Freeholds: do you want a PvP settings for your freehold?

I am curious if freehold owners would appreciate the ability to customize the PvP configurations specifically for their own freeholds. These settings are about the PvP activities in the vicinity of the freehold, and not within the actual residence.

1) full PvP with no flagging, just like the open seas
2) regular flagging
3) no PvP, except if there's war targets or corrupted
4) no PvP at all
5) never let players decide this, it's Intrepid call and everybody should have the same settings

What's your opinion about this?
Would you like this?

What if no PvP gave no bonus of any kind and then the more PvP your freehold is allowed the more bonuses you get?
Most players are grown men, let them handle how much PvP their property allow and bonus them accordindly, even if it's very little... maybe 0.5% of something per "pvp level" from that list

Also, at the freehold gate, it should have a small flag with the color of the settings, if it's a purple flag than people would already know it's a free for all pvp yard, if it is a green flag then people would know it is a no pvp zone, etc. I would add a one week timer for the next settings change. I would add tiny progressive bonus from np pvp up to free for all pvp.

* node's ruined state surpasses all

edit #1:

I think a colorful flag at the freehold gate is good enough:

green flag: no pvp of any kind
red flag: free to attack corrupted/war targets
green/purple/red stripes: normal pvp, follows the server flagging system with no changes
purple flag: free for all pvp
Literally a flagpole with a flag like that, so you can see from distance the pvp settings from that particular freehold.

Absolutely, need simple rules:
- only owner could change pvp settings
- changind settings should have a 7 days cooldown
- should have a flagpole at the gate, so people can see from distance the pvp setting before they step in the freehold

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

I'll disagree strongly with any benefits for 'setting your Freehold to FFA PvP'.

I'm also slightly against any benefits for setting it to 'normal PvP rules' or just not setting it at all.

I view both those things as just creating a division in the playerbase, creating Arya's 'anti-carebear' meta. I feel this because in my game-community management experience, Arya's approach and attitude towards players who are not yet ready for the so-called 'real world' is unhelpful and not productive, it pushes them away, insulates and breeds toxicity in the middle tier players (because they feel justified in pushing around the casual/lower tier players) and doesn't encourage growth in either group.

My experiences are, of course, limited, but I can only go off them for now. So if it were up to me I'd advise against it/not choose it.

Arya_Yeshe

Azherae wrote: »

I'll disagree strongly with any benefits for 'setting your Freehold to FFA PvP'.

I'm also slightly against any benefits for setting it to 'normal PvP rules' or just not setting it at all.

I view both those things as just creating a division in the playerbase, creating Arya's 'anti-carebear' meta. I feel this because in my game-community management experience, Arya's approach and attitude towards players who are not yet ready for the so-called 'real world' is unhelpful and not productive, it pushes them away, insulates and breeds toxicity in the middle tier players (because they feel justified in pushing around the casual/lower tier players) and doesn't encourage growth in either group.

My experiences are, of course, limited, but I can only go off them for now. So if it were up to me I'd advise against it/not choose it.

Thank you for the ego massage!

but I'm also fine with no bonuses of any kind, I'm not aiming for divisions at all in this. My only concern about not having any kind of bonuses is that this hurts the risk-reward vision.

Also, it came to our attention that Intrepid took out the no pvp freeholds and opted for regular pvp in all freeholds, I am saying that people should be able to opt between no pvp and pvp.... if there's an anti-carebear around here then it is not me at all LOL

What I truly believe is that freehold owners should set their freehold as they see fit for their gaming style, that's where I draw the line. I believe AoC could use an extra bucket of sand into the sandbox features.

BaSkA_9x2

I don't care what ends up happening as long as it is tested instead of imposed/forced because "now we think it's better, even though previous statements said otherwise".

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Paying a ton of money to not have PvP in my Freehold Tavern is not what I consider risk v reward. I consider that to be punishing non-PvPers, but...
Yeah, people who don't like PvP won't be playing Ashes so... I'm pretty confident that exceedingly few Ashes players would pay a ton of money to keep PvP out of their Taverns. It might not actually be zero, but close to it statistically.

