That is pure fantasy.
I dunno why you are projecting your bordom with alts on other gamers.
Ganking is not fun for you. OK.
I wouldn't call it "projecting" I would say its "predicting", not based on my own preferences, but in the preferences im inferring about those players. And again, im not claiming that its some perfect prediction/understanding, I haven't even given it that much thought, it just seems reasonable for the reasons we've discussed. Could be right, could be wrong, we'll find out soon enough.
We will have to see what the final numbers are after release.
I think thats the part you are missing, imo, "the fun" for a lot of these types of players will be better at endgame pvp loops, arenas, etc.
The difference between us is that you are talking about what you want and projecting that on to a theoretical larger playerbase, while I am ignoring what I want, and talking about what I have seen in a number of other games.
In other words, you are talking about how you want it to be from a position of no experience, where as I am coming at it from a position of experience, talking about how it will be.
Im doing the exact opposite, and trying to see things from perspectives other than my own, I look at things from a design perspective and how different types of players can be accomodated, not just myself.
You may be trying to do this, but you are not.
You keep talking about people wanting to progress (in various guises, including talking about gameplay loops at the end game), and are totally ignoring that most people just want some fun now, not some promise of fun later.
You are decidedly not looking at things from a wider perspective, even if that is what you are trying to do.
Of course, nothing is fullproof. It will be insightful though.
No, it isn't even insightful.
Intrepid had to turn PvP off in alpha 1 in order to get testing done - that should be insightful for you.
The difference between us is that you are talking about what you want and projecting that on to a theoretical larger playerbase, while I am ignoring what I want, and talking about what I have seen in a number of other games.
In other words, you are talking about how you want it to be from a position of no experience, where as I am coming at it from a position of experience, talking about how it will be.
You may be trying to do this, but you are not.
You keep talking about people wanting to progress (in various guises, including talking about gameplay loops at the end game), and are totally ignoring that most people just want some fun now, not some promise of fun later.
You are decidedly not looking at things from a wider perspective, even if that is what you are trying to do.
That is all very possible, but i don't think its "definitive". You may have experienced that before but experiences can sometimes be misleading or not take into account new factors and possibilities. It can be helpful yes, as you may be right due to your insight from past experiences, but I don't think that automatically rules out the other potential outcomes based on the info that we reviewed. It's also possible for things to play out the way I pointed out as a possibility, and for all of these things you say about me to apply to you instead. I think its to uncertain to really make those kinds of statements to begin with.
I can only deal with the info I have, and being that I have no mmo experience and deal solely in analysis/extrapolation, I don't have a frame of reference to filter the different possible ideological frameworks that I can construct about the designs, so sometimes I can only throw things out there and compare them to other's frameworks, and adjust accordingly.
You did manage to convinced me more towards your side a bit, but I think with my understanding of Intrepid and the vision, I don't think im gonna just look at the current design, but moreso look at the intent and design's needs for the success of Ashes. So, I would say chances are even if things as they are now play out the way you say, they probably won't end up that way, which kind of still brings me back to "wait for alpha 2 cuz we don't know" and "im in the middle now"
It's also possible for things to play out the way I pointed out as a possibility, and for all of these things you say about me to apply to you instead.
No, I've talked about what I want, and how I play games plenty of times on these forums.
I'm all about progression - and tend to find myself in top guilds in what ever game I play.
When it comes to getting rid of rivals, I tend to prefer destroying their guild and game experience and watching them leave the game in question rather than just defeating them in PvP. Defeating them in PvP may be part of that, but it also may not.
That said, I absolutely would not waste my time in game with many of the things that I know other players would. However, me not being interested in it does not alter my understanding that many other people (MANY other people) do participate in this kind of activity.
I can only deal with the info I have
Right, so get more information.
Rather than looking at the game systems and trying to work out the effect they will have, look at what effect Intrepid want them to have.
For corruption, that effect is "The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.".
Corruption isn't there to alleviate open world PvP risk.
Rather than looking at the game systems and trying to work out the effect they will have, look at what effect Intrepid want them to have.
You may have glossed over this part:
[but I think with my understanding of Intrepid and the vision, I don't think im gonna just look at the current design, but moreso look at the intent and design's needs for the success of Ashes. So, I would say chances are even if things as they are now play out the way you say, they probably won't end up that way, which kind of still brings me back to "wait for alpha 2 cuz we don't know"]
For corruption, that effect is "The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.".
Corruption isn't there to alleviate open world PvP risk.
This quote is more in line with what I was saying than what you were saying. I consider your description of "killing people repeatedly in the open world just to piss them off and with no strategic benefit" to be griefing, and intended to be mitigated, hense my original point.
