AOC is NOT a PVP game.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Dracmire wrote: »

Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

You assume death is balanced like in other games.
In AoC death causes gear to lose durability. We do not know how it will be balanced. Can be done so that a highly corrupted player will lose more durability on death than a light corrupted player. Repairing epic gear can be expensive.
You don't even need an Alpha 2 test to figure out the balance ratios, to prevent such simple tricks.
The only reason to ask a friend to kill and clean corruption should be to deny enemy to do that. And in special cases should be a valid solution.

But if a player can kill many with common gear and get corruption, then those greens are either passive and have no place in the game or do not cooperate. The corrupted player cannot CC greens and gets weaker and weaker. And greens remain green while fighting the corrupted player.

To be clear, would we actually want 'going red' to be strongly disincentivized because your gear gets shredded?

Also, who would PK in good gear even now? The entire point of PK is that you are killing someone who doesn't even check if they could kill you.

I can imagine different situations with different players and objectives.
Cases where anger and revenge is involved or where they witness valuable resources being gathered which worth sacrificing the gear durability for them.
Cases where mistakes happen, like one hit too much because some other interference...
Just because the game has the mechanic to become red, does not mean it will happen often unless is intended via benefits acquired in military nodes. Players will have to learn to recognize other's guild and citizenship.

Azherae

Otr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Dracmire wrote: »

Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

You assume death is balanced like in other games.
In AoC death causes gear to lose durability. We do not know how it will be balanced. Can be done so that a highly corrupted player will lose more durability on death than a light corrupted player. Repairing epic gear can be expensive.
You don't even need an Alpha 2 test to figure out the balance ratios, to prevent such simple tricks.
The only reason to ask a friend to kill and clean corruption should be to deny enemy to do that. And in special cases should be a valid solution.

But if a player can kill many with common gear and get corruption, then those greens are either passive and have no place in the game or do not cooperate. The corrupted player cannot CC greens and gets weaker and weaker. And greens remain green while fighting the corrupted player.

To be clear, would we actually want 'going red' to be strongly disincentivized because your gear gets shredded?

Also, who would PK in good gear even now? The entire point of PK is that you are killing someone who doesn't even check if they could kill you.

I can imagine different situations with different players and objectives.
Cases where anger and revenge is involved or where they witness valuable resources being gathered which worth sacrificing the gear durability for them.
Cases where mistakes happen, like one hit too much because some other interference...
Just because the game has the mechanic to become red, does not mean it will happen often unless is intended via benefits acquired in military nodes. Players will have to learn to recognize other's guild and citizenship.

I've noticed that generally, the response of many L2 players and remaining vocal players on these forums (the Venn Diagram is moving closer to a circle!) is 'well there won't be a lot of going red anyway!'

Which is a problem for the PvP-hopefuls I have mentioned in some other thread (they're all blurring together now honestly).

I'm just asking so I can categorize you, honestly, but I'll drop it, since at this point I can't track if it even matters to anything.

Otr

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Dracmire wrote: »

Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

You assume death is balanced like in other games.
In AoC death causes gear to lose durability. We do not know how it will be balanced. Can be done so that a highly corrupted player will lose more durability on death than a light corrupted player. Repairing epic gear can be expensive.
You don't even need an Alpha 2 test to figure out the balance ratios, to prevent such simple tricks.
The only reason to ask a friend to kill and clean corruption should be to deny enemy to do that. And in special cases should be a valid solution.

But if a player can kill many with common gear and get corruption, then those greens are either passive and have no place in the game or do not cooperate. The corrupted player cannot CC greens and gets weaker and weaker. And greens remain green while fighting the corrupted player.

To be clear, would we actually want 'going red' to be strongly disincentivized because your gear gets shredded?

Also, who would PK in good gear even now? The entire point of PK is that you are killing someone who doesn't even check if they could kill you.

I can imagine different situations with different players and objectives.
Cases where anger and revenge is involved or where they witness valuable resources being gathered which worth sacrificing the gear durability for them.
Cases where mistakes happen, like one hit too much because some other interference...
Just because the game has the mechanic to become red, does not mean it will happen often unless is intended via benefits acquired in military nodes. Players will have to learn to recognize other's guild and citizenship.