I mean, we're gonna be paying taxes on our freeholds. So all Intrepid need to do is say "by default you have a no-pvp zone on your freehold and your taxes are X. But you can change the zone to a semi/full-pvp zone and your taxes will be 0.5X". Literally the same as the death penalty stuff.

It's meaningless PvP, though, so...
No reason to encitivize it.

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Remember boys, the trick is making the carebears feel greed, that's how you pull them out of their confort zones, they don't like plain punishment for no reason. That's why I would have the pvp freehold with better yealds, just some some extra buffs, the buffs shouldn't be overpowered to the point people force themselves into the PvP setting

I think the carebears won't fall for that trick and will just choose not to play.

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Thank you, but my intention with the suggestion was letting people be confortable and decide for whatever settings they want.

You wrote: "I would add a one week timer for the next settings change."
Shouldn't really need a timer. The Freehold owner should pretty much be able to change those settings whenever they want. MIGHT need to have a restriction of once per hour for PvP, but there should not be a restriction of once per week. And, if the restriction is once per hour... that pretty much already allows the Freehold owner to change the settings whenever they are comfortable doing so.

But, yeah... 1-4 in the original list are great.
And seem to let the Freehold owner choose what they are comfortable with.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

It's meaningless PvP, though, so...
No reason to encitivize it.

I mean, my main stance on this is still "make the freehold a non-pvp zone", just as it was stated previously, so we kinda agree on that. But just as every other pvp is in the game to let people prevent other players from doing some content, because it's profitable for the attacker in some way - attacking someone on their freehold applies in the same way. To me it's definitely less meaningful than attacking someone for a farming spot, but it could still be used as a tool for pressuring a node or a guild or a group of players, so it's not completely meaningless.

Gospell1

In some century, a pvp-oriented game comes out, where the head of development is a L2 fan who understands how much fun it is to play such a game. And as usual there are whiners who love casual games, where they cannot be touched without consent, where the game leads them by the hand, and then gives 1 billion mobs to kill and the player feels his power. But no! Fck you! Welcome to the hardcore world where there will always be someone stronger than you! Let free pvp be everywhere, except for settlements. Do you think that someone needs you, just like your freeholds? Now it's true! Nobody needs you, the maximum will come once a week one PK player will kill one caring bear, then the farmers will gather in a crowd and kill pk with hoes. Dead farmers do not lose anything + resurrection in their freehold, dead pk lose experience, things + resurrection no one knows where. Well, what the hell are you whining about? Pk will you be prevented from milking the cows? Not allowed to clean pigs? What nonsense is this, stop trying to make a "caring farmer simulator" out of the game. Fck all these restrictions in pvp zones

ps. By the way, if you turn off pvp in freeholds, then it will be an abuse. A person will leave their freehold zone and shoot at someone, then return back to their safe area, heal and fight back
Sorry for the harsh words, your idea of switching between pvp and pve mode is also stupid. No one in their right mind would put in pvp modes. It will just be another abuse. Everyone should be on an equal footing with equal conditions Pvp for everyone, show evil pvp players how much you love your cow or carrot and protect them

Okeydoke

Pretty much every game that I've played with housing and open world pvp, you weren't safe until you were inside your house. So that's what I'm used to. But I was fine with it the way it was too, where you were safe on the entire freehold plot.

Not a big deal to me personally. But these changes seem to be coming out of nowhere with little explanation lately. There's no testing we know of going on that would prompt these changes. They certainly weren't tested in Alpha 1.

Only thing I can think is that there's mega design discussions going on internally.

Ludullu

Gospell wrote: »

ps. By the way, if you turn off pvp in freeholds, then it will be an abuse. A person will leave their freehold zone and shoot at someone, then return back to their safe area, heal and fight back
Sorry for the harsh words, your idea of switching between pvp and pve mode is also stupid. No one in their right mind would put in pvp modes. It will just be another abuse. Everyone should be on an equal footing with equal conditions Pvp for everyone, show evil pvp players how much you love your cow or carrot and protect them

L2's gate pvp was one of the funnest shit in the game. And it worked exactly as you described. If anything, no-pvp freeholds would bring more fun to the game.

Arya_Yeshe

Dygz wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Thank you, but my intention with the suggestion was letting people be confortable and decide for whatever settings they want.