And I consider that open world risk to be the strategic benefit of going corrupt for contested areas/rewards.
This is also supported by other Intrepid comments, so its a bit strange that you would close with that.
I think that if they find griefing to be too much of a problem after testing, then they will probably change the whole alt/account situation for players using that exploit to grief.
One can say they are doing a thing, and then not do that thing.
If you say you are looking at the intent behind the design and then promtly do not look at the stated intent behind the design, then I will conclude that you said you would do a thing, and then didn't do the thing.
Lets look back at the first two sentences you posted in this thread (note the use of the quote function so you can click on the arrows to go directly to your own post).
To me pvx means you have content for all types of playstyles. Pve purist content supported through corruption system, pvp purist through opt-in systems like arenas, and a combination of pvp and pve content in combatant flagged areas or highly contested zones that utilize strategic benefits for going corrupt.
You specifically state that you think the corruption system would enable content for PvE purists.
How do you reconcile that with the notion that the goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive?
Which is it, is the intent of the corruption system to keep the risk alive, or is it to enable content for PvE purists?
It can't be both.
It can either be what you claim to think it is, or what Steven claims it is.
My entire posting in this thread (in reply to you, at least) is in relation to your total misunderstanding of the corruption system as is evidenced by this post that I quoted above, and as has been put on show in other threads in the past.
Edit to add; "griefing" as you are talking about it here is an accepted part of Ashes of Creation. Intrepid have claimed to only be interested in taking action on griefers if they act out of the game design.
If someone wants to kill you 100 times in a row, Intrepid are fine with that.
It is also worth pointing out that the alt situation was only applicable in your hypothetical world of players sticking to lower levels. If players are active at higher levels, there are better means to mitigate the effects of corruption.
That is pure fantasy.
I dunno why you are projecting your bordom with alts on other gamers.
Ganking is not fun for you. OK.
I wouldn't call it "projecting" I would say its "predicting", not based on my own preferences, but in the preferences im inferring about those players. And again, im not claiming that its some perfect prediction/understanding, I haven't even given it that much thought, it just seems reasonable for the reasons we've discussed. Could be right, could be wrong, we'll find out soon enough.
We will have to see what the final numbers are after release.
Indeed
Well, the only contribution I have to your perspective is that Dygz is right and your prediction is really wrong.
I am moreso adding data for you, because I understand that you are a person who has the 'well we don't know for certain' reaction to sociological schema. You should assume therefore that I'm not actually going to try to convince you (beyond this) or anything.
But, just so you know, while it seems reasonable, it does not play out in any game of this type I have ever seen, heard of, or researched.
I think that game would be very popular, so I would hope to have heard about it.
You specifically state that you think the corruption system would enable content for PvE purists.
How do you reconcile that with the notion that the goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive?
Which is it, is the intent of the corruption system to keep the risk alive, or is it to enable content for PvE purists?
It can't be both.
If what you are saying is true then I can't reconsile that. That was under my assumption of how prevelent greifing would actually be, due to the potential mitigation aspects I listed, and how the risk would be maintained through the situationally strategic benefits of going corrupt (which I can see now that I was likely to be wrong in my assumption of the amount of players who might still behave that way, and that you/Dygz/Azherae are probably correct). The other thing to note is that I talk I hyperbole to get points accrossed, then go back to talk details later on, so when I say things like "preserve a pve purist experience" I didn't actually mean "100% of the time pve only!" playstyles, but rather that there could potentially be pve players who didn't have to deal with non-concensual pvp through the potential non-issue of a few griefers here and there, and that the potential pve players who actually do have to deal with occasional non-consensual pvp would have to be a little tolerant in order to want to continue to play Ashes, which in my assumption was that there is a portion of pve players who would fit this description (even with this though I now understand that there still might be enough "griefers" that it could cause a problem even for this type of pve group).
So "as things are now", I think I agree with you all on the possible insufficency of corruption as a deterrent within the situtions that it is supposed to function in that way, outside of competitive content (at least in the context of potential early game griefing) at this point now, but it was odd for you to bring up "the intent" because i've read several Intrepid quotes that actually imply that they intend for things to play out the way that I described and that they want to curb the "kill you repeatedly for no reason just to piss you off" playstyle. So even if you are right about how things are projected to play out based on the current design structure, that doesn't really fit with your claim of "trust the intent" because if things change post alpha-2 more towards that intent then they would end up closer to how I descrobed things might play out, possibly through them making adjustments to the alt/account situation and what not in order to meet their "griefing mitigation" goals (as I perceive their idea of griefing based on a variety of other comments not brought up in this convo yet).