I've noticed that generally, the response of many L2 players and remaining vocal players on these forums (the Venn Diagram is moving closer to a circle!) is 'well there won't be a lot of going red anyway!'

Which is a problem for the PvP-hopefuls I have mentioned in some other thread (they're all blurring together now honestly).

I'm just asking so I can categorize you, honestly, but I'll drop it, since at this point I can't track if it even matters to anything.

Going red might not happen often enough for me but I don't really care because I can spend more time in the deep ocean or doing the caravan game solo or with the guild.
So if going red is less frequent we have more control when we start the risky activities.
The caravan system seems a good mechanic which is the 2nd stage of the resource movement.
Gatherers might have more peace and sell the resources to others who prefer to rather transport them.
They only have to let them go, by selling them, which is uncommon for some dedicated players who want to do everything on the chain of production.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I've noticed that generally, the response of many L2 players and remaining vocal players on these forums (the Venn Diagram is moving closer to a circle!) is 'well there won't be a lot of going red anyway!'

Which is a problem for the PvP-hopefuls I have mentioned in some other thread (they're all blurring together now honestly).

If visible hp does in fact end up promoting more pvp because it's easier for people to fight back - the pvp should be fine.

I think that the final piece of the pvp puzzle is the Wars details. We've got none, so it's difficult to figure out what's gonna be the % of people in guilds/nodes at war and the % of everyone else. L2's "PKing" was mostly done through guild wars. I expect the same to be true in Ashes as well, unless wars are designed in such a way where being in a war is super expensive w/ barely any benefit at all.

Of course there'll be dudes who PK purely to PK, but those are <<1% of the population and with higher punishment for it it'll be difficult to uphold that kind of gameplay.

Though obviously all my theorizing can go out the window if AoC's populace hates pvp so damn much that no one even flags up in the first place. But I guess that'd be good for the game in the long run, cause pvers would then be more attracted to the game (given that the pve itself is fun of course).

Fiddlez

Noaani wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

I'm not sure how people still don't know what flavour of MMO this is? I can't count the number of people that are confused about Ashes being PvX.

I definitely have the tools to count them, so just point me at them and I'll do it.

I generally only hang around here, when it comes to Ashes, so I don't see them.

I'm on other gaming forums and people are often shocked when I start talking about what ever update, how it applies to PvX. Often leading to people being shocked or arguing that Ashes is a PvE game with optional PvP.

Is that consistent across game type boards or are you getting different responses depending on the game?

For instance, I’d imagine MO2 boards seeing Ashes as a PvE game, while more PvE boards seeing Ashes as a PvP game.

From my perspective, the general concensus in most other games is that this game will be shit, but for different reasons.

People I know in EQ and EQ2 say the game doesn't appeal to them because of the constant conflict inherent to basically every aspect of the game.

People I know from back when I played EVE say the game will be shit because it wants to try and compete with EVE's economy, yet can't find a developer with anything close to the right skillset to realize that.

People I know in Archeage say the game isn't for them because the rigid class structure (as opposed to Archeages) will lead to players being left out of organized PvP if their primary archetype is deemed less useful than other archetypes.

People I know that still play Rift think Ashes will fail because of the reliance they see the game having on events and other open world set pieces, and how quickly they have seen populations get bored with such content.

I don't know anyone from when I played BDO, so can't speak to what they think of the game.

The above all said, that is still a select group of people from each of these games, not necessarily the entire population of the game.

Perhaps my point here is - none of the people I know currently playing an MMORPG are looking at Ashes favorably.

You know...I asked a buddy in New World and he said the same thing. Then I showed him the most recent video and he got excited and said it looks great.

You have an amazing talent for using alot of letters but saying nothing at all.

We both know we will find people who do and don't want to play Ashes in every game out there. So what was all yammering about?

hleV

Otr wrote: »

Dracmire wrote: »

Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

You assume death is balanced like in other games.
In AoC death causes gear to lose durability. We do not know how it will be balanced. Can be done so that a highly corrupted player will lose more durability on death than a light corrupted player. Repairing epic gear can be expensive.
You don't even need an Alpha 2 test to figure out the balance ratios, to prevent such simple tricks.
The only reason to ask a friend to kill and clean corruption should be to deny enemy to do that. And in special cases should be a valid solution.

