If the devs didn't want forced pvp the devs would've added a pvp toggle. Not corruption. Forced pvp is a viable tactic to stop other players from griefing. Corruption is there to stop pvp players from griefing. PvP players fighting for an area of farming or resource area is perfectly valid.
Who said the devs did not want forced PVP?
In Ashes, forced PvP is punished by Corruption. If the devs wanted to prevent forced PvP - they probably would have implemented a toggle.
Corruption is not designed to prevent forced PvP. Rather, Corruption is designed to deter forced PvP via significant penalties. Except on the Open Seas. Corruption does not prevent PvP players from griefing.
Prevent is not the exact same thing as deter.
Define forced pvp.
It's like when you are in a corner, surrounded, nowhere to run and they tell you to take off your cosmetics or PvP.
You have no choice.
If the devs didn't want forced pvp the devs would've added a pvp toggle. Not corruption. Forced pvp is a viable tactic to stop other players from griefing. Corruption is there to stop pvp players from griefing. PvP players fighting for an area of farming or resource area is perfectly valid.
Who said the devs did not want forced PVP?
In Ashes, forced PvP is punished by Corruption. If the devs wanted to prevent forced PvP - they probably would have implemented a toggle.
Corruption is not designed to prevent forced PvP. Rather, Corruption is designed to deter forced PvP via significant penalties. Except on the Open Seas. Corruption does not prevent PvP players from griefing.
Prevent is not the exact same thing as deter.
Define forced pvp.
It's like when you are in a corner, surrounded, nowhere to run and they tell you to take off your cosmetics or PvP.
You have no choice.
We are flagged Non-Combatant by default.
There is no handicap as a Non-Combatant.
It’s just normal death penalties upon death. Same as dying from a mob.
CC is irrelevant when a Non-Combantant is opting to punish their assailant with Corruption.
We are flagged Non-Combatant by default.
There is no handicap as a Non-Combatant.
It’s just normal death penalties upon death. Same as dying from a mob.
CC is irrelevant when a Non-Combantant is opting to punish their assailant with Corruption.
There technically is a handicap with the forced attack, immune to cc and aoe.
Combatants have half the rate for penalties of non-combatans upon death.
There's pro's and con's to the flagging status.
Non-combatant (green players) suffer normal death penalties, which include:[1]
Experience debt (negative experience).[2] Experience debt scales to approximately 2 or 3 percent of the total XP for a max level player. These numbers are subject to change based on testing.[3]
Skill and stat dampening.[1]
Lower health and mana.[1]
Lower gear proficiency.[1]
Reduction in loot drop rates from mobs.[4]
Durability loss.[5][6][1]
When players die and they take durability loss, our durability loss isn't like other games where it's a gold sink so to speak. It's a combination of both a gold sink and a material sink. So in a sense, even if you only have completed items, when you take that durability loss you are losing out on materials. It's just a debt to the materials that you are losing instead of the active loss of that material in your inventory. So now you are accruing a material debt if you want to repair and increase again the performance of those particular items that take that durability loss.[5] – Steven Sharif
Dropping a percentage of carried gatherables and materials that are used in the generation of something else.[7][8][1]
Items made for final consumption are not dropped, such as consumable items created by the Cooking and Alchemy professions.[7]
A percentage of the glint a player is carrying are also dropped.[9]
pair that with griefing from combatants with the current kill shot for corruption method... Going to be funny. Pro's and con's for non-combatant flagging
You guys are both right, and both wrong, and so obviously I'm going to take a position all by myself on a topic I really don't give a shit about, because why not...
There is forced PvP in a PvP game.
If me and my friends are running off to destroy a caravan or something, and you and your friends decide to engage us in a way where we have to fight, that is forced PvP. You and your friends are forcing me and my friends in to PvP we were not wanting.
However, it is also true that there is no scope for opting out of that PvP in a game like Ashes. Thus, if you logged in to the game, the above PvP is forced, but you are not able to claim it is anything other than consensual - you consented to it being a possibility when you logged in.
Thus, there is forced PvP, but it is still PvP you signed up for.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There technically is a handicap with the forced attack, immune to cc and aoe.
Combatants have half the rate for penalties of non-combatans upon death.
It's all on the wiki man
It's not a handicap... it's just normal.
Flagging as Combatant has the benefit of half normal death penalties.
And CC remains irrelevant for Non-Combatants opting to punish their assailants with Corruption.
We agree that's all in the wiki.
Non-consensual PvP is punished by Corruption.
