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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Oh boy, I can imagine I could stay doing this against my neighbours the entire day, fuck quests
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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:
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
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.
PvPers:
Carebears:
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%
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.
I won't click that
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.
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.