But if a player can kill many with common gear and get corruption, then those greens are either passive and have no place in the game or do not cooperate. The corrupted player cannot CC greens and gets weaker and weaker. And greens remain green while fighting the corrupted player.

Indeed, the corruption should be balanced in a way where dying while corrupted is not something you'd want to do, even if you get to keep the dropped stuff (by asking a friend to kill you, etc.). Reds should be trying to get away with it rather than have an easy way out by cheesing their death with an acceptable loss of XP/gear durability.

Kalnazzar

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I 100% approve this message lmao.

Aszkalon

AOC is NOT a PVP game.

While i am aware People can direct their Focus at Content 24/7 that is not PvP - to "avoid" PvP if they so want,


the Moment "Anyone" would actually tell me this right into the Face, while they themself keep a strait face without even twitching or so,

i would fully expect them to tell me next, that it is probably not even an MMO Game either. And probably not even intended as such.


THIS IS how these Words sound to me. Not trying to be a Douche here. Just saying.

Depraved

Dracmire wrote: »

So you have a game where you can be griefed, you will drop a percentage of the things you have collected in the short time you have to play. That person has done nothing really to get it, and can keep doing it just building up corruption. Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

But lets be clear, the game requires the casual player doing PVE, so many of the game mechanics can be completed. So tell me why do you think they should play?

If you say it's not a casual game, then you better hope all the PVE based mechanics are really easy to complete.

Always PVP game will be full of griefers everyone knows it, they won't care about the corruption, as they know they will kill some people easily, especially as many will not even fight back! So you have PVP mechanics that mean there is no real reason not to grief
A game is not social because you need protection, a game is social because people want to play together. PVP'ers don't want to play with PVE'ers, they want easy kills, well at least some do (and that's enough to stop PVE'ers Playing).

So a game that could be great, may well be limited by it's low population of PVP'ers.

this makes no sense.

first, pvping someone out in the open isn't griefing. and when you say that player didn't do anything to earn the things he got from killing you, well guess what? he had to spend time leveling his character, getting gear and getting good at pvp, otherwise you would have killed him...players don't auto win vs others. you could him too, it goes both ways.

and who says pvpers don't want to play with pvers? that's ridiculous. also, most people wont even pvp you unless its for a farming spot, and most people just go to the next one.

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

We both know we will find people who do and don't want to play Ashes in every game out there. So what was all yammering about?

All that "yammering" is called discussion.

This is, after all, a discussion forum.

Someone asked if people are getting different reactions to this game from communities in different games. Many people here know that I have some very close friends currently in a number of different games, and so I posted the general opinion of those people, broken down in to the MMO they are currently playing.

Again, this is called "discussion".

Is that a problem?

blat

Ull wrote: »

i heard this is a pvp game

that sounds like a dong swinging contest with a lot of work

ill stick to pve, i dont feel the need to prove my dong is bigger than anyone elses because i already know it is, etc etc

haha

pve good

anyways hopefully i can place bets on which dong swingers will win fights somehow, i would like to turn the pvpers into animalian behavers that create entertainment for the masses via a colosseum, sort of like modern day football players or people trapped inside a human sized aquarium for alien entertainment…maybe the pvpers could make teams and then we pvers could have “fantasy pvp” in game where we all choose our favorite pvpers and decide who will win while the pvpers act uncivilized and go animal-kingdom on eachother

^ old post but it's funny/interesting how differently people see this.
For me the pvp element is peak gameplay. No, I'm not including any mindless griefing in that. But in an MMO game, surely to want some level of actual direct human competition outside of a dmg meter is reasonable? Even objectively better?!
Personally I see PvE as a bit "zug zug ooh big numbers!!1"; mostly a chore a game forces me into to get the gear I need for PvP.
Defeating some primitive AI by learning mechanics as you would a recipe, rather than having to handle a truly unique scenario in every single fight, vs an enemy who improves and learns you back.
I still want the pve'ers totally accommodated though.

As usual these days every topic is so hyper polarised, whereas surely the aim is a game that can neatly accommodate all - and make the world varied & alive, with all our cross-concerns fuelling a thriving economy. That's certainly what Intrepid are attempting via the corruption system, and I commend it.