Well, the only contribution I have to your perspective is that Dygz is right and your prediction is really wrong.
I am moreso adding data for you, because I understand that you are a person who has the 'well we don't know for certain' reaction to sociological schema. You should assume therefore that I'm not actually going to try to convince you (beyond this) or anything.
But, just so you know, while it seems reasonable, it does not play out in any game of this type I have ever seen, heard of, or researched.
I think that game would be very popular, so I would hope to have heard about it.
Noted, thanks
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Is this a fantasy, yes. I know logically that PvX for Ashes consists of a blend, a mixture if you will, of both elements. Therefore, I think that when some of us say "Ashes isn't really PvX", what we mean is that it isn't what we would think PvX would be (Equal measure of both in my opinion).
To me, the Ashes PvP/Corruption flagging system in itself makes the server(s) more PvP-centric than an EQ/EQ2/WoW PvP-Optional servers (which have manual flagging - where PvP can be toggled off so that we can't be attacked by other players). And I always get fed up with the PvPers on the PvP-Optional servers and move to the PvE-Only servers. Even though I like flagging for PvP sometimes.
The addition of a large, permanent zone with auto-flag free-for-all PvP with no Corruption moves the ruleset significantly closer to a straight-up PvP server. Enough so that it is too PvP-centric for me. Like ArcheAge and like EvE.
So... at that point, "PvX" becomes moot.
In some ways, it feels as though Steven hopes that some semblance of PvP will infuse every aspect of gameplay, so that we are constantly assessing the "Risk v Reward" of PvP conflict. Which, again, is too PvP-centric for me. And makes "PvX" moot and meaningless.
The semantics are irrelevant.
Whatever the label is - The Open Seas makes the server type a rulset I have no desire to play.
i've read several Intrepid quotes that actually imply that they intend for things to play out the way that I described and that they want to curb the "kill you repeatedly for no reason just to piss you off" playstyle.
They want to dissuade that kind of thing, yes. Not stop it, just dissuade it.
Keep in mind though - that "for no reason" part.
If you are running content someone else wants, that is a reason. If you have gathered materials someone else wants, that is a reason. If you are in the wrong guild or from the wrong node, that is a reason.
Basically, the act of playing the game will give someone a reason to want to kill you.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They want to dissuade that kind of thing, yes. Not stop it, just dissuade it.
Keep in mind though - that "for no reason" part.
If you are running content someone else wants, that is a reason. If you have gathered materials someone else wants, that is a reason. If you are in the wrong guild or from the wrong node, that is a reason.
Basically, the act of playing the game will give someone a reason to want to kill you.
All of that is basically what I was already saying, being that you are "disuaded" through it being situationally sub-optimal, unless "you have a good reason". If you always have a good reason then its not really "disuading" anything at that point- which is more what your point is more about in that "there will be too many of the types of players who can't be disuaded based on their inherent goals", which I understand how this can be the case as things are, but in terms of "the vision" it doesn't really align with this, which is why I had been pointing at potential changes that might be made in alpha 2 to push things closer to that vision (even if there isn't much that can be done in regards to that, at this point).
You are making me sad.
You said you will play but with cheap armor.
I will be hanging out in the game from time to time to socialize, but I won’t really be playing.
You can sit near the crafting benches and craft everything cheap in exchange for stories.
Some players will bring stories too you, get cheaply made items and sell them at higher price.
All of that is basically what I was already saying, being that you are "disuaded" through it being situationally sub-optimal, unless "you have a good reason". If you always have a good reason then its not really "disuading" anything at that point
Who said you always have a reason to attack?
If I am off harvesting flowers and you have nonparticular need for flowers, you are dissuaded from attacking me.
If I am off harvesting flowers and you also want flowers, you have a reason to attack me.
Most people probably won't want flowers, so if all I am doing is harvesting flowers, most people won't want to attack me. However, if I am harvesting flowers, I am by necessity in the same location other people wanting flowers would also go, so chances are the people in that area would have reason to kill me.
Using hyperbole as you claim you often do (and I assume is the case here) isn't a good idea when talking nuance.
If I am off harvesting flowers and you have nonparticular need for flowers, you are dissuaded from attacking me.
If I am off harvesting flowers and you also want flowers, you have a reason to attack me.
Most people probably won't want flowers, so if all I am doing is harvesting flowers, most people won't want to attack me. However, if I am harvesting flowers, I am by necessity in the same location other people wanting flowers would also go, so chances are the people in that area would have reason to kill me.
