People get weird feelings when they die when they think they weren't supposed to die, they can't cope with dying where they think they weren't supposed to die
This is why they never leave a game for dying 10-20 times in a dungeon, they think it is ok dying there, as if it was the right place for dying and in those conditions
Because in most games those mobs are scripted, so it always comes down purely to your own skill and you learning the fight. Pvp is never predictable (outside of top lvl arena) and quite often super unfair because you're fighting against bigger forces or a much stronger foe who just wants to shit on weaker people.
Going into a dungeon to kill mobs is also completely planned, while dying to a PKer while you're gathering plants is never planned, which is way more annoying to the victim.
This is why I want to minimize the impact on greens, while still allow PKers to kill them. And the fact that greens can't be CCed will most likely lead to more good pvp, while the opposite would just remove all greens from the game which would then snowball the playerbase into amounts that can barely support the game.
I can see that and I can see way beyond this.
In PvE there's always a solid possibility of a pot of gold in the end of the rainbow, but in random PvP in the woods this is hardly the truth. This is 100% the devs fault, since devs in general aren't good players then they can't come up with anything better than what we have today
That's the reality of the times we live in, people with no creativity are dealing the cards all over the place... they suck as players and later on they suck as devs
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
In real life, animals develop instincts, so that's how they predict danger and survive... in no game this exists. It is as if this carebear is dying a hundred of times and nothing grows from all those deaths
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
People get weird feelings when they die when they think they weren't supposed to die, they can't cope with dying where they think they weren't supposed to die
This is why they never leave a game for dying 10-20 times in a dungeon, they think it is ok dying there, as if it was the right place for dying and in those conditions
And the fact that greens can't be CCed will most likely lead to more good pvp
Unless you just want to kill people that never fight back - no, it'll lead to more good pvp. If greens could be CCed, they'll never fight back because they'll get overwhelmed by CCs and attacks before they can even return a hit, so they'll never even try. But if they can respond with a CC after getting attacked - there's gonna be more people willing to fight back. This design will create more pvp situations instead of pure PKing.
Ashes aims to have a 30s-1m time to kill balancing. If your target responds to your attack with a CC and an attack, you'll literally be at equal points in the fight. While if you could CC them right after your first hit, that just means that you can make 2 or even 3 hits against them, at which point they'll never catch up so most wouldn't even try.
CCs will also have diminishing returns so, no, a green won't just stunlock you in response to your hit.
Nobody here has to worry about Strawman Carebears ruining the game. No worries about Server Queues. (Win-Win)!
You guys will do it as always all on your own. When only the most aggressive play is allowed this is what you get.
Once the comparing of fellow Human Players with either animals or NPC is done one can move on.
This Community laughing at New World while repeating the same mistakes? I guess the laughing is meant ironic?
Unless you just want to kill people that never fight back - no, it'll lead to more good pvp. If greens could be CCed, they'll never fight back because they'll get overwhelmed by CCs and attacks before they can even return a hit, so they'll never even try. But if they can respond with a CC after getting attacked - there's gonna be more people willing to fight back. This design will create more pvp situations instead of pure PKing.
Ashes aims to have a 30s-1m time to kill balancing. If your target responds to your attack with a CC and an attack, you'll literally be at equal points in the fight. While if you could CC them right after your first hit, that just means that you can make 2 or even 3 hits against them, at which point they'll never catch up so most wouldn't even try.
CCs will also have diminishing returns so, no, a green won't just stunlock you in response to your hit.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Unless you just want to kill people that never fight back - no, it'll lead to more good pvp. If greens could be CCed, they'll never fight back because they'll get overwhelmed by CCs and attacks before they can even return a hit, so they'll never even try. But if they can respond with a CC after getting attacked - there's gonna be more people willing to fight back. This design will create more pvp situations instead of pure PKing.
Yeah, I've said it a few times in this thread now.
Anyone claiming to he about PvP in their MMO rhat is against this is actually just all about PK'ing in their MMO.
It really let's peoples true colors shine through, imo.
As you point out, the simple fact is that not being able to CC greens will lead to far fewer situations where a player is attacked so fiercely before they are able to respond that they just dont bother - literally the worst outcome unless you are just a PK'er.