You wrote: "I would add a one week timer for the next settings change."
Shouldn't really need a timer. The Freehold owner should pretty much be able to change those settings whenever they want. MIGHT need to have a restriction of once per hour for PvP, but there should not be a restriction of once per week. And, if the restriction is once per hour... that pretty much already allows the Freehold owner to change the settings whenever they are comfortable doing so.

But, yeah... 1-4 in the original list are great.
And seem to let the Freehold owner choose what they are comfortable with.

I think a timer is necessary, at least 1 hour, otherwise you could switch settings just to ambush others, or make it pvp free just to harvest your crops when you go outside and then make it pvp again right after harvesting

But... from a PvP perspective it is kinda hilarious inviting people into your freehold, then switch to FFA and kill them

Arya_Yeshe

Gospell wrote: »

ps. By the way, if you turn off pvp in freeholds, then it will be an abuse. A person will leave their freehold zone and shoot at someone, then return back to their safe area, heal and fight back
Sorry for the harsh words, your idea of switching between pvp and pve mode is also stupid. No one in their right mind would put in pvp modes. It will just be another abuse. Everyone should be on an equal footing with equal conditions Pvp for everyone, show evil pvp players how much you love your cow or carrot and protect them

Letting people change the PvP settings from their freehold doesn't affect the game in the big scale, but it is fun

It's not a big deal people who starting fights then getting beat up and then running away into a no PvP zone, this is exactly the dynamic of PKing around cities in Ultima Online. Also, even in EVE Online that has an unforgiving PvP has this mechanic, in EVE it is called "station games".

The difference in EVE is that when you engage in PvP you will get a Weapons Timer that prevents you from docking... so you are forced to stay in space in the open

So along 60 seconds you can only use defenses and heal, you can not attack anyone for 60 seconds if you want to dock into safety!
If you can survive a 60 seconds beating by any means, then you can dock and be safe

Station games brings a boatload of fun, the entire time people are baiting and ambushing each other

Arya_Yeshe

Dygz wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Remember boys, the trick is making the carebears feel greed, that's how you pull them out of their confort zones, they don't like plain punishment for no reason. That's why I would have the pvp freehold with better yealds, just some some extra buffs, the buffs shouldn't be overpowered to the point people force themselves into the PvP setting

I think the carebears won't fall for that trick and will just choose not to play.

I think a lot of people will leave the game after losing their node, or if they lose their nodes repeatdly.

People don't get it that AoC is closer to being Counter-Strike than being World of Warcraft

Gospell1

NiKr wrote: »

Gospell wrote: »

ps. By the way, if you turn off pvp in freeholds, then it will be an abuse. A person will leave their freehold zone and shoot at someone, then return back to their safe area, heal and fight back
Sorry for the harsh words, your idea of switching between pvp and pve mode is also stupid. No one in their right mind would put in pvp modes. It will just be another abuse. Everyone should be on an equal footing with equal conditions Pvp for everyone, show evil pvp players how much you love your cow or carrot and protect them

L2's gate pvp was one of the funnest shit in the game. And it worked exactly as you described. If anything, no-pvp freeholds would bring more fun to the game.

Pvp gate for me was one of the most fun places. There are guards that kill pk players. But yes, I agree, some cowards did just that, left the city for 1 second and ran back. So it will be in AoC with freeholds.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Letting people change the PvP settings from their freehold doesn't affect the game in the big scale, but it is fun

as I said before, no one in their right mind will turn on the pvp mode, which means the toggle button will become unnecessary. All should be on equal terms. boring safe mode or free pvp

Arya_Yeshe

Gospell wrote: »

as I said before, no one in their right mind will turn on the pvp mode, which means the toggle button will become unnecessary. All should be on equal terms. boring safe mode or free pvp

AHhaah that's a very carebearly way of seeing things, obviously the smarter players are more freeholds will be on free-for-all at all times

Since I was one of the legendary gankers from UO, I will double down on this!
Having your freehold as free-for-all is the ganker way of harvesting materials since fools will come and die. Why cut trees and and pick flowers if fools will bring those for you as offerings?