There must be some kind of semantics issue or something going on between us here. I've basically said now that I can see the other persepctive regarding the original premise, which was you guys saying that even with corruption there will still likely be enough griefers in the world to become a problem for pve players (at least at early stages of progression), which was the entire disagreement at first, so there isn't even really a diasgreement at this point as far as I know.
My whole perspective regarding that was based on both
A- my understanding of "nuanced griefer/pvper behavior" and "degrees of pve tolerance" which through my inexperience with mmos, i've gathered some insight/information on how these types of players think, and how the dynamic with corruption might actually play out differently than I originally anticipated.
B- My perception of "the vision" and how things will be changed to better suit that vision, regardless of the current design structure (such as corruption/alt characters potentially being adjusted), and that corruption was intended to support open world risk through through situationally strategic benefits for going corrupt, and to hopefully discourage griefing outside of those relevant situations, even for "griefer type players" for the reasons I listed (optimization towards end game pvp loops, etc. etc., of which I realize now are probably be insufficient motivators for jerk type players to avoid corruption).
My stance on "A" has changed, so therefore I can see how corruption might be insufficient as a griefing deterrent at early stages of progression. But my stance on the "B" (the vision), is the same, regarding what Intepid intends to accomplish with the design (even if potentially there isn't much that can be done to best meet those goals).
I know we originally disagreed on "A" which is now resolved. I didn't think we disagreed on B, until you said "If I had more information about B, then I wouldn't have had the stance on A that I did". This tells me we disagree on "B" as far the "the perception of Intrepids intent of open world pvp", because if we had the same perception on this, it would make no sense for you to say that I should have looked to that for insight on "A". This is relevant because it sounds like we agree that there are obvious reasons for going corrupt, but the original disagreement was more about "how often will you have these reasons, especially for griefer type players, and how often can this happen until certain pve players stop playing the game". My perception of the vision is that Intrepid wants "various types of player's legitimate reasons for going corrupt to be few and far between", even if that is not how things are currently projected to play out.
So, im not really sure whats going on at this point in the convo anymore becuase from my perspective it was already resolved.
So, im not really sure whats going on at this point in the convo anymore becuase from my perspective it was already resolved.
Your previous post stated that you thought that if you always had a reason to attack someone, there was no dissuasion happening.
I pointed out that from the perspective of the attacker, there isn't always a good reason - even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason.
Again, this is why I mentioned hyperbole - I'm sure you were being hyperbolic in your statement that there is always a reason to attack- but that hyperbole made your statement incorrect.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You can sit near the crafting benches and craft everything cheap in exchange for stories.
Some players will bring stories too you, get cheaply made items and sell them at higher price.
I won’t have any resources of my own to Craft with.
I’m a hippie/commie, so…
If I knew people were selling stuff from me at a higher price, I wouldn’t trade with them.
😜
When analyzing successful mechanics in other MMORPGs, it seems to me that the ideal PvX system for Ashes of Creation might follow these guidelines:
1. No Forced PvP: PvE players should be able to engage in grinding and encounter PvP situations very rarely. The corruption system addresses this well, discouraging players from engaging in unwarranted player-killing, which I believe will be a rare occurrence. This allows PvE enthusiasts to explore and progress without the constant threat of PvP, preserving the integrity of their gameplay experience.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvP - even if with some loss of rewards.
2. No Forced PvE: Conversely, PvP players should be able to achieve similar progression as PvE players, with comparable effort. This ensures that players who prefer the thrill of combat against real opponents can progress without being forced into extensive PvE content. Such balance would respect the preferences of both player bases, promoting a more inclusive environment.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvE, even if with some loss of rewards.
3. PvX Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE players): areas where PvP is always enabled, with higher drop rates and death risks, could offer an exciting dynamic between risk and reward.
However, these areas must be designed to discourage large player congregations, such as guilds or zergs, from dominating. These locations should not be favorable or efficient for large groups, preventing them from monopolizing the area and stifling solo or small group activities. A common issue with such zones is the presence of large player groups that obliterate everything in their path, depriving smaller groups and solo players of content. So we need to consider how to avoid this, for example, make these areas unusable and disadvantageous for large groups of players and also add a location specifically for them.
4. PvX Hard Guilds Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE Guilds):
Zone, similar to the previous one, but is designed for a greater concentration of players where guilds can show themselves and participate in PvX content. It can be a zone with elite mobs that require significant coordination and manpower to defeat, which can only be handled by a group of players and will have a corresponding reward. This will free the previous zone from zerg and large groups of players who kill everything in their path, as they will not be profitable to be in the first zone.
As a result, PvE players can focus on PvE content, while PvP players can concentrate on PvP activities. Additionally, they can come together in PvX content.