Anyone that wants players unwilling to fight to have an opportunity to get away will like this change, anyone wanting more actual open world PvP will like this change, and anyone wanting open PvP to be more fair will like this change.
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Are you suggesting that if something isnt 100% effective, there is no point in having it?
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Give a reason for why you should be able to CC a green, other than your desire to kill them before they could respond. Why do you need to CC a person who's not even fighting back?
Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins.
I played L2 as a pvper, so I'd attack first in 90% of interactions with other players. I'd attack others if they were passing by my farming spot, just to let them know that I'm ready to fight for it. My winrate depended on a lot of things, but I never needed a CC as my first attack because I never needed a crutch in a fight. Only weak pvpers need a CC as their very first attack. And AoC's greens would be those weak pvpers because they didn't attack first to let the other player know they mean business.
People don't leave because dying a few times, they leave because of hopelesness and grinds, it's the devs fault if this happens
Exactly, couldn't agree more!
Psssst... You forgot to log into your other account, and have ended up agreeing with yourself:
I'm curious - I dont really pay all that much attention to most posters (there are perhaps 12 of you guys I notice) - who do you think he meant to post as?
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Are you suggesting that if something isnt 100% effective, there is no point in having it?
you understand what I meant, why are you trying to distort what I said? If there is no 100% chance of control, then it makes no sense to give immunity to the greens, and I'm already tired of writing why it would be fair. If you can't read, that's your problem.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Give a reason for why you should be able to CC a green, other than your desire to kill them before they could respond. Why do you need to CC a person who's not even fighting back?
Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins.
I played L2 as a pvper, so I'd attack first in 90% of interactions with other players. I'd attack others if they were passing by my farming spot, just to let them know that I'm ready to fight for it. My winrate depended on a lot of things, but I never needed a CC as my first attack because I never needed a crutch in a fight. Only weak pvpers need a CC as their very first attack. And AoC's greens would be those weak pvpers because they didn't attack first to let the other player know they mean business.
just don't write anything more about pvp in l2. only weak pvp , crutches .... Honestly , I did a facepalm . 90% attacked by the first and no one responded with a stun? an orc would hit you in the face with a sledgehammer and you would understand what it means to start with cc
Guys, I understand your position. While you think that the pk is a universal evil, and the green flowers-players, then you will not understand everything. Green are the same pvp players or pk. It’s just that at the moment they are green, if they have an advantage in cc, then this pvp will be like this, 2 players will stand opposite each other and provoke an attack, whoever starts attacking first will most likely lose, and don’t need to write nonsense about the fact that cc is for the weak. But if the green one can't do cc to the purple player, then..... I already wrote what will happen.... I'm tired of writing the same thing several times. I'm sorry, there is no point in explaining anything to you. have a good day
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Are you suggesting that if something isnt 100% effective, there is no point in having it?
you understand what I meant, why are you trying to distort what I said? If there is no 100% chance of control, then it makes no sense to give immunity to the greens, and I'm already tired of writing why it would be fair. If you can't read, that's your problem.
No, I don't understand what you mean.
It makes no sense to say that it is perfectly fine for CC to be applicable to players if there is only a 99% change to hit, but not ok if there is 100% chance.
Same with saying it is ok with a 98% chance but not a 99% chance. This can go on and on.
The only way this thought process is able to make sense is if you say "it is ok if CC is applicable to greens if CC is so unreliable that players wouldn't want to open a fight with it".
Basically, if CC is good enough for players to consider opening a fight with it, then it shouldn't be applicable to greens. It is only if CC is so ineffective over all that it is appropriate for it to be applicable to greens. At this point though, CC would be so weak that there is no point in having it at all.
People don't leave because dying a few times, they leave because of hopelesness and grinds, it's the devs fault if this happens
Exactly, couldn't agree more!
Psssst... You forgot to log into your other account, and have ended up agreeing with yourself:
I did that on purpose and this will be a thing from now on, it is a joke about when people forget what really matters in a discussion
So, what you are saying is that if no one else thinks what you want to talk about is important or interesting enough to talk about, you will attempt to steer the conversation back to what you want to talk about.