Consensual PvP is when all participants are flagged Purple (or Red).
There technically is a handicap with the forced attack, immune to cc and aoe.
Combatants have half the rate for penalties of non-combatans upon death.
It's all on the wiki man
It's not a handicap... it's just normal.
Flagging as Combatant has the benefit of half normal death penalties.
And CC remains irrelevant for Non-Combatants opting to punish their assailants with Corruption.
We agree that's all in the wiki.
Non-consensual PvP is punished by Corruption.
Consensual PvP is when all participants are flagged Purple (or Red).
Yes, you get a "benefit" from flagging as a combatant in a pvx game. Non-combatant flagging provides a handicap. One could even say flagging as combatant is the normal way to flag and you get penalised for flagging as non-combatant. Literally a handicap for combat mechanics via cc and aoe with trade offs in death penalties, loot drop rates, losses upon death etc.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yes, you get a "benefit" from flagging as a combatant in a pvx game. Non-combatant flagging provides a handicap. One could even say flagging as combatant is the normal way to flag and you get penalised for flagging as non-combatant. Literally a handicap for combat mechanics via cc and aoe with trade offs in death penalties, loot drop rates, losses upon death etc.
There are plenty PvX MMORPGs that do not provide a benefit for flagging PvP.
In Ashes, you don't flag Non-Combatant. Everyone is a Non-Combatant is default. And there is no handicap and no penalty for remaining Non-Combatant.
You can say anything you want, even when you are incorrect.
Combat mechanics for CC and AOE are irrelevant when you are not fighting back. And, there is no trade-off in penalties because Non-Combatants have normal death penalties. Remaining Non-Combatant does not change the death penalties for dying as a Non-Combatant. Dying while Green has the same death penalties for dying from a player as dying from a mob.
Yes, you get a "benefit" from flagging as a combatant in a pvx game. Non-combatant flagging provides a handicap. One could even say flagging as combatant is the normal way to flag and you get penalised for flagging as non-combatant. Literally a handicap for combat mechanics via cc and aoe with trade offs in death penalties, loot drop rates, losses upon death etc.
There are plenty PvX MMORPGs that do not provide a benefit for flagging PvP.
You don't flag Non-Combatant. Non-Combatant is default. And there is no handicap and no penalty for remaining Non-Combatant.
You can say anything you want, even when you are incorrect.
Combat mechanics for CC and AOE are irrelevant when you are not fighting back. And, there is no trade-off in penalties because Non-Combatants have normal death penalties.
Its a falsified disposition to be classified as Non Combatant. Is a Green a Non-Combatant when fighting a Red?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Its a falsified disposition to be classified as Non Combatant. Is a Green a Non-Combatant when fighting a Red?
Reds are basically mobs/monsters, so yes... Greens are Non-Combatants when attacking Reds same as they are when attacking mobs/monsters.
Combatant means combat. You are not a non combatant against mobs. You enter combat stance lol. If you are in combat stance you are a combatant.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2023
In Ashes, Non-Combatant has a specific definition.
Same for the Ashes definitition of Class.
It's like when someone says, "He's pretty ugly," the meaning of pretty in that usage is not the literal meaning of pretty as the antonym of ugly.
Then I propose green's fighting red players are not classified as non-combatants, therefore, CCs should work and no further corruption should be gained by killing said greens.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2023
You can propose whatever you like, sure...
Just as some people propose separate PvE-Only servers...
Ganking won't be a thing in AoC, there's barely any loot and there are debuffs on the character
The PvE griefing will be very there at all times, specially flower pickers, miners and lumberjacks stealing all the lumber... and if you touch them then hell will be unleashed on you... you will be judged as a bad person and all kinds of sociopaths will bring about their tendencies on you, which is comical since you were just trying to save the local's fauna and flora
Gatheres should have corruption too for over harvestng, they are pretty much gutting Verra's life force!!!
If there is loot to be made there will be ganking
If there are social politics and gains to be made between players, guilds and/or nodes there will be ganking.
Yes, you get a "benefit" from flagging as a combatant in a pvx game. Non-combatant flagging provides a handicap. One could even say flagging as combatant is the normal way to flag and you get penalised for flagging as non-combatant. Literally a handicap for combat mechanics via cc and aoe with trade offs in death penalties, loot drop rates, losses upon death etc.
There are plenty PvX MMORPGs that do not provide a benefit for flagging PvP.
In Ashes, you don't flag Non-Combatant. Everyone is a Non-Combatant is default. And there is no handicap and no penalty for remaining Non-Combatant.