So the best way - its a system where everyone can thrive in their chosen path, without the need to engage in content that doesn't align with their preferences.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.
You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).
When analyzing successful mechanics in other MMORPGs, it seems to me that the ideal PvX system for Ashes of Creation might follow these guidelines:
1. No Forced PvP
2. No Forced PvE
3. PvX Areas with High Risk and Reward
4. PvX Hard Guilds Areas with High Risk and Reward
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone.
I don't like a hard separation of player base in different zones.
What I can see working is to have nodes favor these categories:
For 1) divine nodes with more guards protecting only the divine citizens
For 2) military nodes where they could get rewarded when attacking non-allied caravans
For 3) economic nodes, where players would miss the divine benefits and would be preferred targets
For 4) there are the monthly castle siege events with related events every weekend. These are not node related because guild are everywhere.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.
You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).
Ashes is simply not that kind of game.
Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about? And about content for all players.
You answered in a general way, and I don't see the constructive disadvantages of ideas in my post. And what does that have to do with WoW?
If a game has sieges and dungeons are they also 2 different games?
Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.
You've described 3 separate games. In other words - WoW. Completely separate playstyles that lead to completely separate balancing designs and a gymnastics routine of economy designs, where none of those games clash (except afaik WoW failed at that multiple times).
Ashes is simply not that kind of game.
Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about?
No?
Or rather, as is often said in a specific public discourse lately...
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.
And Ashes is a game that relies heavily on its consequences-based gameplay.
Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.
You can't get gear that you'll need in sieges w/o pve. You can't pve for good gear w/o pvp. You can't limit open world encounters, because they're open world.
All of those things lead to guilds being nearly forced onto people, so what game Ashes is is your 4th point. All things are interconnected and, as Azherae said, the game will reap consequences for that kind of design.
There is a gradation of that interconnectedness (the seas, the sieges, etc), but ultimately there's no way for you to participate in the game while completely avoiding pve or pvp.
And I already pointed out constructive disadvantages. The biggest one is economy, because instanced content requires a ton of adjustments (and separate pve/pvp requires instancing). Second one would be balance of content and gear, because you separation of content always leads to separate requirements (which is why I mentioned WoW). And all of that usually leads to separation of the playerbase (again, just as WoW has had).
All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.
Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.
All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.
What do they want? For everyone to grind all day and then all go together to PvP?
I think that allowing players to devote more time to what they enjoy, whether it be PvE or PvP, will give a positive impulse in the long term.
For instance, PvE players at least have protection against PK through a corruption system, but PvP players might get tired of the tiresome grind if it's constantly imposed on them. So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?
Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.
All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.
What do they want? For everyone to grind all day and then all go together to PvP?
Comments
how many opportunities for ganking dygz will we see?
I wouldn't call it "projecting" I would say its "predicting", not based on my own preferences, but in the preferences im inferring about those players. And again, im not claiming that its some perfect prediction/understanding, I haven't even given it that much thought, it just seems reasonable for the reasons we've discussed. Could be right, could be wrong, we'll find out soon enough.
Indeed
In other words, you are talking about how you want it to be from a position of no experience, where as I am coming at it from a position of experience, talking about how it will be.
You may be trying to do this, but you are not.
You keep talking about people wanting to progress (in various guises, including talking about gameplay loops at the end game), and are totally ignoring that most people just want some fun now, not some promise of fun later.
You are decidedly not looking at things from a wider perspective, even if that is what you are trying to do.
No, it isn't even insightful.
Intrepid had to turn PvP off in alpha 1 in order to get testing done - that should be insightful for you.
That is all very possible, but i don't think its "definitive". You may have experienced that before but experiences can sometimes be misleading or not take into account new factors and possibilities. It can be helpful yes, as you may be right due to your insight from past experiences, but I don't think that automatically rules out the other potential outcomes based on the info that we reviewed. It's also possible for things to play out the way I pointed out as a possibility, and for all of these things you say about me to apply to you instead. I think its to uncertain to really make those kinds of statements to begin with.
I can only deal with the info I have, and being that I have no mmo experience and deal solely in analysis/extrapolation, I don't have a frame of reference to filter the different possible ideological frameworks that I can construct about the designs, so sometimes I can only throw things out there and compare them to other's frameworks, and adjust accordingly.
You did manage to convinced me more towards your side a bit, but I think with my understanding of Intrepid and the vision, I don't think im gonna just look at the current design, but moreso look at the intent and design's needs for the success of Ashes. So, I would say chances are even if things as they are now play out the way you say, they probably won't end up that way, which kind of still brings me back to "wait for alpha 2 cuz we don't know" and "im in the middle now"
I'm all about progression - and tend to find myself in top guilds in what ever game I play.