Seems about right for the kind of person that would open combat up with a CC.
just don't write anything more about pvp in l2. only weak pvp , crutches .... Honestly , I did a facepalm . 90% attacked by the first and no one responded with a stun? an orc would hit you in the face with a sledgehammer and you would understand what it means to start with cc
Yes, I've fought against Tyrs and Destrs who had x2-3 my hp. And my first hit brought our hp values closer. And yes, they replied with a stun, because that is exactly what you do against an attacker who hit you first. And this was fair, because they had time to retaliate rather than me unloading as much as I can while they literally do fuckall, because they're stunned or CCed in other ways.
In my 12 years of L2 experience barely anyone started a fight with a stun, because stuns usually had way lower dmg value on them, so why in hell would they start the fight with an unreliable CC (because, as you point out, they weren't 100%) when they could just do a big hit on their target.
Guys, I understand your position. While you think that the pk is a universal evil, and the green flowers-players, then you will not understand everything. Green are the same pvp players or pk. It’s just that at the moment they are green, if they have an advantage in cc, then this pvp will be like this, 2 players will stand opposite each other and provoke an attack, whoever starts attacking first will most likely lose, and don’t need to write nonsense about the fact that cc is for the weak. But if the green one can't do cc to the purple player, then..... I already wrote what will happen.... I'm tired of writing the same thing several times. I'm sorry, there is no point in explaining anything to you. have a good day
You do understand that you're contradicting yourself, right? You say that CCs won't have a 100% chance. That means that even if that green responds with a CC against an attacker, the attacker won't necessarily be CCed, so they'll still be at an advantage against the victim.
So how exactly is that a fair pvp? You keep saying "it's all about the fairness", but you're yet to properly explain how is it fair to both sides.
I pretty much accepted that Intrepid, or any actual developing company, can NOT pull a significant PvP game that empowers people, even the PvE runners should.
So, because of that I am from now on pretty much accepting an Everest of band-aids, this is better than Intrepid taking the risk of doing something good, because they would fail for sure.
In AoC there will be barely any teleporting to long distances, this was people's main escape plan among many games.. then it comes flagging... comes corruption... than many other band-aids. At the same time, there is religions in the game, but you can't do offerings to this or that deity in exchange for teleports or any kind of protection. So, early on Intrepid shot it's own foot from the beginning. The gods in AoC will be boring gods
From now on, I guess it is safer having band-aids over band-aids, because they couldn't come up with systems that let people escape gankers and other situations
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
When this green's cant be cced rule came about, did Steven/Intrepid say why this band-aid was created? What they want to achieve with this?
Steven revealed it after a video doubting the system. But as been stated previously, L2 had the same mechanic, with the only difference being CCs with an attack attribute, but we don't know whether absolutely all CCs in Ashes won't work against greens or if there'll be exceptions.
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Are you suggesting that if something isnt 100% effective, there is no point in having it?
you understand what I meant, why are you trying to distort what I said? If there is no 100% chance of control, then it makes no sense to give immunity to the greens, and I'm already tired of writing why it would be fair. If you can't read, that's your problem.
No, I don't understand what you mean.
It makes no sense to say that it is perfectly fine for CC to be applicable to players if there is only a 99% change to hit, but not ok if there is 100% chance.
Same with saying it is ok with a 98% chance but not a 99% chance. This can go on and on.
The only way this thought process is able to make sense is if you say "it is ok if CC is applicable to greens if CC is so unreliable that players wouldn't want to open a fight with it".
Basically, if CC is good enough for players to consider opening a fight with it, then it shouldn't be applicable to greens. It is only if CC is so ineffective over all that it is appropriate for it to be applicable to greens. At this point though, CC would be so weak that there is no point in having it at all.
Well, I'm sorry, I thought you were trolling me.