Ren'Kai smash.

Kilion

Dracmire wrote: »

So you have a game where you can be griefed, you will drop a percentage of the things you have collected in the short time you have to play. That person has done nothing really to get it, and can keep doing it just building up corruption. Then if they are smart, use a second account to kill this one corrupted and get everything for free.

No, you don't.

1) The attacker is losing reputation with your Node, which will lead to them at some point being unable to engage with that Node and/or it's citizens
2) The attacker may end up on a block list, which limits their access to gear and content as other players cooperation is needed to access content in the game
3) "just building up corruption" is a vast understatment regarding the effects that corruption has on the character and the "just kill em with another account" assumes that there is no way for other players to hunt down corrupted, while there even is a dedicated system for that (head hunters) which one Alt will not fend off "just because". Additionally it has nothing to do with "if they are smart" intelligence is doesn't evaporate additional 15$ per month
4) Intrepid has designed the corruption system to reduce non-constructive & destructive gaming behavior. If someone is going overboard with it, they will adjust the system to further disincentivise the behavior or handle the matter via their GMs & live analysis of player behavior

Dracmire wrote: »

So tell me why do you think they should play?

This is a game, an optional pastime. There is no "should". Ever. If someone plays it, it is 100% out of there own volition and the word "should" has nothing to do in this.

Dracmire wrote: »

PVP'ers don't want to play with PVE'ers, they want easy kills, well at least some do (and that's enough to stop PVE'ers Playing).

Again, completely false. First the categorization of players into "pure" PvP or PvE makes no sense as playing only on or the other way is unviable without insane limitations on what you can do in the game. That's like playing Legend of Zelda expecting classes.

Next PvP oriented game play is not about easy kills but about the fight player VS player. You inflate the bad behavior of griefers onto everyone who is not a pacifist towards other players, expecting us to accept this as if it had any hold in reality.

Additionally you are either vastly uninformed about the necessity of cooperation amongst players (even those who want to mainly fight against others) and the balancing system, unless you vastly ignore those factors on purpose. If it is the latter you may want to go to the mmorpg subreddit where the doom talk while ignoring information on mechanics is the common practice.

Dygz

I define PvPer as gamers who typically play EQ/EQ2/WoW on PvP servers.
I define PvEer as players who typically play EQ/EQ2/WoW on servers that are not PvP servers.

Aszkalon

I bet with You -> +98% of all Players will NOT just stand there like Idiots and let some Playerkillers just come up to them and kill them.

Especially because You drop more Loot if you get killed without resisting.

Dygz

Because +98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs, like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).

You don't actually drop more loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Green.
You drop less loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Purple.

Fiddlez

Dygz wrote: »

Because +98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs, like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).

You don't actually drop more loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Green.
You drop less loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Purple.

If the game is good it won't matter. Tarkov created its own sub genre. I also figured out after everyone foretold WoWs failure that people generally don't have a clue.

The only evidence is old 20 year old games and a P2W. Which just goes to show that there is really no game like AoC being developed so we will just have to see.

It's just a fact that if it's good, people.wont give a crap about any of it, same way tarkov on paper sounds horrendous but in reality...

Noaani

Fiddlez wrote: »

I also figured out after everyone foretold WoWs failure that people generally don't have a clue.

"Everyone" didn't predict WoW's downfall.

There are always a handful of people that are tired of the game that think it is going to fail in some manner, but that is far from "everyone".

The reason Tarkov is popular is because it's easy to cheat - at least for a while. Look at how few accounts are still active from previous leaderboards to get an idea of how widespread it is in that game. I guess that counts as it's own sub-genre.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

Because +98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs, like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).

You don't actually drop more loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Green.
You drop less loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Purple.

This has got to be a troll.
If B is less than A, then A is more than B, isn't it?
(Mods: can I request a "derp" emoji?)

Also, these ultra strong assertions "98% blah" about PvP which have already been shown to be total rubbish, will only put people off the game.
Is that what you're trying to do?

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

This has got to be a troll.
If B is less than A, then A is more than B, isn't it?
(Mods: can I request a "derp" emoji?)