When it comes to getting rid of rivals, I tend to prefer destroying their guild and game experience and watching them leave the game in question rather than just defeating them in PvP. Defeating them in PvP may be part of that, but it also may not.
That said, I absolutely would not waste my time in game with many of the things that I know other players would. However, me not being interested in it does not alter my understanding that many other people (MANY other people) do participate in this kind of activity.
Right, so get more information.
Rather than looking at the game systems and trying to work out the effect they will have, look at what effect Intrepid want them to have.
For corruption, that effect is "The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.".
Corruption isn't there to alleviate open world PvP risk.
You may have glossed over this part:
[but I think with my understanding of Intrepid and the vision, I don't think im gonna just look at the current design, but moreso look at the intent and design's needs for the success of Ashes. So, I would say chances are even if things as they are now play out the way you say, they probably won't end up that way, which kind of still brings me back to "wait for alpha 2 cuz we don't know"]
This quote is more in line with what I was saying than what you were saying. I consider your description of "killing people repeatedly in the open world just to piss them off and with no strategic benefit" to be griefing, and intended to be mitigated, hense my original point.
And I consider that open world risk to be the strategic benefit of going corrupt for contested areas/rewards.
This is also supported by other Intrepid comments, so its a bit strange that you would close with that.
I think that if they find griefing to be too much of a problem after testing, then they will probably change the whole alt/account situation for players using that exploit to grief.
One can say they are doing a thing, and then not do that thing.
If you say you are looking at the intent behind the design and then promtly do not look at the stated intent behind the design, then I will conclude that you said you would do a thing, and then didn't do the thing.
Lets look back at the first two sentences you posted in this thread (note the use of the quote function so you can click on the arrows to go directly to your own post).
You specifically state that you think the corruption system would enable content for PvE purists.
How do you reconcile that with the notion that the goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive?
Which is it, is the intent of the corruption system to keep the risk alive, or is it to enable content for PvE purists?
It can't be both.
It can either be what you claim to think it is, or what Steven claims it is.
My entire posting in this thread (in reply to you, at least) is in relation to your total misunderstanding of the corruption system as is evidenced by this post that I quoted above, and as has been put on show in other threads in the past.
Edit to add; "griefing" as you are talking about it here is an accepted part of Ashes of Creation. Intrepid have claimed to only be interested in taking action on griefers if they act out of the game design.
If someone wants to kill you 100 times in a row, Intrepid are fine with that.
It is also worth pointing out that the alt situation was only applicable in your hypothetical world of players sticking to lower levels. If players are active at higher levels, there are better means to mitigate the effects of corruption.
Well, the only contribution I have to your perspective is that Dygz is right and your prediction is really wrong.
I am moreso adding data for you, because I understand that you are a person who has the 'well we don't know for certain' reaction to sociological schema. You should assume therefore that I'm not actually going to try to convince you (beyond this) or anything.
But, just so you know, while it seems reasonable, it does not play out in any game of this type I have ever seen, heard of, or researched.
I think that game would be very popular, so I would hope to have heard about it.
If what you are saying is true then I can't reconsile that. That was under my assumption of how prevelent greifing would actually be, due to the potential mitigation aspects I listed, and how the risk would be maintained through the situationally strategic benefits of going corrupt (which I can see now that I was likely to be wrong in my assumption of the amount of players who might still behave that way, and that you/Dygz/Azherae are probably correct). The other thing to note is that I talk I hyperbole to get points accrossed, then go back to talk details later on, so when I say things like "preserve a pve purist experience" I didn't actually mean "100% of the time pve only!" playstyles, but rather that there could potentially be pve players who didn't have to deal with non-concensual pvp through the potential non-issue of a few griefers here and there, and that the potential pve players who actually do have to deal with occasional non-consensual pvp would have to be a little tolerant in order to want to continue to play Ashes, which in my assumption was that there is a portion of pve players who would fit this description (even with this though I now understand that there still might be enough "griefers" that it could cause a problem even for this type of pve group).
So "as things are now", I think I agree with you all on the possible insufficency of corruption as a deterrent within the situtions that it is supposed to function in that way, outside of competitive content (at least in the context of potential early game griefing) at this point now, but it was odd for you to bring up "the intent" because i've read several Intrepid quotes that actually imply that they intend for things to play out the way that I described and that they want to curb the "kill you repeatedly for no reason just to piss you off" playstyle. So even if you are right about how things are projected to play out based on the current design structure, that doesn't really fit with your claim of "trust the intent" because if things change post alpha-2 more towards that intent then they would end up closer to how I descrobed things might play out, possibly through them making adjustments to the alt/account situation and what not in order to meet their "griefing mitigation" goals (as I perceive their idea of griefing based on a variety of other comments not brought up in this convo yet).