You are going from one extreme to another. 99% is the same as 100% there is no difference. I'm talking about chance. The chance of passing control should depend on several values. Purple has its own chances of control (for example, weapons, skill level), green has its own chances of defense cc (clothes, jewelry, passive skills, etc.). Considering all these values, you should get an average percentage of cc. It will depend on this how effective the ss will be, no one should know for sure whether it is worth starting with a stun or not. The player must evaluate his own strengths and his own build. And when the game artificially limits control skills instead of balance, it's shitty.
just don't write anything more about pvp in l2. only weak pvp , crutches .... Honestly , I did a facepalm . 90% attacked by the first and no one responded with a stun? an orc would hit you in the face with a sledgehammer and you would understand what it means to start with cc
Yes, I've fought against Tyrs and Destrs who had x2-3 my hp. And my first hit brought our hp values closer. And yes, they replied with a stun, because that is exactly what you do against an attacker who hit you first. And this was fair, because they had time to retaliate rather than me unloading as much as I can while they literally do fuckall, because they're stunned or CCed in other ways.
In my 12 years of L2 experience barely anyone started a fight with a stun, because stuns usually had way lower dmg value on them, so why in hell would they start the fight with an unreliable CC (because, as you point out, they weren't 100%) when they could just do a big hit on their target.
Guys, I understand your position. While you think that the pk is a universal evil, and the green flowers-players, then you will not understand everything. Green are the same pvp players or pk. It’s just that at the moment they are green, if they have an advantage in cc, then this pvp will be like this, 2 players will stand opposite each other and provoke an attack, whoever starts attacking first will most likely lose, and don’t need to write nonsense about the fact that cc is for the weak. But if the green one can't do cc to the purple player, then..... I already wrote what will happen.... I'm tired of writing the same thing several times. I'm sorry, there is no point in explaining anything to you. have a good day
You do understand that you're contradicting yourself, right? You say that CCs won't have a 100% chance. That means that even if that green responds with a CC against an attacker, the attacker won't necessarily be CCed, so they'll still be at an advantage against the victim.
So how exactly is that a fair pvp? You keep saying "it's all about the fairness", but you're yet to properly explain how is it fair to both sides.
Describe to me your experience of playing on the Olympus? Or tell us about the tactics of archers?
As for the cc chance, I described above, no one will get an undeserved advantage.
Oh, you use the word "victim", I wrote about the green players in the post above. Even the kindest pve player can get angry at a player who prevents him from playing or insults him in the chat, or vice versa, the pvp player is just green at the moment and is looking for a victim, and specifically provokes others to attack him first. And in this situation with such a control system, the pvp player will have an advantage over the agry pve player. Do not divide the players into black or white, we are all the same players, we all pay for the game, we all play to have fun, then tell me if there is fairness in the fact that the developers systematically limit one player, giving an advantage to others!
Describe to me your experience of playing on the Olympus? Or tell us about the tactics of archers?
Are we talking about controlled arena pvp or open world one? Cause those two things are completely different.
And as for archers, I even asked a friend of mine who has played the game as long as me and in his experience archers were the only ones who'd even try starting the fight with a stun, but even then they didn't do so every time.
As for the cc chance, I described above, no one will get an undeserved advantage.
The unfair advantage comes when the attacker has over 20% difference in hp values right from the start of the fight, before the target can even respond with anything because they were CCed w/o any prior knowledge that there was a fight coming.
Oh, you use the word "victim", I wrote about the green players in the post above.
Even the kindest pve player can get angry at a player who prevents him from playing or insults him in the chat, or vice versa, the pvp player is just green at the moment and is looking for a victim, and specifically provokes others to attack him first. And in this situation with such a control system, the pvp player will have an advantage over the agry pve player. Do not divide the players into black or white, we are all the same players, we all pay for the game, we all play to have fun, then tell me if there is fairness in the fact that the developers systematically limit one player, giving an advantage to others!
By victim I meant the person who's getting attacked, not some nebulous entity of good people or anything like that.
There's always green players and there's gonna be one who'll attack first w/o the second one knowing about that attack. If the first attacker can use CCs on the second player then they can bring that second player down in hp by 20-30% (if not more), w/o the second player doing a single damn thing in return.
I don't quite see how pvp is fair when the defender has to start at a much lower hp value than the attacker. No CCs on greens makes that more fair, because the pvp would start with the second player retaliating with a CC and bringing down the attacker's hp to roughly the same % value as their own.
