Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

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

13

Comments

  • Fun scenario:
    • two freeholds, both no pvp
    • people here have no active wars, no corruption and they are bored
    • people come outside as purple, start baiting, calling for fights and fighting each other
    • if they think they will die, they will try to run away and get in the freehold
    • the other party will CC the runner and dunk on him
    • trash talk in local chat

    Oh boy, I can imagine I could stay doing this against my neighbours the entire day, fuck quests
    :#
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    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

    The issue isnt people sitting still - the issue is people being able to terrorize the surrounding area and then run to said safe zone.

    And yes, players still have safety in their house. I would personally be all for the inability for players to lock their own door if they are either red or purple.

    However, even if they can, that still makes the above terrorizing act harder - and making such acts harder is a good thing.

    When you consider that the negative effects are minimal (and can be literally zero if the developers allow harvesting directly to and crafting directly from freehold storage - as many other games have done), it really is a no-brainer.
  • Noaani wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    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

    The issue isnt people sitting still - the issue is people being able to terrorize the surrounding area and then run to said safe zone.

    And yes, players still have safety in their house. I would personally be all for the inability for players to lock their own door if they are either red or purple.

    However, even if they can, that still makes the above terrorizing act harder - and making such acts harder is a good thing.

    When you consider that the negative effects are minimal (and can be literally zero if the developers allow harvesting directly to and crafting directly from freehold storage - as many other games have done), it really is a no-brainer.

    You can't really terrorize with the overpowered corruption system going on. Also, cities are also safe zones... do you think people won't camp right at the node exit?
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    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

    The issue isnt people sitting still - the issue is people being able to terrorize the surrounding area and then run to said safe zone.

    And yes, players still have safety in their house. I would personally be all for the inability for players to lock their own door if they are either red or purple.

    However, even if they can, that still makes the above terrorizing act harder - and making such acts harder is a good thing.

    When you consider that the negative effects are minimal (and can be literally zero if the developers allow harvesting directly to and crafting directly from freehold storage - as many other games have done), it really is a no-brainer.

    You can't really terrorize with the overpowered corruption system going on. Also, cities are also safe zones... do you think people won't camp right at the node exit?

    Has that changed? Why do you think that cities are safe zones?
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • @Azherae afaik there is no PvP in the city, except active wars
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited March 2023
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    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

    The issue isnt people sitting still - the issue is people being able to terrorize the surrounding area and then run to said safe zone.

    And yes, players still have safety in their house. I would personally be all for the inability for players to lock their own door if they are either red or purple.

    However, even if they can, that still makes the above terrorizing act harder - and making such acts harder is a good thing.

    When you consider that the negative effects are minimal (and can be literally zero if the developers allow harvesting directly to and crafting directly from freehold storage - as many other games have done), it really is a no-brainer.

    You can't really terrorize with the overpowered corruption system going on. Also, cities are also safe zones... do you think people won't camp right at the node exit?

    Sure you can.

    Keep in mind, we do not know how punishing the corruption system will be. Intrepid have a number of levers they can pull to make corruption more or less punishing (corruption gained per equal level kill, rate at which penalties compound with additional corruption, amount of corruption worked off per point of experience gain etc.).

    Now, since we know Intrepid will want to set these levers at a point where there will be enough players gaining corruption to make bounty hunters thing worth while, we know for a fact that corruption is going to be a mild deterrent and nothing more.

    As to your comment of people camping at the node exit (I assume you mean town/city exit), sure, they can try.

    If that becomes an issue, Intrepid can come up with a solution to that as well - one that you will no doubt complain about and state that said solution to the issue caused by players proves the developers are failing and that Ashes is a successor to FFXIV rather than L2.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    Has that changed? Why do you think that cities are safe zones?
    Nothing has changed so far. Arya just keeps not knowing AoC's design, even though I'm pretty sure we've had this discussion before and this has been corrected before as well.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    As to your comment of people camping at the node exit (I assume you mean town/city exit), sure, they can try.

