Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
And any person coming to my country would know the same fact. At any time of day they could be hit by a rocket.
On top of that, there's locations in the country where that non-0% becomes smth like 90% chance of getting killed, for simply existing in that location.
Oh and there's a "system" in place that would, in theory, punish anyone who killed those "non-0%" people (Hague).
Any owpvp game is literally the same. And Ashes even has the "same" system.
At any point while you're in the game you can be killed by another person. That is a war environment. You could argue that this applies to any location on earth, but I'd imagine that the ratio of dying people is skewed way more towards warring locations.
And at any point of you being present in a certain location in the game, the chance of you dying at the hands of another player goes up as well.
And there's a system in the game that tries to limit "senseless" killings. It won't stop them, just as it doesn't irl, but it is there.
Your suggestion is to somehow completely stop those killings. This game will simply not do that. Which is the reason why you've been told that the game might not be for you. Though you say that AA is your favorite mmo despite the killings, so I guess Ashes can be as well. Which brings us back to the pointlessness of the OP, because you'll be able to enjoy the game even if there are senseless PKers in the game, for you have already done so previously.
it's not too much for me. I just used your words but I can apply toxic from now on as well. i just think a drastic label of a player base who in your words is the majority is too much. we've all encountered toxic individuals in game, i wouldn't go so far as to label an entire group of people enjoying a game mode as toxic. A lot of people enjoy open world pvp, not everyone that enjoys open world pvp griefs. There's a huge difference.
This is my point, you're implying it as a possibility when all he's doing is making a game. Some players love full loot always on pvp games, that doesn't mean the designers of said games are toxic or have a mental disorder. It's more than ok if any developer likes a non combat pve game or if they go in the complete other direction of full loot. Anything in between is also acceptable imo. People enjoy different game modes and that's ok. It's ok to like different games.
How am I misquoting? Irish attacked your argument and said it was lacking in substance. You took it as a personal affront and instead of arguing your point further, you implied that he *may* be one of these toxic/sociopathic individuals. None of us know each other, none of the criticism is personal. You provided an opinion and people are providing theirs. This just goes in line with your original post of "regular/normal players don't like this stuff and you're not attracting them" implying that anyone that disagrees with you is not a regular or normal player.
It's not about regular or normal, but about specific game modes and what people enjoy.
Reasonable or normal people can't detach themselves...but you know who can? Sociopaths/Psychopaths. I know this is the point you're making, and I've said as such already. We'll call them toxic individuals though ofc, but once again you're implying what you said before, these people lack empathy and have an emotional disorder.
I like competition in pvp games and do not take wins or losses seriously. The vast majority of my pvp interactions are very, very good. I'm out there to have fun, win or lose. I've had great fights while losing and I don't project my losses on the other person. That's just my perspective, to not make games personal because it's a game.
Just because I play chess and risk doesn't mean I dream of world domination and sacking nations. Just because i play call of duty or first person shooters doesn't mean I am homicidal. We're playing a game with rule sets in place designed to allow specific game play. If I flag up in New World and get attacked by another faction, I can't be upset about the interaction because im engaging in the designed system. People enjoying systems or games is not personal. You don't have to like any of these games, but they are just games.
You say you enjoy open world pvp, but you don't enjoy some portions of open world pvp...naming pk gankers and people attacking you from the other faction(the second of which is open world pvp). You then go on to say that you only want pvp in specific areas...which is not the definition of open world pvp. Which is it that you like then?
You labeled the majority of your interactions with people in a game with sociopathic tendencies as a broad generalization, then said the majority of these players aren't regular or normal players...which in and of itself is a ludicrous statement. Then when people countered your arguments in a thread, you implied those players are ALSO part of this group(people with a mental disorder). This is literally the definition of an ad hominem fallacy. You're not attacking the argument, you're attacking the person.
You've backtracked the mental illness aspect which is great, but from my interpretation you once again made it personal, implying someone questioning your argument is 'toxic'.
This is another example of an ad hominem. Anyone that has any disagreement about what valid game modes are are toxic individuals. A game mode that enables the abilities for players to kill others with consequences is nothing but a game mode, regardless of strictness. Free for all full loot pvp is a game mode.
You're implying that it's more than that. It's personal, it has emotion attached to it and people that think otherwise aren't emotional and it's vindictive. People that engage in these types of game modes can only operate with this in mind for one specific reason...they have a lack of emotion. There are of course bad actors in any system, pve or pvp related. I haven't found this to be the norm though.
The tl;dr is that you wrote everything you wrote because you don't like the thought of an always on pvp system and you want it changed before it goes live. Instead of saying that you said all of this above. There are plenty of players that believe what you believe, and I even could get on board depending on how good or bad the corruption system is. I want players to have a good experience and I love sandbox games because each interaction can be different.