Maybe you think that all CCs will last 20 seconds in Ashes, and that's why you think it's unfair? Though if you think that, it'd be even worse, because now you'd mean that you want to pretty much hit a defenseless target for 20 seconds, at which point it's just the same as PKing.
The other option is that you've literally just been talking about PKing and not PvPing. PKing is when one side just keeps hitting an unresponsive target until said target dies. PvPing is when that target responds with their own hit or CC asap. If you're talking purely about PKing - great, go PK whoever you want however much you want. The CCs still won't work, because you could try avoiding punishment for PKing with the use of CCs and most people here don't want that in the game.
But if you're talking about PvP - unequal hp values at the start of pvp (that is when the attacked person can respond) is in no way fair.
It's useless, I've already answered it all... Absolutely everything! About attacking first, about cc chances, about pk, about pvp, about ways to kill a player without becoming a pk (not cc),about green and purple players and situations. ABOUT EVERYTHING! You keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring what I write. I think our dialogue is meaningless, let's just keep everyone to their own opinion
It's useless, I've already answered it all... Absolutely everything! About attacking first, about cc chances, about pk, about pvp, about ways to kill a player without becoming a pk (not cc),about green and purple players and situations. ABOUT EVERYTHING! You keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring what I write. I think our dialogue is meaningless, let's just keep everyone to their own opinion
Yeah, my bad. I went over your messages in this thread again and saw that from the very first one you were just talking about PKing and not pvping. Yeah, PKing is made harder in Ashes, as it should be, so we have indeed been talking about different things.
It's useless, I've already answered it all... Absolutely everything! About attacking first, about cc chances, about pk, about pvp, about ways to kill a player without becoming a pk (not cc),about green and purple players and situations. ABOUT EVERYTHING! You keep saying the same thing over and over, ignoring what I write. I think our dialogue is meaningless, let's just keep everyone to their own opinion
If you look at Ashes as being a game where random PK is going to be heavily discouraged, and where people will only PvP if there is a specific reason to do so, in your mind do any of your perceived issues with this system stand?
I pretty much accepted that Intrepid, or any actual developing company, can NOT pull a significant PvP game that empowers people, even the PvE runners should.
Aha, that's where the confusion lies, maybe. Ashes isn't a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
I pretty much accepted that Intrepid, or any actual developing company, can NOT pull a significant PvP game that empowers people, even the PvE runners should.
Aha, that's where the confusion lies, maybe. Ashes isn't a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
There is no confusion at all, we know it is a PvX... but still the PvP won't be as fantastic as the node system and AoC reactive world.
Ashes will shine based on it's reactive world, not for it's PvP
I could fix AoC PvP even with Corruption and flagging systems unchanged
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
Comments
I can see that and I can see way beyond this.
In PvE there's always a solid possibility of a pot of gold in the end of the rainbow, but in random PvP in the woods this is hardly the truth. This is 100% the devs fault, since devs in general aren't good players then they can't come up with anything better than what we have today
That's the reality of the times we live in, people with no creativity are dealing the cards all over the place... they suck as players and later on they suck as devs
Ashes aims to have a 30s-1m time to kill balancing. If your target responds to your attack with a CC and an attack, you'll literally be at equal points in the fight. While if you could CC them right after your first hit, that just means that you can make 2 or even 3 hits against them, at which point they'll never catch up so most wouldn't even try.
CCs will also have diminishing returns so, no, a green won't just stunlock you in response to your hit.
You guys will do it as always all on your own. When only the most aggressive play is allowed this is what you get.
Once the comparing of fellow Human Players with either animals or NPC is done one can move on.
This Community laughing at New World while repeating the same mistakes? I guess the laughing is meant ironic?
do you forget about resistances and chances? everything that you described works only in the game will be 100% chance cc. I have mentioned them more than once. I know that you played L2, tell me how often you could stun an orc with a bow? how often could you hang anchor playing as a magician against players with jewelry? how often did you stun against players with majestic armor? Well, it's okay, now I will attack the player and wait until he turns purple, then I will sharply press the control skill button, nothing will change at all, just the scheme is now a little different xD
And that non-100% chance of CCs still benefits the first attacker, so again, the pvper/PKer will still win more fights than the green. The only reason to want CCs against greens is if you want to abuse that mechanic and kill them through mobs w/o getting corruption. You are the one who does the first hit so there's no reason for you to CC your target, because they wouldn't even know that you're about to hit them.