Noted, thanks
The addition of a large, permanent zone with auto-flag free-for-all PvP with no Corruption moves the ruleset significantly closer to a straight-up PvP server. Enough so that it is too PvP-centric for me. Like ArcheAge and like EvE.
So... at that point, "PvX" becomes moot.
In some ways, it feels as though Steven hopes that some semblance of PvP will infuse every aspect of gameplay, so that we are constantly assessing the "Risk v Reward" of PvP conflict. Which, again, is too PvP-centric for me. And makes "PvX" moot and meaningless.
The semantics are irrelevant.
Whatever the label is - The Open Seas makes the server type a rulset I have no desire to play.
You said you will play but with cheap armor.
Keep in mind though - that "for no reason" part.
If you are running content someone else wants, that is a reason. If you have gathered materials someone else wants, that is a reason. If you are in the wrong guild or from the wrong node, that is a reason.
Basically, the act of playing the game will give someone a reason to want to kill you.
All of that is basically what I was already saying, being that you are "disuaded" through it being situationally sub-optimal, unless "you have a good reason". If you always have a good reason then its not really "disuading" anything at that point- which is more what your point is more about in that "there will be too many of the types of players who can't be disuaded based on their inherent goals", which I understand how this can be the case as things are, but in terms of "the vision" it doesn't really align with this, which is why I had been pointing at potential changes that might be made in alpha 2 to push things closer to that vision (even if there isn't much that can be done in regards to that, at this point).
You can sit near the crafting benches and craft everything cheap in exchange for stories.
Some players will bring stories too you, get cheaply made items and sell them at higher price.
Who said you always have a reason to attack?
If I am off harvesting flowers and you have nonparticular need for flowers, you are dissuaded from attacking me.
If I am off harvesting flowers and you also want flowers, you have a reason to attack me.
Most people probably won't want flowers, so if all I am doing is harvesting flowers, most people won't want to attack me. However, if I am harvesting flowers, I am by necessity in the same location other people wanting flowers would also go, so chances are the people in that area would have reason to kill me.
Using hyperbole as you claim you often do (and I assume is the case here) isn't a good idea when talking nuance.
There must be some kind of semantics issue or something going on between us here. I've basically said now that I can see the other persepctive regarding the original premise, which was you guys saying that even with corruption there will still likely be enough griefers in the world to become a problem for pve players (at least at early stages of progression), which was the entire disagreement at first, so there isn't even really a diasgreement at this point as far as I know.
My whole perspective regarding that was based on both
A- my understanding of "nuanced griefer/pvper behavior" and "degrees of pve tolerance" which through my inexperience with mmos, i've gathered some insight/information on how these types of players think, and how the dynamic with corruption might actually play out differently than I originally anticipated.
B- My perception of "the vision" and how things will be changed to better suit that vision, regardless of the current design structure (such as corruption/alt characters potentially being adjusted), and that corruption was intended to support open world risk through through situationally strategic benefits for going corrupt, and to hopefully discourage griefing outside of those relevant situations, even for "griefer type players" for the reasons I listed (optimization towards end game pvp loops, etc. etc., of which I realize now are probably be insufficient motivators for jerk type players to avoid corruption).
My stance on "A" has changed, so therefore I can see how corruption might be insufficient as a griefing deterrent at early stages of progression. But my stance on the "B" (the vision), is the same, regarding what Intepid intends to accomplish with the design (even if potentially there isn't much that can be done to best meet those goals).
I know we originally disagreed on "A" which is now resolved. I didn't think we disagreed on B, until you said "If I had more information about B, then I wouldn't have had the stance on A that I did". This tells me we disagree on "B" as far the "the perception of Intrepids intent of open world pvp", because if we had the same perception on this, it would make no sense for you to say that I should have looked to that for insight on "A". This is relevant because it sounds like we agree that there are obvious reasons for going corrupt, but the original disagreement was more about "how often will you have these reasons, especially for griefer type players, and how often can this happen until certain pve players stop playing the game". My perception of the vision is that Intrepid wants "various types of player's legitimate reasons for going corrupt to be few and far between", even if that is not how things are currently projected to play out.
So, im not really sure whats going on at this point in the convo anymore becuase from my perspective it was already resolved.
