Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
NO PVP on the Freehold Please!
horendis Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha One
Steven mentioned that only your house will be safe from PVP on the Freehold. I believe the Whole Freehold should be a safe haven. I don't want to be attacked while I'm harvesting my crops, only to lose them in my front yard. Processing Resources, Animal Husbandry, Player Stores, Shrines, Fish Pond Production and Bard Entertainment Halls should not be interrupted by PVP. I don't want players waiting outside my door blocking me from harvesting my crops or interrupting my genetic manipulation of the latest mount that I just acquired. Please expand the SAFE AREA to the WHOLE FREEHOLD. Thanks.
Come back to your senses and realized this works both ways, you can attack others too when they are dancing around their flowers in their gardens.
If people are in the open, they should be attacked.
What Tuco Salamanca would say?
You can also bait people like that... pretend you are a little carebear picking flowers, minding your own business, when the evil men come then ambush them.
It prevents people setting up their own personal PvP safe zone in the middle of no where.
Imagine I attack you, and we fight for a bit. You are probably better at PvP than I am, so are winning. All of a sudden though, your attacks give you an error message that you cant attack me any more - because my freehold is right here, I just havent put any buildings or anything on it so you didnt realise it was a freehold.
Clearly, that is stupid.
Yet that was not only possible, but viable as a way of setting up a virtu barricade around some resource spawns or other points of interest.
With this change, not only will you now see the building I am required to have in order to have a PvP free zone, but I would presumably need to open the door as well (an act which Intrepid could easily require you to be out of combat for).
Not only is this a good change, it was ide tidied by the community as a needed change about 4 years ago.
Yeah, dont you hate it when carebears demand fewer areas to be safe from PvP!
Either you dont understand what this change is, or you dont understand what a carebear is.
Also, maybe you can keep your doors open and you don't really care about who goes inside. At which point your argument of "here you can hit me and here you can't" doesn't work, because you can do the same thing with your house instead of the whole freehold (well, in context of that tall fence).
The only thing this change brings is PKers killing random farmers and mount husbanders. I can already see people making alts (even super lowbie ones) and just going around killing people on their freeholds.
This literally makes the game worse, while only addressing a single small abuse of the system that could've just been prevented by requiring a damn fence (which might already be the case).
This, or perhaps to enter a freehold you have to be out of combat.
Character tall fence would need to prevent gliding mounts as well
I dont see this happening - unless I missed a comment about corruption not applying to PvP on freeholds.
I mean, people are already complaining that corruption based PvP wont happen as things stand. Attacking someone on their freehold is the same as this, just without the prospect of being able to take over what ever it is they are farming - meaning it will happen even less.
And while we indeed dont know what will be required on a freehold, we should assume that it is fully customizable until we are told otherwise.
Fully customizable would mean not needing to put up a fence.
And people are way more likely to afk around their freehold and also have valuable mats on their character, because they'd be using them around their freehold. Obviously people can just run back into their house if they're not afk, but then the PKer is preventing the player from enjoying their non-pvp gameplay.
And while pvping someone around gatherables or mobs would be more understandable for people (considering it's an owpvp game), getting attacked literally on your land, while participating in the most solo-friendly content in the game, would feel really fucking bad.
I'd imagine that majority of anti-pvp players would rather have a fence around their freehold than get attacked randomly on it.
I mean, if you afk, be in your house. This isnt much of a reason at all.
You have no real reason to have mats on you outside on your freehold - other than those you just harvested. Keep your crafting stations inside.
Since you are right by your bulk storage, you can just offload your mats as you are harvesting. You really have no excuse to have much on you while on your freehold - to the point where people shouldn't expect to have much at all drop from people on their freehold.
And sure, it would suck to be killed on your freehold, but imo that is no where near as bad as being attacked while trying to take on an actual difficult top end boss with your guild. These two situations are honestly not even in the same league in terms of how much each one would suck.
First off top tier processing will happen in freeholds so top tier gatherables will be held on players character all the time outside of their actual house but on their property.
Secondly your logic is because something is worse then it doesn't matter that something else is bad? I guess if the graphics are bad it doesn't matter if the combat is bad as well!
Nikr is absolutely right, if a player is working around their freehold and gets Pk'ed because they went to get a drink during their gaming session then thats going to feel really fucking bad, should they have ran into their house, sure I guess, should they have been killed? imo no
And again, even if we assume that everyone will always afk in their house, even if they put as much stuff as possible inside their house - there'll still be things that you'll have to put outside and use outside. And now any dickhole can just prevent you from doing that content.
You have some rare plants growing? The attacker will keep your nameplate at the lowest decay state and as soon as you even touch those plants - they kill you and loot you. You have some animals that you want to tend to? Attacked and killed and prevented from doing anything. Have some processing building outside that you gotta execute an intricate action to properly use? Killed.
And I forgot the main damn point. Green deaths come with the normal penalties. All that a shitty person would need to do is just get a few alts to the same freehold location, PK the freehold owner over and over and over again until your PK alts can no longer even damage them. Your alts wouldn't have any valuable at all too, so you'd lose literally nothing, while you'd shit on a unsuspecting artisan player. And to just reinforce your shittiness, you bring a friend who'll be ready to pvp the artisan player if they ever decide to fight back against your PK alt.
This change is so fucking abusable that I can't even believe they've made it.
We have no reason at all to assume this won't be possible. If it turns out that it will be, then we ask for this to be changed. No, my logic in regards to being killed on your freehold being less bad than being killed while taking on a top end encounter was to illustrate that something sucking isn't a good argument in and of itself.
This wouldn't suck any more than if a player was out harvesting raw materials, went to get a drink and gets PK'd.
The only difference is that the player on their freehold should feel really stupid for not just spending a few seconds to go inside before getting that drink.