And if you're trying to just PK someone, Intrepid is trying to limit your ability to do that as much as possible, while encouraging the victim to fight back instead. The system is designed to encourage pvp and reduce PKing.
i already answered this, there are other ways to make a mob kill you. If the game does not have 100%, then there is no need to give invulnerability to green. Apparently you played very badly in l2, if you think that the first one to attack, then he wins. and you're right, I'm going to see all the content in the game, become a pk too, and believe me, I will become ,cc has nothing to do with it)
Yeah, I've said it a few times in this thread now.
Anyone claiming to he about PvP in their MMO rhat is against this is actually just all about PK'ing in their MMO.
It really let's peoples true colors shine through, imo.
As you point out, the simple fact is that not being able to CC greens will lead to far fewer situations where a player is attacked so fiercely before they are able to respond that they just dont bother - literally the worst outcome unless you are just a PK'er.
Anyone that wants players unwilling to fight to have an opportunity to get away will like this change, anyone wanting more actual open world PvP will like this change, and anyone wanting open PvP to be more fair will like this change.
Are you suggesting that if something isnt 100% effective, there is no point in having it?
I played L2 as a pvper, so I'd attack first in 90% of interactions with other players. I'd attack others if they were passing by my farming spot, just to let them know that I'm ready to fight for it. My winrate depended on a lot of things, but I never needed a CC as my first attack because I never needed a crutch in a fight. Only weak pvpers need a CC as their very first attack. And AoC's greens would be those weak pvpers because they didn't attack first to let the other player know they mean business.
Psssst... You forgot to log into your other account, and have ended up agreeing with yourself:
I'm curious - I dont really pay all that much attention to most posters (there are perhaps 12 of you guys I notice) - who do you think he meant to post as?
you understand what I meant, why are you trying to distort what I said? If there is no 100% chance of control, then it makes no sense to give immunity to the greens, and I'm already tired of writing why it would be fair. If you can't read, that's your problem.
just don't write anything more about pvp in l2. only weak pvp , crutches .... Honestly , I did a facepalm . 90% attacked by the first and no one responded with a stun? an orc would hit you in the face with a sledgehammer and you would understand what it means to start with cc
Guys, I understand your position. While you think that the pk is a universal evil, and the green flowers-players, then you will not understand everything. Green are the same pvp players or pk. It’s just that at the moment they are green, if they have an advantage in cc, then this pvp will be like this, 2 players will stand opposite each other and provoke an attack, whoever starts attacking first will most likely lose, and don’t need to write nonsense about the fact that cc is for the weak. But if the green one can't do cc to the purple player, then..... I already wrote what will happen.... I'm tired of writing the same thing several times. I'm sorry, there is no point in explaining anything to you. have a good day
I did that on purpose and this will be a thing from now on, it is a joke about when people forget what really matters in a discussion
No, I don't understand what you mean.
It makes no sense to say that it is perfectly fine for CC to be applicable to players if there is only a 99% change to hit, but not ok if there is 100% chance.
Same with saying it is ok with a 98% chance but not a 99% chance. This can go on and on.
The only way this thought process is able to make sense is if you say "it is ok if CC is applicable to greens if CC is so unreliable that players wouldn't want to open a fight with it".
Basically, if CC is good enough for players to consider opening a fight with it, then it shouldn't be applicable to greens. It is only if CC is so ineffective over all that it is appropriate for it to be applicable to greens. At this point though, CC would be so weak that there is no point in having it at all.
So, what you are saying is that if no one else thinks what you want to talk about is important or interesting enough to talk about, you will attempt to steer the conversation back to what you want to talk about.
Seems about right for the kind of person that would open combat up with a CC.
In my 12 years of L2 experience barely anyone started a fight with a stun, because stuns usually had way lower dmg value on them, so why in hell would they start the fight with an unreliable CC (because, as you point out, they weren't 100%) when they could just do a big hit on their target.