    If that becomes an issue, Intrepid can come up with a solution to that as well - one that you will no doubt complain about and state that said solution to the issue caused by players proves the developers are failing and that Ashes is a successor to FFXIV rather than L2.
    I'm definitely interested in Steven's opinion on those actions, cause L2 didn't see it as a problem and instead it was one of the attractions of the game (at least for people in the know).
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    As to your comment of people camping at the node exit (I assume you mean town/city exit), sure, they can try.

    If that becomes an issue, Intrepid can come up with a solution to that as well - one that you will no doubt complain about and state that said solution to the issue caused by players proves the developers are failing and that Ashes is a successor to FFXIV rather than L2.
    I'm definitely interested in Steven's opinion on those actions, cause L2 didn't see it as a problem and instead it was one of the attractions of the game (at least for people in the know).

    Yeah, it may well be that it is considered all good. It also may not.

    We know for a fact that caravans only need to get close to the city gates though.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    As to your comment of people camping at the node exit (I assume you mean town/city exit), sure, they can try.

    If that becomes an issue, Intrepid can come up with a solution to that as well - one that you will no doubt complain about and state that said solution to the issue caused by players proves the developers are failing and that Ashes is a successor to FFXIV rather than L2.
    I'm definitely interested in Steven's opinion on those actions, cause L2 didn't see it as a problem and instead it was one of the attractions of the game (at least for people in the know).

    This is one of the things I'm personally talking about relative to 'game feel'.

    If a game is even remotely supposed to feel like 'a living world', something that emulates 'real life' but with much more adventures in terms of what a given set of people can do (I'm not saying that it SHOULD do this), a constant battle occurring outside the gates of a supposedly civilized city would feel out of place.

    But it would still happen because of the limitation that games have, you can't just 'make all the people who do this stop being allowed to play at all', usually.

    So if for whatever reason Steven wanted his game full of nodes and society and cooperation and all that to NOT feel like a given node is a big bloodbath arena 90% of the time, there would need to be some shift to that.

    MMOs, particularly PvP MMOs, will probably never emulate that 'civilization with tension' flow without being Full Loot, Permadeath, or doing what Elite sorta-does. More power to those who want to play the Mad Max style, but it's just not going to be what most people come to a game like Ashes for, as the game is described right now.
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Azherae wrote: »
    So if for whatever reason Steven wanted his game full of nodes and society and cooperation and all that to NOT feel like a given node is a big bloodbath arena 90% of the time, there would need to be some shift to that.

    MMOs, particularly PvP MMOs, will probably never emulate that 'civilization with tension' flow without being Full Loot, Permadeath, or doing what Elite sorta-does. More power to those who want to play the Mad Max style, but it's just not going to be what most people come to a game like Ashes for, as the game is described right now.
    I could maybe see a node policy that helps out with this interaction. The mayor could make the guards either agro onto purely red players or on flagged ones as well. This would also help out greens that are being attacked by some rando.

    This would obviously have to be counterbalanced by a limited amount of policies per node and several other good choices that some people would prefer over this policy. Cause otherwise it would just be a default one.

    I'd probably go with some "taxes are lower, cause guards only attack reds" thing, but I'm sure that there's some economic consequences that I'm not foreseeing with that suggestion.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    MMOs, particularly PvP MMOs, will probably never emulate that 'civilization with tension' flow without being Full Loot, Permadeath, or doing what Elite sorta-does. More power to those who want to play the Mad Max style, but it's just not going to be what most people come to a game like Ashes for, as the game is described right now.

    Install EVE Online, create a charater in the Caldari empire, buy yourself a shuttle, set your travel to the system 1DQ-A. This system is 100% player driven, it is a 100% full PvP and 100% loss... the system security level is -0.39 which means everybody can freely shoot each other... you can even shoot your own alliance with no consequences.

