counter, which is the goal of the corruption system - lessen the amount of PKing happening in the game, be that through sheer deterrent or through resulting punishment.

    Ehhh I don't think this is a good idea. That approach seems over the top controlling of a player's experience.
    I could see myself having 1 char that follows the rules and is an upstanding citizen....and another char that has a bounty on his head.

    I don't see why one character's activities have to be linked to the other...
    I doubt people would advocate for good things being account-wide...why should bad things?
    Liniker wrote: »
    People that pay +250$ to test a game years before launch probably consist of dedicated players that tends to follow the rules.

    follow the rules....? with pvp...? aren't we supposed to be testing? Part of testing is finding vulnerabilities and ways to break it ;)

  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Villefort wrote: »
    Ehhh I don't think this is a good idea. That approach seems over the top controlling of a player's experience.
    I could see myself having 1 char that follows the rules and is an upstanding citizen....and another char that has a bounty on his head.
    But if you only have one char that goes on PKing sprees - you wouldn't care that his exploits influence your "good" char. There'd be no crossover. But those who like to PK overall, will definitely try having a character that PKs everyone they see, while their main may only PK when it truly needs it. But if that need outweigh the "fun" of ruining others' gameplay - that player would PK less, which is the point of the corruption system.
    Villefort wrote: »
    I don't see why one character's activities have to be linked to the other...
    I doubt people would advocate for good things being account-wide...why should bad things?
    Quite a fair bit of people advocated for guild membership being account-wide. We also don't know whether citizenship and freeholds will be account-wide or not, and I'd imagine people would prefer not to pay x8 (or more) taxes on their freehold, nor would they want to buy that many freeholds in the first place.

    Intrepid could just say "your account is your family, so your in-game reputation spills over to other chars".
Sign In or Register to comment.