I fail to see why we are arguing that one person being PK'd while afk is in any way worse than one other person being PK'd while afk.
I mean, just don't harvest materials if there is someone that close to you that you think is going to attack you.
It is really unlikely that players would go to this length for profit. A single growth cycle on a freehold is not likely to be worth all of this effort.
I mean a player on a freehold literally gets to chose when to harvest the materials they have grown or raised. It isn't like open world resources where they need to get them before someone else gets them. The freehold owner can just go off and do something else at literally zero loss to themself.
Ashes is, if nothing else, a game where you can not always just assume you can do what you want, when you want. This change is 100% in line with that thinking.
Uhm ok basic logic, who the fudge cakes would implement a multi tiered processing system that exist solely indoors after designing a freehold system? I mean you are talking about a massive portion of the game existing only indoors? Plus it would remove freehold customization options! I think it is safe to assume processing will be outdoors haha
Literally any sane developer anywhere in the world. Every game I have ever played that has had housing that has been able to hold crafting equipment has been able to have it indoors.
There is literally no reason at all that this would reduce freehold customization at all, I have literally no idea at all what it is you are assuming that has led you to believe all of this.
And yes, I have said *literally* three times in this post (four times, now). That is how much I can't even fathom your perspective here. It literally (5) makes no sense to me.
Yeah there will probably be SOME processing in doors but EVEN IF they did have processing indoors which I would bet money that some processing was required to be outside that still leaves, farming, animal husbandry, etc are these not requiring mats all of the sudden?
Yeah, but with all of these things, you only need to not be attacked while harvesting and bring the materials to your storage. Someone attacking you while you are tending to your crops/animals isn't going to get anything from you.
As I have said in the past few posts, the owner of the freehold literally has 100% control over this. They can simply opt to not harvest their materials when there is a threat nearby.
For the most part, people will very quickly realize that someone on their own freehold (or even near it) is likely to have basically no materials on them, as they are right beside their own bulk storage. People will VERY quickly learn that this is not the time to attack players for profit.
I mean, imagine you are a train robber and you are going to rob, well, a train full of money. Do you attack it when it is full, or when it is empty? For the most part, players on their freehold will be empty, so anyone looking to attack someone for profit is going to be hanging out around resources where players will want to load up their inventory and head back to their storage, not around people that can gather two or three things and then empty it in to their storage.
Quite honestly, all people need to do is apply some logic to the situation. Work out what both sides will do given the systems as we know them. You aren't going to sit on your freehold, right next to your storage, with a full inventory.
If you know a player is able to do that, do you have any actual motivation to attack them and risk corruption for potentially a single resource of the type they are harvesting?
If you're fine with this, then I'm sure you'll be fine with a guild just standing between you and a boss. Just don't farm the boss, ez.
It's not even about profit, it's about fucking someone over and this exact change allows people who'd want to fuck others over to do so super easily. I've played with and against people that spent weeks leveling their PK alts just to fuck over people at higher lvls. And then spent days getting out of the karma hole that they dug.
It's all about preventing gameplay. And like I said, while doing that in more of a pvx setting would be more understandable - doing that in the most casual and non-pvx gameplay would just leak all those casuals out of the game. Which would probably lead to a ton of complaints and will require Intrepid to hunt down all those PKers and ban them for "harassment".
Except this whole fucking mess could be avoided with a single fence.
Oh, I'm all for "player vs player influence", but after all the damn enharshenings of the corruption system "to limit PKing as much as possible" they make a change that will most definitely lead to more PKing. And what's worse, it's gonna be against the people that Intrepid wants to suffer the least. I consider this assbackwards.
Guess we'll just disagree on that point until more details about freeholds is released. I'll laugh my ass off if we'll have to put up a fence after all
So when people are completing tasks for animal husbandry they will be walking around without any valuables? Also doesn't it just sound immersive when you think about getting attacked and using your movement ability to dash into your freehold! That sounds so fun and immersive! I would much rather just have a weird gate around my freehold that both signifies where my land starts and ends as well as gives me safety, include a requirement that no red or purple player may enter the freehold area and boom, now you have a nice immersive area that allows mega casuals, casuals, semi hardcore and hardcore players alike a small safe area to relax and not think about PVP for 5 seconds.
That seems to me like it would be more of an annoyance to me than to them.
If someone tried to mess with me by attempting this, you had better believe I would mess with them right back. Given that I have teh safe zone (even if only inside), you had better believe I Would win this particular battle.
PvP is - by actual definition - preventing gameplay.
If I want to do a thing, and you want to fight me, we are fighting. You prevented me from doing the thing I wanted to do, and I have no say at all about that.
As an argument, this statement is either a non-starter, or an argument against open PvP in it's entirety. It can not be used as an argument against this change.
It really won't.
The only time you can say people will even attack someone on their freehold is if they are trying to mess with them. There is absolutely no profit to be had by attacking people right beside their storage.
If you are trying to mess with someone, as I said above, you don't do it right next to that persons own personal safe zone. You will fail at messing with someone if you do that.
That said, if you are planning on messing with someone, you will mess with that person with or without this change.
Unless you consider carrots, water and fertilizer to be "valuables".
Immersion is never a good argument for game systems and mechanics.
That said, imagine I am trying to mug you. You run, and eventually make it to your quarter acre section. Am I supposed to just stop trying to mug you at that point? If you have a fence, I am just going to jump it and continue to attempt the mugging.
However, if you get inside, I am unlikely to carry on at that point.
So yeah, immersion isn't an argument here. If we were to argue for the most immersive option, it would be that you are safe inside.
Also, your suggestion would then result in the game having hundreds of large squares of land all fenced off with 6 foot fences. That would be horrible.