You can say anything you want, even when you are incorrect.
Combat mechanics for CC and AOE are irrelevant when you are not fighting back. And, there is no trade-off in penalties because Non-Combatants have normal death penalties. Remaining Non-Combatant does not change the death penalties for dying as a Non-Combatant. Dying while Green has the same death penalties for dying from a player as dying from a mob.
If you don't fight back it's quite relevant and advantageous lol.... A literal handicap...lol
This whole flagging system sounds super soft to me. Forcing everyone to run around as a non-combatants until they force attack or opt-in as a combatant during an event/siege. 90 second combatant durations once flagged...Sounds just as bad as war mode in WoW.
sounds super care bear to me...
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
At least those those PvX players will have a place in the game. Not in the deep ocean.
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
At least those those PvX players will have a place in the game. Not in the deep ocean.
It depends if that sea biomes features are engaging enough outside of the no flagging system to call to PvP enthusiasts enough. Could be "scary" for those PvE enthusiasts...
Doesn't really affect how boring the rest of the game could potentially be for them. We don't even know how expensive it will be to create ships, upkeep and durability. I imagine it wont be cheap or the seas could be over run by fleets and barricades. Had similar discussions with whom used to be known as "neurath" now @Song_Warden
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
At least those those PvX players will have a place in the game. Not in the deep ocean.
It depends if that sea biomes features are engaging enough outside of the no flagging system to call to PvP enthusiasts enough. Could be "scary" for those PvE enthusiasts...
Doesn't really affect how boring the rest of the game could potentially be for them. We don't even know how expensive it will be to create ships, upkeep and durability. I imagine it wont be cheap or the seas could be over run by fleets and barricades. Had similar discussions with whom used to be known as "neurath" now @Song_Warden
There will always be some players who will hunt others in the ocean. But I agree it can be boring to only do that.
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
At least those those PvX players will have a place in the game. Not in the deep ocean.
It depends if that sea biomes features are engaging enough outside of the no flagging system to call to PvP enthusiasts enough. Could be "scary" for those PvE enthusiasts...
Doesn't really affect how boring the rest of the game could potentially be for them. We don't even know how expensive it will be to create ships, upkeep and durability. I imagine it wont be cheap or the seas could be over run by fleets and barricades. Had similar discussions with whom used to be known as "neurath" now @Song_Warden
There will always be some players who will hunt others in the ocean. But I agree it can be boring to only do that.
If the Combat isn't sufficient for my liking it will probably be the nail in the coffin for me to being interested in this game.
Sure I know about flagging system, and it won't work as described in Wiki.
First of all, if I do not react on assault (== not flagging myself) I have larger chance to drop items from inventory
Op says they know the flagging system and says it won't work. Then
Second, and most important - the level of "redness" is some kind of honor level for such PvPers - the more red they are, the better.
In the next sentence they show they do not know how the corruption system works. The more red you become the less combat effective you become, the more likely you are to drop your own loot on death. Mass killing in Ashes has dire consequences.
The map is huge, incentive based pvp is everywhere and always on pvp is available for 2/3rds of the map(the sea). Griefing goes against terms of service as Steven Sharif has said, so even if someone somehow finds a way to bypass the corruption system to grief a few low levels for days on end they will be banned. This is important to note that even if this free flowing system exists and is abused, the exploiters do not get to abuse it without risking their account.
There's a system in place designed to allow freedom with risk, and imo it really won't be used much by the vast majority of pvpers because of the other incentive based systems that reward players more. Why take pennies when you can take so much more via caravans, etc.
@Isth3reno1else caravans are the majority focus for day to day PvP Opt-in Events in terms of frequency allowance.
Node Sieges and Castle Sieges are declaration and time gated (cannot occur for x amount of weeks again per node). They will be costly for both sides.
Intermittent PvP may occur over a resource/gathering poi or dungeon boss.
Game and economy is essentially PvE driven from its core.
Then I propose green's fighting red players are not classified as non-combatants, therefore, CCs should work and no further corruption should be gained by killing said greens.
There was a lot of bots and griefers in L2. The company that made L2 never replicated the corruption system in later games and Ashes won't just replicate the system, the system will be harsher. Thankfully, bots shouldn't be enabled in ashes too much (though multi-boxing is allowed) and the open sea doesn't have corruption. Also, sanctified PvP doesn't have corruption. One would hope most PvP players use the sanctified PvP events and the open sea to do the kills rather than gank people who don't fight back.