You do understand that you're contradicting yourself, right? You say that CCs won't have a 100% chance. That means that even if that green responds with a CC against an attacker, the attacker won't necessarily be CCed, so they'll still be at an advantage against the victim.
So how exactly is that a fair pvp? You keep saying "it's all about the fairness", but you're yet to properly explain how is it fair to both sides.
So, because of that I am from now on pretty much accepting an Everest of band-aids, this is better than Intrepid taking the risk of doing something good, because they would fail for sure.
In AoC there will be barely any teleporting to long distances, this was people's main escape plan among many games.. then it comes flagging... comes corruption... than many other band-aids. At the same time, there is religions in the game, but you can't do offerings to this or that deity in exchange for teleports or any kind of protection. So, early on Intrepid shot it's own foot from the beginning. The gods in AoC will be boring gods
From now on, I guess it is safer having band-aids over band-aids, because they couldn't come up with systems that let people escape gankers and other situations
Well, I'm sorry, I thought you were trolling me.
You are going from one extreme to another. 99% is the same as 100% there is no difference. I'm talking about chance. The chance of passing control should depend on several values. Purple has its own chances of control (for example, weapons, skill level), green has its own chances of defense cc (clothes, jewelry, passive skills, etc.). Considering all these values, you should get an average percentage of cc. It will depend on this how effective the ss will be, no one should know for sure whether it is worth starting with a stun or not. The player must evaluate his own strengths and his own build. And when the game artificially limits control skills instead of balance, it's shitty.
Describe to me your experience of playing on the Olympus? Or tell us about the tactics of archers?
As for the cc chance, I described above, no one will get an undeserved advantage.
Oh, you use the word "victim", I wrote about the green players in the post above. Even the kindest pve player can get angry at a player who prevents him from playing or insults him in the chat, or vice versa, the pvp player is just green at the moment and is looking for a victim, and specifically provokes others to attack him first. And in this situation with such a control system, the pvp player will have an advantage over the agry pve player. Do not divide the players into black or white, we are all the same players, we all pay for the game, we all play to have fun, then tell me if there is fairness in the fact that the developers systematically limit one player, giving an advantage to others!
And as for archers, I even asked a friend of mine who has played the game as long as me and in his experience archers were the only ones who'd even try starting the fight with a stun, but even then they didn't do so every time.
The unfair advantage comes when the attacker has over 20% difference in hp values right from the start of the fight, before the target can even respond with anything because they were CCed w/o any prior knowledge that there was a fight coming.
By victim I meant the person who's getting attacked, not some nebulous entity of good people or anything like that.
There's always green players and there's gonna be one who'll attack first w/o the second one knowing about that attack. If the first attacker can use CCs on the second player then they can bring that second player down in hp by 20-30% (if not more), w/o the second player doing a single damn thing in return.
I don't quite see how pvp is fair when the defender has to start at a much lower hp value than the attacker. No CCs on greens makes that more fair, because the pvp would start with the second player retaliating with a CC and bringing down the attacker's hp to roughly the same % value as their own.
Maybe you think that all CCs will last 20 seconds in Ashes, and that's why you think it's unfair? Though if you think that, it'd be even worse, because now you'd mean that you want to pretty much hit a defenseless target for 20 seconds, at which point it's just the same as PKing.
The other option is that you've literally just been talking about PKing and not PvPing. PKing is when one side just keeps hitting an unresponsive target until said target dies. PvPing is when that target responds with their own hit or CC asap. If you're talking purely about PKing - great, go PK whoever you want however much you want. The CCs still won't work, because you could try avoiding punishment for PKing with the use of CCs and most people here don't want that in the game.
But if you're talking about PvP - unequal hp values at the start of pvp (that is when the attacked person can respond) is in no way fair.
If you look at Ashes as being a game where random PK is going to be heavily discouraged, and where people will only PvP if there is a specific reason to do so, in your mind do any of your perceived issues with this system stand?
Aha, that's where the confusion lies, maybe. Ashes isn't a PvP game. It's a PvX game.
There is no confusion at all, we know it is a PvX... but still the PvP won't be as fantastic as the node system and AoC reactive world.
Ashes will shine based on it's reactive world, not for it's PvP
I could fix AoC PvP even with Corruption and flagging systems unchanged