    Look at 40 seconds, all those are players in a fight
    https://youtu.be/s1cqE6x3XFE?t=39

    1DQ-A
    https://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/1DQ1-A

    REDS = player enemies
    Purple = fleet members

    Anyone can go in and start shooting anyone, it is the most developed player driven area among all games in history.
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    MMOs, particularly PvP MMOs, will probably never emulate that 'civilization with tension' flow without being Full Loot, Permadeath, or doing what Elite sorta-does. More power to those who want to play the Mad Max style, but it's just not going to be what most people come to a game like Ashes for, as the game is described right now.

    Install EVE Online, create a charater in the Caldari empire, buy yourself a shuttle, set your travel to the system 1DQ-A. This system is 100% player driven, it is a 100% full PvP and 100% loss... the system security level is -0.39 which means everybody can freely shoot each other... you can even shoot your own alliance with no consequences.

    Look at 40 seconds, all those are players in a fight
    https://youtu.be/s1cqE6x3XFE?t=39

    1DQ-A
    https://evemaps.dotlan.net/system/1DQ1-A

    REDS = player enemies
    Purple = fleet members

    Anyone can go in and start shooting anyone, it is the most developed player driven area among all games in history.

    Yes, that's why I said at the beginning, that it has to be either Full Loot or Permadeath, or what Elite sorta-does.

    I was never saying that it doesn't work, but games like EVE and Elite have stuff in them that make this sort of thing matter a lot more, and while you could make a Fantasy MMO with some equivalents of those things (and I'm sure you personally would enjoy them), they end up much closer to survival games.

    If you were just suggesting it to me as a thing for me to personally enjoy, I'll leave it to you to guess how much EVE I play.
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    If you were just suggesting it to me as a thing for me to personally enjoy, I'll leave it to you to guess how much EVE I play.

    I was just suggesting visiting 1DQ-A only, I don't even suggest playing EVE all around, since this system is really beautiful to see what players can do with no hand holding and no safe spaces. It's quite a sight to behold
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I don't need to see it to know that it's not the game I want to play.
    I consider EvE to be a niche game.
    Successful and fun for people who like that gameplay.
  • Dygz wrote: »
    I don't need to see it to know that it's not the game I want to play.
    I consider EvE to be a niche game.
    Successful and fun for people who like that gameplay.

    Even tough I played EVE since 2008, I don't recommend EVE to anyone anymore... the golden era is over now

    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • DiamahtDiamaht Member, Braver of Worlds, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited March 2023
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I don't need to see it to know that it's not the game I want to play.
    I consider EvE to be a niche game.
    Successful and fun for people who like that gameplay.

    Even tough I played EVE since 2008, I don't recommend EVE to anyone anymore... the golden era is over now

    Yeah, have to agree. 2007 here. Its just impossible to tell what direction they are going and they still have way too many needless barriers to entry. I would never be able to bring any of the my friends into that game. Where would be even start?
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Diamaht wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    I don't need to see it to know that it's not the game I want to play.
    I consider EvE to be a niche game.
    Successful and fun for people who like that gameplay.

    Even tough I played EVE since 2008, I don't recommend EVE to anyone anymore... the golden era is over now

    Yeah, have to agree. 2007 here. Its just impossible to tell what direction they are going and they still have way too many needless barriers to entry. I would never be able to bring any of the my friends into that game. Where would be even start?

    Well, CCP was too slow in listening the gankers, pirates, PvPers, militia players!
    For years, the most combat oriented players told over and over that CCP had to prepare the new players in PvP, new players should be introduced since the tutorial missions in fighting other players, killing and dying.

    Only in 2022 there's PvP achievements in the tutorial, nowdays you can see new characters and fresh new players asking for duels, asking to be shot, asking to kill them! They are much happier now, CCP finally understood that players have to be taught early on that dying and losing is fine..... this is important

    A player having small lossses early on is healthier, he stays in the game, otherwise if he feels safe he will someday buy an Orca and autopilot his brand new Orca through low sec and lose it... look at me and the boys from low sec killing this dude:
    https://zkillboard.com/kill/104292267/

    In this kill I am "Arya Yeshe" and "Arya Is Awesome" from the Gwanko corporation, its my corp
    h42aqmtjz53f.png