Also, these ultra strong assertions "98% blah" about PvP which have already been shown to be total rubbish, will only put people off the game.
Is that what you're trying to do?

Neither a troll nor a "I'm gonna make everyone not play". Dygz is just a highly opinionated person with very dug in opinions and preferences

blat

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

This has got to be a troll.
If B is less than A, then A is more than B, isn't it?
(Mods: can I request a "derp" emoji?)

Also, these ultra strong assertions "98% blah" about PvP which have already been shown to be total rubbish, will only put people off the game.
Is that what you're trying to do?

Neither a troll nor a "I'm gonna make everyone not play". Dygz is just a highly opinionated person with very dug in opinions and preferences

Ha fairplay. I'm new round here. The "more loot, less loot" thing though... come on, gotta be.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Ha fairplay. I'm new round here. The "more loot, less loot" thing though... come on, gotta be.

He's technically not wrong. You do drop less per death. He just doesn't accept the concept of "pvpers die more often, so they lose more stuff overall". And that's cause of his dug in opinions

blat

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Ha fairplay. I'm new round here. The "more loot, less loot" thing though... come on, gotta be.

He's technically not wrong. You do drop less per death. He just doesn't accept the concept of "pvpers die more often, so they lose more stuff overall". And that's cause of his dug in opinions

Well it was more the correction that "you don't actually drop more loot if green, you drop less if purple". Lols ok mate.

He's going off the arbitrary wording of the rules. It's obviously all relative though.

Combatants drop X
Non-combatants drop 2X
Corrupted drop 8X + gear

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Combatants drop X
Non-combatants drop 2X
Corrupted drop 8X + gear

The green value is the base one, because everyone starts green. Purples drop LESS, which is why Dygz is technically correct.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

The green value is the base one, because everyone is starts green. Purples drop LESS, which is why Dygz is technically correct.

Haha well, I never argued it wasn't the base. Not that the base value makes any difference at all here (it being a relativistic statement).
The line was:

Aszkalon wrote: »

Especially because You drop more Loot if you get killed without resisting.

Which is totally correct.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

The line was:

Aszkalon wrote: »

Especially because You drop more Loot if you get killed without resisting.

Which is totally correct.

Ah, I finally get what you mean. I missed that Dygz' comment was a response.

Yeah, I think he was just talking about the "98%" dying, and due to him considering them pvpers - they'd die flagged (in his example).

In other words, this was just a misunderstanding/misspeaking.

blat

Yeah no worries. He was just "Dygging" someone out over some arbitrary semantic bs is all, I'm a bit weak for those.

Yours is a good point though, just a different one. It should reassure the PvEers. I love a bit of pvp but don't fancy those corruption penalties myself. So even if non-combatants die the odd time, it'd be nothing compared to combatants... and as you say, the drop penalties will cumulatively be far larger for combatants.

Dygz

Fiddlez wrote: »

If the game is good it won't matter. Tarkov created its own sub genre. I also figured out after everyone foretold WoWs failure that people generally don't have a clue.

The only evidence is old 20 year old games and a P2W. Which just goes to show that there is really no game like AoC being developed so we will just have to see.

It's just a fact that if it's good, people.wont give a crap about any of it, same way tarkov on paper sounds horrendous but in reality...

People will give a crap.
Playstyles don't change much.
There are plenty of games out and in development that are a better fit for the majority of MMORPG players than the PvP-centric game Steven is developing. That would not have been true if Ashes had released before 2020.
But, Ashes will be a great game for gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs. It will be successful enough.

Aszkalon

Dygz wrote: »

Because +98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs, like Lineage II, ArcheAge and EvE (and ShadowBane).

You don't actually drop more loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Green.
You drop less loot than dying from pure PvE if you are Purple.

You drop the Loot to Players. Not to PvE.

I am sure +98% of the Community will be able to get that into their Head. Or are random PvE Open World Mobs looting your Pockets next after Players ? For like no Reason ? lol

Dygz

You drop Resources when you die.
What you mean is that mobs do not pick up dropped items.

hleV

I wouldn't be opposed to mobs of certain "intelligence" grabbing some of your loot if no player does that in a given timeframe, and then drop it all upon death. Would be a pretty original mechanic.