If multi boxing is allowed that sounds a lot like pay to win. I recommend they revise that decision. Multi-boxing is a form of cheating especially bot multi-boxing.
I have the question about known so far game mechanics related to PvP.
People are different, and making their fun on different stuff. Killing another players is some kind of fun for them. What can stop an organised group of top PvP players from ganking everything around and thus ruining game experience for everybody around? They are good in PvP, they are seasoned and organised - so no single/casual player or ad-hoc groups can do anything to them. For sure GMs won't babysitting casual players, so there must be some kind of game mechanic which stop group asocial behaviour.
Needless to say that casual players are the base for every MMO game - they are many, they pay subscription to devs and they make the game live.
Acceptance. Accept the fact that someone’s going to kill you and you either learn to just die, fight back, or quit the game.
you forgot option 4....
mass complain at launch or during alpha 2 with like minded people and use the excuse you're a patron until you get what you want lol
Obviously a joke but in reality it's what happens.
Once you implement something, you cant go backwards with it, usually forwards. The drama on the forums of similar discussions and results prove this is definitely plausible.
Just read the threads about flagging, freehold looting, player looting, AC vs TT, floaty combat. It's all there haha
There was a lot of bots and griefers in L2. The company that made L2 never replicated the corruption system in later games and Ashes won't just replicate the system, the system will be harsher. Thankfully, bots shouldn't be enabled in ashes too much (though multi-boxing is allowed) and the open sea doesn't have corruption. Also, sanctified PvP doesn't have corruption. One would hope most PvP players use the sanctified PvP events and the open sea to do the kills rather than gank people who don't fight back.
I still cant believe the studio made this huge promise about anti-botting and what not then go around and say they'll allow multi boxing... blew my mind when they announced it. I guess multi-boxing guarantees more active subscriptions.
Multi boxing is a form of pay to win so they absolutely need to put a little more thought into it than that. The game will lose a lot of soul if they allow multi-boxing.
Comments
Uhuh. In the corner in a forest.
Ashes isn't Rust.
hmmm sounds like ganking will definitely exist.
There is no handicap as a Non-Combatant.
It’s just normal death penalties upon death. Same as dying from a mob.
CC is irrelevant when a Non-Combantant is opting to punish their assailant with Corruption.
There technically is a handicap with the forced attack, immune to cc and aoe.
Combatants have half the rate for penalties of non-combatans upon death.
It's all on the wiki man
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties
There's pro's and con's to the flagging status.
Non-combatant (green players) suffer normal death penalties, which include:[1]
Experience debt (negative experience).[2] Experience debt scales to approximately 2 or 3 percent of the total XP for a max level player. These numbers are subject to change based on testing.[3]
Skill and stat dampening.[1]
Lower health and mana.[1]
Lower gear proficiency.[1]
Reduction in loot drop rates from mobs.[4]
Durability loss.[5][6][1]
When players die and they take durability loss, our durability loss isn't like other games where it's a gold sink so to speak. It's a combination of both a gold sink and a material sink. So in a sense, even if you only have completed items, when you take that durability loss you are losing out on materials. It's just a debt to the materials that you are losing instead of the active loss of that material in your inventory. So now you are accruing a material debt if you want to repair and increase again the performance of those particular items that take that durability loss.[5] – Steven Sharif
Dropping a percentage of carried gatherables and materials that are used in the generation of something else.[7][8][1]
Items made for final consumption are not dropped, such as consumable items created by the Cooking and Alchemy professions.[7]
A percentage of the glint a player is carrying are also dropped.[9]
pair that with griefing from combatants with the current kill shot for corruption method... Going to be funny. Pro's and con's for non-combatant flagging
You guys are both right, and both wrong, and so obviously I'm going to take a position all by myself on a topic I really don't give a shit about, because why not...
There is forced PvP in a PvP game.
If me and my friends are running off to destroy a caravan or something, and you and your friends decide to engage us in a way where we have to fight, that is forced PvP. You and your friends are forcing me and my friends in to PvP we were not wanting.
However, it is also true that there is no scope for opting out of that PvP in a game like Ashes. Thus, if you logged in to the game, the above PvP is forced, but you are not able to claim it is anything other than consensual - you consented to it being a possibility when you logged in.
Thus, there is forced PvP, but it is still PvP you signed up for.
Flagging as Combatant has the benefit of half normal death penalties.
And CC remains irrelevant for Non-Combatants opting to punish their assailants with Corruption.