    CCP instead of listening the PvPers, they started listening the carebears and listening specific null sec blocks, so the game was changed... but the outcry only came with the Scarcity update, the scarcity update displease all the null bears and carebear miners all around. This the main reason why carebears are dangerous to game development, because they demand unfair one-sided systems. The scarcity update spread the ore across the universe and then the miners who multibox 20 accounts started this campaign against EVE in Reddit

    So, CCP was being slow, being an authistic company who didn't really listen the player base. But CCP did many great things too, they worked a lot on a lot of things, the game in general got better. They failed in this:
    • repeatedly nerfed ganking, with 20+ updates for a safer eve
    • appeased the carebears over and over, but they never got satisfied
    • let the null sec miners too confortable, when changes came, then they felt they were entitled to mine as much as they want and they started campaigning against the changes
    • not addressing PvP in the tutorials since 2003... they took 19 years to understand this
    • tutorials never taught people to die in EVE, never taught that losing is fine

    Nowadays you die right in the intro, then you die in the PvP missions at least 20 times, there's an achieventment for dying, there is also a PvE impossible mission where you will only die... if you die then you complete the mission. Finally, CCP Games did the tutorial right and everybody is happy, the entire community and the new players liked this... just took 19 years
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Well shit, if that all happened in EVE, it is obviously going to happen in Ashes.

    Seems there is no way around it now.


    I do find it amusing that someone complaining that carebears are dangerous because they demand one sided systems is also the same person complaining about freeholds being PvP enabled, and also complaining about not being able to CC greens.

    Both of these changes are pro-PvP'er.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks
    This player here is the issue.

    This player is able to make the area around their freehold unplayable to solo players - but are able to do so with no risk. It is not appropriate to be able to set up a safe location to stage attacks, and then to retreat to safely in the event of unforeseen issues.

    All other scenarios above are inconsequential to the discussion.
  • The guy who I will only speak after May 28 is speaking, I won't click that, I don't have the emotional stamina to be battered everyday, So I need a couple months to recover my stamina

    I won't click that

    viill1udxvrk.png
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    I won't click that
    Yeah you did.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%

    And it is precisely because of this, that I basically oppose the 'overall PvP setting' concept.

    As soon as you are able to categorize a singular cause-and-effect game choice like this, it hints at it being moreso a 'noob trap' than a true choice, and I don't see the point of adding those to games.

    So this falls into the same 'this is too simple, it needs to be more' that Corruption itself does, for me. They're equivalent in their failure to address what I personally consider to be the concern. At least with Corruption the dynamism of the player's location comes into play. A Freehold by definition lacks that dynamism.
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%

    And it is precisely because of this, that I basically oppose the 'overall PvP setting' concept.

    As soon as you are able to categorize a singular cause-and-effect game choice like this, it hints at it being moreso a 'noob trap' than a true choice, and I don't see the point of adding those to games.

    So this falls into the same 'this is too simple, it needs to be more' that Corruption itself does, for me. They're equivalent in their failure to address what I personally consider to be the concern. At least with Corruption the dynamism of the player's location comes into play. A Freehold by definition lacks that dynamism.

    We are not even interested in the same things, you are interesting in whatever XYZ reason, my reason is fun only. What you think it is important makes no sense to me who just want a game to have fun

    This is all about having fun and how each person has fun his own way, when they are not having fun anymore then they have other choices to choose from

    This is the only thing that matters
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%

    And it is precisely because of this, that I basically oppose the 'overall PvP setting' concept.

    As soon as you are able to categorize a singular cause-and-effect game choice like this, it hints at it being moreso a 'noob trap' than a true choice, and I don't see the point of adding those to games.

    So this falls into the same 'this is too simple, it needs to be more' that Corruption itself does, for me. They're equivalent in their failure to address what I personally consider to be the concern. At least with Corruption the dynamism of the player's location comes into play. A Freehold by definition lacks that dynamism.