I don't like the griefing of players, but I do appreciate systems in place to allow players to make their own decisions. Griefing comes in many forms and an open system like this prevents a lot of other forms of griefing. I hope the punishments are harsh, but we will not know until we test it.
Thanks for the reply, this is already much better than what we had going on before. I can respect the points you made, and can even agree with your point of view on most points.
I'd just like to point out I didn't use the word majority, when talking about players and my interactions with them, I just said a large number. A larger number than usual in other games, I guess.
I'm guessing what I'd really want if games had a system that makes these attacks possible, but incredibly inconvenient and not worth to do, unless there's a good reason (aka corruption system in Ashes).
I was just confused when you said game mode, because what I consider a game mode might be different from your definition (we don't need to go into that as well, defining what game mode is and what game modes exist). I thought the OWPvP was a gamemode in itself, and within that, I just hate the instances of pointless, deliberate griefing. If there is PvP happening, all I'm asking for is it to not be pointless and meaningless, I want there to always be a valid reason to engage in it. I've already given a few examples previously.
Again, my thoughts on the always-on or not always-on PvP is that I like there being an option for the PvP at any time, any place, I just want there to be a good enough reason to engage in PvP, rather than it being "just because I can ruin someone else's fun".
A mob is not the same thing as a PvP gamer. At all.
Hardcore mobs are fine - although... if mobs were designed to be as ruthless and conniving as gamers, I would stop playing games.
I think Ashes is going in a good direction. The punishment (corruption) system should be punishing enough to discourage PvP for no reason, but if you do it when you contest a dungeon for example, you get rewarded by actually getting the loot from the dungeon. You know, the benefit overweighs the cost.
So there's always going to be a cost to pay for PKing, it's up to you to decide if the reward is worth it.
Well, since the game systems are in place, and that is the core of what Ashes is, I think you're going to have a bad time. The game is almost entirely centered around player cooperation and conflicts. If you don't like that, this simply isn't the game for you, and that's perfectly fine, but it's not going to change. You're going to have to learn to like it, or find another game. There's already hundreds of other MMO's to pick from.
But if you're fine with that situation (as you seem to be, cause AA seems to have it yet you love that game) - you'll like Ashes and there was no reason for this entire thread
And if you're not ok with that fact, then do propose a solution to your perceived issues, because we all have complaints, but complaints only work if the devs see them as issues. Steven doesn't see the ability to kill whoever for whatever reason an issue. He only sees frequent repetition of such actions an issue, which is why we have the corruption system.
Tbf AA doesn't have it, because there's faction PvP. Also jail time in AA is meh imo, and it heavily depends on the Jury, who will vote based on personal relationships, bribes, etc. (that is if they're not afk and auto-maxing everyone).
This will not stop all PKers, but it will definitely decrease the number and the rate at which they appear. If a punishment is severe enough, a lot of them will soon realize that it's not worth doing, so they will eventually stop doing it unless there's a good reason to. Again, much different from Archeage, where they can PK you without any issues, for no reason at all. Overall, faction PvP turns out to be trash.
They will not
People whose whole purpose in the game will not be stopped by penalties, because the very process of killing people itself is already worth enough for them to ignore any penalty.
So the only way to prevent those killings from happening is to remove the ability to kill others in the open world. So I ask you once again, are you ok with people having that ability or do you have some idea to prevent those killings from happening while also somehow allowing people to attack others?
And I guess we come back to square one, and we are talking about the type of people I was talking about in my OP, except that they're more common in games where PKing isn't limited/punishable, like Archeage, than they will be in a game like Ashes?
I'm not sure about how the alts worked in L2, but if it's easy to create an alt just for PKing, while your main is safe from any punishment, than it would be a good idea to prevent that sort of thing from happening in Ashes.
Account wide corruption maybe? Not sure. But people can just create an alt for PKing people, while their main is perfectly fine, without facing any consequences... not great imo.
This is another area that will cut off even more of those people from PKing.
So what I'm suggesting is, I guess if there are enough roadblocks on the way, the number of people that will actually engage in the meaningless PKing is going to become less and less, until it's such an uncommon occurrence, and I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with it just happening on a daily basis, because the punishments aren't severe enough, or if there are no punishments and all, which allows people to either bypass the consequences extremely quickly, or to face no consequences at all
There's gonna be 10k people online during primetime. 1% active PKers is 100 people. 100 people in hundred places would definitely seem like a lot of PKing going on, when in reality it's only 1% of players participating in the act.
Do you want that number to be even lower? Cause if punishments for PKing are so damn high that every player is sure no one will go Red against them - there's gonna be no owpvp outside structured events/wars. Is that the design you want for Ashes?
In faction? Not that many, and it was usually when competing for resources (though most people will not mind you, mining next to them for example, unless they're assholes who just PK you on sight in that case).