It's the same as having a trap base in RUST, let people get in the base and get killed, so people are farmed. In AoC, the player could pretend he is working in his crafting stations, but that could be bait and nothing but bait

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's meaningless PvP, though, so...
No reason to encitivize it.

I mean, my main stance on this is still "make the freehold a non-pvp zone", just as it was stated previously, so we kinda agree on that. But just as every other pvp is in the game to let people prevent other players from doing some content, because it's profitable for the attacker in some way - attacking someone on their freehold applies in the same way. To me it's definitely less meaningful than attacking someone for a farming spot, but it could still be used as a tool for pressuring a node or a guild or a group of players, so it's not completely meaningless.

I don't see how anyone can use Freehold PvP to pressure a Node.
Freehold PvP is basically the same thing as an Arena.

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I think a lot of people will leave the game after losing their node, or if they lose their nodes repeatdly.

I have no clue why you would think that.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

People don't get it that AoC is closer to being Counter-Strike than being World of Warcraft

I think the PvP in Counter-Strike is more 24/7 FFA than Ashes.
No one is expecting Ashes to be like World of Warcraft - especially since Ashes does not have PvE-Only servers.

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

People don't get it that AoC is closer to being Counter-Strike than being World of Warcraft

Um, no it isnt.

Even Planetside - a massively multiplayer online first person shooter - is closer to WoW than it is to Counterstrike.

Quite honestly, with WoWs many features making the game essentially function as a lobby game, WoW is probably closer to Counterstrike than Ashes will be.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

I don't see how anyone can use Freehold PvP to pressure a Node.

Preventing high value artisanry, which would've generated xp for the node. Preventing high value trade of the results of that artisanry (in case in was done inside the house), which would've boosted node's relations and citizens' progress.

Those are the biggest two, but I do think that I thought of more, but I forget them rn.

Dygz

People concerned about that would not turn PvP settings on.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

People concerned about that would not turn PvP settings on.

Yes, majority of pure artisans would probably not turn it off and hope they have enough money to cover the taxes. A few might risk it for the discount. But even if none of them do, there's still the "guild/group" part of my comment, so that still stands.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Yes, majority of pure artisans would probably not turn it off

Neither would the majority of people wanting to harass an area for what ever reason.

daveywavey

Gospell wrote: »

In some century, a pvp-oriented game comes out, where the head of development is a L2 fan who understands how much fun it is to play such a game.

You really think there'll be L2 fans in any century past this one?

Arya_Yeshe

I don't believe that including PvP settings in freeholds has a significant impact on the game world, but it is beneficial for the owner's convenience. It is a nice thing to have.

Also, I even support the idea of allowing players to vote on setting up PvP settings from the node, even if it means enabling free-for-all PvP within cities and letting people tear each other faces. If the most nasty or most carebear people go live in a place and vote for it, whatever they choose they should have it.

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I don't believe that including PvP settings in freeholds has a significant impact on the game world

Really?

You dont think that giving players the ability to place a PvP free zone essentially anywhere in the open world would have an effect on the fame world?

While from the perspective of someone that is using a freehold for crafting may not have a huge impact on the game world, the assumption needs to he that not everyone would use it that way.

Arya_Yeshe

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I don't believe that including PvP settings in freeholds has a significant impact on the game world

Really?

You dont think that giving players the ability to place a PvP free zone essentially anywhere in the open world would have an effect on the fame world?

While from the perspective of someone that is using a freehold for crafting may not have a huge impact on the game world, the assumption needs to he that not everyone would use it that way.

Yes, I don't think your few feet square freehold will affect the world in any way, later on the node will be destroyed anyway and even the freehold

Diamaht

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

What if this option determined the taxes you pay for your freehold? No-pvp option costs more than a ffa pvp one. And service tax could be inverted, so a tavern/crafting stall service would pay lower taxes from no-pvp freeholds and the other way around.

This would push people towards different setups of their freeholds, but also increase profits of those who go for a riskier setup. A ffa pvp tavern might attract more people, so while service tax will be higher, the pvp setting would be covered by the overall amount of money you receive. And carebear crafting stall would cost a ton to upkeep, but low service tax would allow them to set lower prices and attract more customers that way.