    We are not even interested in the same things, you are interesting in whatever XYZ reason, my reason is fun only. What you think it is important makes no sense to me who just want a game to have fun

    This is all about having fun and how each person has fun his own way, when they are not having fun anymore then they have other choices to choose from

    This is the only thing that matters

    Alright then, no concerns there, have fun.
    Y'all know how Jamberry Roll.
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    edited March 2023
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%

    And it is precisely because of this, that I basically oppose the 'overall PvP setting' concept.

    As soon as you are able to categorize a singular cause-and-effect game choice like this, it hints at it being moreso a 'noob trap' than a true choice, and I don't see the point of adding those to games.

    So this falls into the same 'this is too simple, it needs to be more' that Corruption itself does, for me. They're equivalent in their failure to address what I personally consider to be the concern. At least with Corruption the dynamism of the player's location comes into play. A Freehold by definition lacks that dynamism.

    We are not even interested in the same things, you are interesting in whatever XYZ reason, my reason is fun only. What you think it is important makes no sense to me who just want a game to have fun

    This is all about having fun and how each person has fun his own way, when they are not having fun anymore then they have other choices to choose from

    This is the only thing that matters

    Alright then, no concerns there, have fun.

    I figured it out that games with too many rules and constricted gameplay are boring, when people can derp around and have fun it makes momments unforgettable
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    Arya_Yeshe wrote: »
    Well, back to the pvp settings in the freehold, I will give 4 scenarios LOL

    PvPers:
    • naive PvPer: will complain that the freehold could be used as a safe zone (but the house is already a free zone anyway), will set to regular PvP or free-for-all
    • smart PvPer: will set the freehold as no PvP, then he will use his yard as a stagging area for attacks

    Carebears:
    • naive carebear: no pvp without a second thought
    • smart carebear: will go for regular or free-for-all... since the place is dangerous, there won't be much people stepping in his yard, the open for PvP freehold will shoo away most people... and if there's a bonus he will like that a lot

    So... the naive PvPer and the smart carebear will go for PvP freeholds, but smart PvPer and naive carebear will get the safe freehold

    It should have a tiny yeald bonus, like 1% or 2%

    And it is precisely because of this, that I basically oppose the 'overall PvP setting' concept.

    As soon as you are able to categorize a singular cause-and-effect game choice like this, it hints at it being moreso a 'noob trap' than a true choice, and I don't see the point of adding those to games.

    So this falls into the same 'this is too simple, it needs to be more' that Corruption itself does, for me. They're equivalent in their failure to address what I personally consider to be the concern. At least with Corruption the dynamism of the player's location comes into play. A Freehold by definition lacks that dynamism.

    We are not even interested in the same things, you are interesting in whatever XYZ reason, my reason is fun only. What you think it is important makes no sense to me who just want a game to have fun

    This is all about having fun and how each person has fun his own way, when they are not having fun anymore then they have other choices to choose from

    This is the only thing that matters

    Alright then, no concerns there, have fun.

    I figured it out that games with too many rules and constricted gameplay are boring, when people can derp around and have fun it makes momments unforgettable

    I mean, this is clearly not true.

    Unconstricted gameplay is only fun for the player type that gets enjoyment out of constricting the gameplay of others.

    People would rather their gameplay be constricted by the game - where that construction is consistent - than be constructed by other players.

    The point of all these "rules" Intrepid are setting up is to prevent players from constructing each others gameplay.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    I mean, this is clearly not true.

    Unconstricted gameplay is only fun for the player type that gets enjoyment out of constricting the gameplay of others.

    People would rather their gameplay be constricted by the game - where that construction is consistent - than be constructed by other players.

    The point of all these "rules" Intrepid are setting up is to prevent players from constructing each others gameplay.
    For me it's about the balance in the game's rules that control how far players can constrict each other's gameplay.
  • NerrorNerror Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited March 2023
    I don't really think we should have these settings. So I guess option 5.

    The owner and spouse should be safe on the freehold if they are non-combatants. If they are combatants/corrupted, normal rules apply. Normal rules apply for anyone else on the freehold, no matter their combatant status.
Sign In or Register to comment.