In-game Report, trackers, inspect logs, analyse, detect, evaluate, conclusion and if concise, penalisation.
You keep saying these things as if they mean something.
Once again, players and developers have no means of defferentiating between one person playing two accounts, and two people each playing their own account.
Please explain to me how you would know I am multi-boxing if you and I are grouped together, and I am off on my other character occasionally crafting. I'm just running the same content as you, as one character, and during downtime I am pressing a few bottons on the computer beside me, potentially performing an action in an entire different region (ie, NA on one, EU on the other - a fairly common thing to do in Archeage).
If you want to say that developers should rely on players reporting others, explain to me what possible reason you would have for reporting that.
Words do have meanings.
Yours don't seem to, quite honestly.
You keep saying you think Intrepid should do a thing that isn't possible. You say people should report things they can't even see. When you start saying things like this, your words do indeed cease to have meaning.
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.
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.
I think the fun is not about killing the other players but the fight itself, which has as reward the loot - both sides will have some on them.
Fighting against other players who flag is the best part because you know there are no hard feelings after the encounter. You may even chat with them later, create an alliance, sit with them at the same table in a tavern...
I am curious how many players will really stay green. I think will be less than 30%
Two things come to mind with respect to this thread. Let’s figure this all out during Alpha 2 as to what mechanics work and do not. Second, this game isn’t being made for everyone.
For AoC, “casual” may end up with a totally different meaning compared to other games. That can be both good and bad for some. It’s definitely being designed to be multiplayer with everything that goes with that. Especially incentivizing social groups in a variety of ways.
Sounds like PVX is also the direction. Who sticks around will depend on how well Intrepid executes and what other games are around to play. If the “forced” PVE or PVP is too much, then I think it’s another incentive to group up and specialize into the gameplay you prefer.
Frankly, Intrepid needs to focus loyalty on the players they expect to stay for the long term instead of the fair weather, next WoW killer gamers who come and go after a few weeks. In addition, not everyone’s opinion is equal with respect to what would make this a good game. Trying to please everyone would produce something truly mediocre.
Focus on doing AoC well. Make sure the combat system and feel is strong. Make the players earn their rewards to ensure accomplishments are more meaningful. That’s my opinion, and yes, it may not be any better than someone else’s.
Forced PvP doesn't exist on a PvP server. You sign up for the PvP when you make a toon.
" Forced PvP on a forced Set of forced PvP rules (lol) isn't forced. It's very forceful to think it is truly forced when the only think that is forced, is the enforced Rules for PvP. "
@Raven016 the combatant flagging can potentially create more volatility depending on death ratio. PvP creates a demand while reducing a supply especially economically vs personal.
@RocketFarmer unfortunately that focus can drastically change from here and even post launch which is already evident from several years ago to current with changes. Will have to see what that result is over time and time again.
@Aszkalon not really forced in the same way one would think about especially for choices by players in design. Immoral gameplay is more volatile and detrimental as a whole. It's not really about conquest as it is about civilisation and economy building through the nodes.
@Raven016 the combatant flagging can potentially create more volatility depending on death ratio. PvP creates a demand while reducing a supply especially economically vs personal.
I think player behavior, if will flag or not will depend on where they are, why they are there and what they carry.
Those who harvest common resources probably will be safe unless there is a war.
Those who seek to obtain rare resources will fight more often.
I am curious how players will transport materials from freeholds to nodes, if mules are still in game, if they will prefer doing multiple trips with mules or one with a caravan...
The commodities we buy from NPCs seem to exist to separate the caravan system and the related risk from the gathering and resource production flow.
@Raven016 the combatant flagging can potentially create more volatility depending on death ratio. PvP creates a demand while reducing a supply especially economically vs personal.
I think player behavior, if will flag or not will depend on where they are, why they are there and what they carry.
Those who harvest common resources probably will be safe unless there is a war.
Those who seek to obtain rare resources will fight more often.
I am curious how players will transport materials from freeholds to nodes, if mules are still in game, if they will prefer doing multiple trips with mules or one with a caravan...
The commodities we buy from NPCs seem to exist to separate the caravan system and the related risk from the gathering and resource production flow.
Yeah, that's the intermittent volatility of it with incentive. Raiding caravans can be more efficient than open world looting. Player choices can have repercussions to them especially with reputation within the game, node and ZOI.
Comments
allegedly
Here's the OP, so we can focus on that:
I think the fun is not about killing the other players but the fight itself, which has as reward the loot - both sides will have some on them.
Fighting against other players who flag is the best part because you know there are no hard feelings after the encounter. You may even chat with them later, create an alliance, sit with them at the same table in a tavern...
I am curious how many players will really stay green. I think will be less than 30%
For AoC, “casual” may end up with a totally different meaning compared to other games. That can be both good and bad for some. It’s definitely being designed to be multiplayer with everything that goes with that. Especially incentivizing social groups in a variety of ways.
Sounds like PVX is also the direction. Who sticks around will depend on how well Intrepid executes and what other games are around to play. If the “forced” PVE or PVP is too much, then I think it’s another incentive to group up and specialize into the gameplay you prefer.
Frankly, Intrepid needs to focus loyalty on the players they expect to stay for the long term instead of the fair weather, next WoW killer gamers who come and go after a few weeks. In addition, not everyone’s opinion is equal with respect to what would make this a good game. Trying to please everyone would produce something truly mediocre.
Focus on doing AoC well. Make sure the combat system and feel is strong. Make the players earn their rewards to ensure accomplishments are more meaningful. That’s my opinion, and yes, it may not be any better than someone else’s.
" Forced PvP on a forced Set of forced PvP rules (lol) isn't forced. It's very forceful to think it is truly forced when the only think that is forced, is the enforced Rules for PvP. "
Now try to say this very fast, if you dare. 😁
@RocketFarmer unfortunately that focus can drastically change from here and even post launch which is already evident from several years ago to current with changes. Will have to see what that result is over time and time again.
@Aszkalon not really forced in the same way one would think about especially for choices by players in design. Immoral gameplay is more volatile and detrimental as a whole. It's not really about conquest as it is about civilisation and economy building through the nodes.
Those who harvest common resources probably will be safe unless there is a war.
Those who seek to obtain rare resources will fight more often.
I am curious how players will transport materials from freeholds to nodes, if mules are still in game, if they will prefer doing multiple trips with mules or one with a caravan...
The commodities we buy from NPCs seem to exist to separate the caravan system and the related risk from the gathering and resource production flow.
Yeah, that's the intermittent volatility of it with incentive. Raiding caravans can be more efficient than open world looting. Player choices can have repercussions to them especially with reputation within the game, node and ZOI.
Pretty good video providing good explanations and perhaps insight to your questions