And those who setup freeholds for purely their own benefit and don't want any risk of pvp will have to pay a ton of money.

Tax changes, crafting speed, crops growth, etc, there's many possibilities. Some people will gladly pay a little more for bringing safety to himself and others... but I think it should not be to the extent of bring punishing

I am more favorable of giving speed buffs to that freehold: growth, xp, crafting, animal husbandry etc

I prefer letting the PvP freehold have a bigger yeald, than punishing the no pvp freehold... I don't think the carbears should feel punished... I would rather make them feel greedy about the bonuses the pvp freehold has

Remember boys, the trick is making the carebears feel greed, that's how you pull them out of their confort zones, they don't like plain punishment for no reason. That's why I would have the pvp freehold with better yealds, just some some extra buffs, the buffs shouldn't be overpowered to the point people force themselves into the PvP setting

That's how I see this

I absolutely love the idea of PvP settings, as we have talk about them, in this thread. However, I would definitely say no to the idea of added benefits for it. Half taxes or faster crafting is really just a backdoor way of forcing it on everyone. The idea of choice is eliminated.

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I don't believe that including PvP settings in freeholds has a significant impact on the game world

Really?

You dont think that giving players the ability to place a PvP free zone essentially anywhere in the open world would have an effect on the fame world?

While from the perspective of someone that is using a freehold for crafting may not have a huge impact on the game world, the assumption needs to he that not everyone would use it that way.

Yes, I don't think your few feet square freehold will affect the world in any way, later on the node will be destroyed anyway and even the freehold

Yes, but when the node and freehold are destroyed, that player can then just relocate to another area, and then set up another PvP free zone.

I can tell you now, players would abuse the crap out of this as a system, just like every other abusable system in every other game.

Fortunately, Steven knows they would, because he abused the crap out of PvP free land in otherwise open PvP areas in Archeage - when XL made that change.

I'm not sure if people are understanding this or not, but allowing people to place a PvP free zone in a PvP setting has already been proven to be a bad thing.

Like, it isn't a debate as to whether it will be abused or be a bad thing - it is known that it will be both.

The total lack of understanding of this point, and as such the total lack of addressing it, means this thread and any others like it are pointless. If Intrepid make a change to the game to minimize negative player behaviors, you absolutely will not convince them to change unless you address that negative player behavior.

Arya_Yeshe

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I don't believe that including PvP settings in freeholds has a significant impact on the game world

Really?

You dont think that giving players the ability to place a PvP free zone essentially anywhere in the open world would have an effect on the fame world?

While from the perspective of someone that is using a freehold for crafting may not have a huge impact on the game world, the assumption needs to he that not everyone would use it that way.

Yes, I don't think your few feet square freehold will affect the world in any way, later on the node will be destroyed anyway and even the freehold

Yes, but when the node and freehold are destroyed, that player can then just relocate to another area, and then set up another PvP free zone.

I can tell you now, players would abuse the crap out of this as a system, just like every other abusable system in every other game.

Fortunately, Steven knows they would, because he abused the crap out of PvP free land in otherwise open PvP areas in Archeage - when XL made that change.

I'm not sure if people are understanding this or not, but allowing people to place a PvP free zone in a PvP setting has already been proven to be a bad thing.

Like, it isn't a debate as to whether it will be abused or be a bad thing - it is known that it will be both.

The total lack of understanding of this point, and as such the total lack of addressing it, means this thread and any others like it are pointless. If Intrepid make a change to the game to minimize negative player behaviors, you absolutely will not convince them to change unless you address that negative player behavior.

It will only make the game good and bring more fun

It's not an issue having a tiny no pvp island, nobody will sit there 24/7 and a tiny patch of land doesn't affect the world. Besides, within the house the owner has total safety, it is not different having a few steps more of safety around the house. The no pvp zone is already in the game, it is the interior of the house

Don't worry, because your point of view relies on the exxageration of things, it is just an illusion. Anything is bad if you exxagerate everything

Arya_Yeshe

The no pvp freehold should allow these PvP:

fighting war targets
corrupted vs bounty hunters

War targets will have to actually go inside the house to escape fights, that's all

Child Item