We agree that's all in the wiki.
Non-consensual PvP is punished by Corruption.
Consensual PvP is when all participants are flagged Purple (or Red).
Yes, you get a "benefit" from flagging as a combatant in a pvx game. Non-combatant flagging provides a handicap. One could even say flagging as combatant is the normal way to flag and you get penalised for flagging as non-combatant. Literally a handicap for combat mechanics via cc and aoe with trade offs in death penalties, loot drop rates, losses upon death etc.
In Ashes, you don't flag Non-Combatant. Everyone is a Non-Combatant is default. And there is no handicap and no penalty for remaining Non-Combatant.
You can say anything you want, even when you are incorrect.
Combat mechanics for CC and AOE are irrelevant when you are not fighting back. And, there is no trade-off in penalties because Non-Combatants have normal death penalties. Remaining Non-Combatant does not change the death penalties for dying as a Non-Combatant. Dying while Green has the same death penalties for dying from a player as dying from a mob.
Its a falsified disposition to be classified as Non Combatant. Is a Green a Non-Combatant when fighting a Red?
Combatant means combat. You are not a non combatant against mobs. You enter combat stance lol. If you are in combat stance you are a combatant.
Same for the Ashes definitition of Class.
It's like when someone says, "He's pretty ugly," the meaning of pretty in that usage is not the literal meaning of pretty as the antonym of ugly.
Just as some people propose separate PvE-Only servers...
If there is loot to be made there will be ganking
If there are social politics and gains to be made between players, guilds and/or nodes there will be ganking.
If you don't fight back it's quite relevant and advantageous lol.... A literal handicap...lol
This whole flagging system sounds super soft to me. Forcing everyone to run around as a non-combatants until they force attack or opt-in as a combatant during an event/siege. 90 second combatant durations once flagged...Sounds just as bad as war mode in WoW.
sounds super care bear to me...
You're definitely familiar with it
Seems to be more like a PvE game with a default non-combatant flagging status which players have to "force" attack to be flagged as combatant for 90 seconds creating a soft option for open world PvP with opt-in pvp for events like sieges and caravans.
Siege declarations gated behind several weeks of grace periods with expensive sinks
Going to see a lot of greens(non-combatants) running around not hurting each other unless they "force" attack..
This game is going to attract many pvp enthusiasts... or more like PvE enthusiasts who like a little pvp risk.
Wouldn't say there is a big risk vs reward factor in the design as many claim.
At least those those PvX players will have a place in the game. Not in the deep ocean.
It depends if that sea biomes features are engaging enough outside of the no flagging system to call to PvP enthusiasts enough. Could be "scary" for those PvE enthusiasts...
Doesn't really affect how boring the rest of the game could potentially be for them. We don't even know how expensive it will be to create ships, upkeep and durability. I imagine it wont be cheap or the seas could be over run by fleets and barricades. Had similar discussions with whom used to be known as "neurath" now @Song_Warden
There will always be some players who will hunt others in the ocean. But I agree it can be boring to only do that.
If the Combat isn't sufficient for my liking it will probably be the nail in the coffin for me to being interested in this game.
Op says they know the flagging system and says it won't work. Then
In the next sentence they show they do not know how the corruption system works. The more red you become the less combat effective you become, the more likely you are to drop your own loot on death. Mass killing in Ashes has dire consequences.
The map is huge, incentive based pvp is everywhere and always on pvp is available for 2/3rds of the map(the sea). Griefing goes against terms of service as Steven Sharif has said, so even if someone somehow finds a way to bypass the corruption system to grief a few low levels for days on end they will be banned. This is important to note that even if this free flowing system exists and is abused, the exploiters do not get to abuse it without risking their account.
There's a system in place designed to allow freedom with risk, and imo it really won't be used much by the vast majority of pvpers because of the other incentive based systems that reward players more. Why take pennies when you can take so much more via caravans, etc.
Node Sieges and Castle Sieges are declaration and time gated (cannot occur for x amount of weeks again per node). They will be costly for both sides.
Intermittent PvP may occur over a resource/gathering poi or dungeon boss.
Game and economy is essentially PvE driven from its core.
bad idea, trust me
solved
If multi boxing is allowed that sounds a lot like pay to win. I recommend they revise that decision. Multi-boxing is a form of cheating especially bot multi-boxing.
Multi boxing is a form of pay to win so they absolutely need to put a little more thought into it than that. The game will lose a lot of soul if they allow multi-boxing.