The bigger problem there was the faction PvP.
Imo it's all about the fine tuning, which should happen before the game goes out into open-beta.
It should be punishing enough, but not too much, where some people would still want to do it in certain situations, again if the rewards outweigh the cost. It should allow for people to feel somewhat safe out in the world, and not have to worry about every single player around them potentially attacking them.
But, if they decide to take a bit of risk, whether it's going to an open-world dungeon, trying to contest the world boss, occupying a farming spot, or gathering and hauling a bunch of mats, then yeah, there should be risk of PvP in that situation - note that most of that stuff I mentioned is done in a group, so it would encourage group PvP around certain spots, chokepoints, high-interest areas, or whatever else, but the rest of the world should be pretty much safe for the most part for a player wandering around, doing quests, completing certain events, etc. you know, just doing regular MMO tasks (that is unless you encounter one of the assholes that would just PvP you for no reason, who don't care about the consequences - not much you can do there I guess).
Balance, fine tuning, testing.
Here's another question then. Do you plan to be a part of a node and/or guild?
hey i can get behind most of this. I don't want mindless griefing either and i can tell you that if i feel like the corruption system is that way I'll say something about it.
As far as misinterpretation goes it happens, hopefully you can see how it can be misconstrued from what you're intending
I can see how this post has opened up a huge discussion on gaming. Personally, I feel that there's a been a shift in how people are rewarded in games to give them that dopamine hit with easy gratification to appease the, dare I say it "woke" mentality of people these days. The participation reward in current games far outweighs the reward for actually being good and beating players in combat.
Developers know that there will always be a greater population of less good players verses the few PVX giga chads. So they create participation rewards to the masses instead of insentivising unique rewards to the winners, all to keep the number of players high.
Players also forget they are playing a game and get too senstive. There obvisously a line that can be stepped over with shit talking turning in to offensive and abusive language etc but on the same note it's easy to mute and walk away.
To conclude and back to the OP. I feel these types of posts are written from a player wanting to navigate the development of a game to their wishes so they can play the game in their way instead of them finding a game that suits them.
I know AOC has plans for a notoriety system that will help navigate the open world PVP experience and this is a good thing as opposed to separating pvp and pve players.
Ironically the counter to the 6-7 psycho hit squad is a 15-20 (pve) player ball group. And while I'm not a fan of ball groups in PVP I think there's a place for them as eventually the number escalate to huge open world pvp which can be a lot of fun.
and yes I agree with tea bagging. It's pvp gaming to the core.
Crazy thought: This is what an Alpha & Beta test are for.
Yes, psychopathic behavior is possible to a degree.
No, it is not entirely discouraged.
No, it is not possible to accurately distinguish it from "desirable" gameplay.
Close the thread, my heads spinning for going around in circles here.
Go suck a tailpipe. ❤️
This was a very well thought out research paper. There are several very flawed logical fallacies to your presentation. Number one You did not consider your audience and if you truly did very well played sir. If you had a social media account and that's a large if i would accuse you of trolling for clicks. This was not your intention however and that is blatantly obvious when people read your entire post. You just want to be heard and have your opinion to be considered valid. Those of us who are educated and patient enough to read your entire post understand that.
However back to my point one. You personally attacked Steven and called him out in a very nice but very verbose way a sociopath for providing a game where other sociopaths can come and freely engage in trolling and griefing. To make up for this slight you briefly mention the corruption system and rightly point out that until it is tested by players of ashes its a good concept to prevent rampant griefing but as yet an untested concept. And a famous general once said No Battle plan survives the first round of combat. You are correct about that. As a US military veteran i can tell you first hand that when the rubber hits the road there will be skid-marks. I praise the ashes team for their dedication to make a great game. I also praise you for having the courage to voice your clearly unpopular opinion but again you chose to confront this audience with your word vomit. I just have to say from a follower of narc and member of the narciverse that your high on copium.
Peace Out,
Calicobard
But.... thanks!
You have to forgive me, but I guess I just don't clearly understand why someone who will hate every aspect of what the core of this game is wants to participate in it. You clearly want nothing to do with PvP, but PvP is going to be going on around you in every nook and cranny that you turn. Not fighting back in this game means you actually lose more. I just find this an odd choice of game for someone so vehemently against PvP. You must realize the dev direction isn't changing. Your motivation is beyond me, and is highly questionable since what you seem to like about this game will come at a heavy player VS player cost you seem to not want to participate in.
You of course are free to do what you wish, but I find your motivation to either to constantly do your best to annoy others, and if that's true, it won't last long before you're just ignored. Or you are willingly playing something you know you'll hate to simply have something to complain about.
Because nothing about Ashes for someone in your mindset is going to be enjoyable.
As I said, your true motivation is beyond me.
Best of luck to you.