I pointed out that from the perspective of the attacker, there isn't always a good reason - even if from the perspective of the player running the content there is always likely to be someone with a good reason.
Again, this is why I mentioned hyperbole - I'm sure you were being hyperbolic in your statement that there is always a reason to attack- but that hyperbole made your statement incorrect.
I’m a hippie/commie, so…
If I knew people were selling stuff from me at a higher price, I wouldn’t trade with them.
😜
1. No Forced PvP: PvE players should be able to engage in grinding and encounter PvP situations very rarely. The corruption system addresses this well, discouraging players from engaging in unwarranted player-killing, which I believe will be a rare occurrence. This allows PvE enthusiasts to explore and progress without the constant threat of PvP, preserving the integrity of their gameplay experience.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvP - even if with some loss of rewards.
2. No Forced PvE: Conversely, PvP players should be able to achieve similar progression as PvE players, with comparable effort. This ensures that players who prefer the thrill of combat against real opponents can progress without being forced into extensive PvE content. Such balance would respect the preferences of both player bases, promoting a more inclusive environment.
That is, players should have the opportunity to not participate in PvE, even if with some loss of rewards.
3. PvX Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE players): areas where PvP is always enabled, with higher drop rates and death risks, could offer an exciting dynamic between risk and reward.
However, these areas must be designed to discourage large player congregations, such as guilds or zergs, from dominating. These locations should not be favorable or efficient for large groups, preventing them from monopolizing the area and stifling solo or small group activities.
A common issue with such zones is the presence of large player groups that obliterate everything in their path, depriving smaller groups and solo players of content. So we need to consider how to avoid this, for example, make these areas unusable and disadvantageous for large groups of players and also add a location specifically for them.
4. PvX Hard Guilds Areas with High Risk and Reward (for both, PvP and PvE Guilds):
Zone, similar to the previous one, but is designed for a greater concentration of players where guilds can show themselves and participate in PvX content. It can be a zone with elite mobs that require significant coordination and manpower to defeat, which can only be handled by a group of players and will have a corresponding reward. This will free the previous zone from zerg and large groups of players who kill everything in their path, as they will not be profitable to be in the first zone.
As a result, PvE players can focus on PvE content, while PvP players can concentrate on PvP activities. Additionally, they can come together in PvX content.
So the best way - its a system where everyone can thrive in their chosen path, without the need to engage in content that doesn't align with their preferences.
This is the ideal formula that can satisfy everyone. While this is just a concept and there could be many such zones, this approach may indeed offer the best option.
Ashes is simply not that kind of game.
What I can see working is to have nodes favor these categories:
For 1) divine nodes with more guards protecting only the divine citizens
For 2) military nodes where they could get rewarded when attacking non-allied caravans
For 3) economic nodes, where players would miss the divine benefits and would be preferred targets
For 4) there are the monthly castle siege events with related events every weekend. These are not node related because guild are everywhere.
Isn't freedom of choice what mmorpgs are supposed to be about? And about content for all players.
You answered in a general way, and I don't see the constructive disadvantages of ideas in my post. And what does that have to do with WoW?
If a game has sieges and dungeons are they also 2 different games?
Why Ashes not that kind of game? There will be locations where corruption will work and locations where there won't be corruption, the developers already said about that.
No?
Or rather, as is often said in a specific public discourse lately...
Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences.
And Ashes is a game that relies heavily on its consequences-based gameplay.
All of those things lead to guilds being nearly forced onto people, so what game Ashes is is your 4th point. All things are interconnected and, as Azherae said, the game will reap consequences for that kind of design.
There is a gradation of that interconnectedness (the seas, the sieges, etc), but ultimately there's no way for you to participate in the game while completely avoiding pve or pvp.
And I already pointed out constructive disadvantages. The biggest one is economy, because instanced content requires a ton of adjustments (and separate pve/pvp requires instancing). Second one would be balance of content and gear, because you separation of content always leads to separate requirements (which is why I mentioned WoW). And all of that usually leads to separation of the playerbase (again, just as WoW has had).
All of those things is not something Intrepid wants to have in their game.
What do they want? For everyone to grind all day and then all go together to PvP?
I think that allowing players to devote more time to what they enjoy, whether it be PvE or PvP, will give a positive impulse in the long term.
For instance, PvE players at least have protection against PK through a corruption system, but PvP players might get tired of the tiresome grind if it's constantly imposed on them. So PvE players have protection from PvP, but PvP players have no protection from PvE at all. Is that fair?
Which is why it can argued that this game is not PvP dominant, but PvE dominant
Yes. This is almost exactly what they want.
Probably with lots more mixing of the two.
The correct terminology is "PvE centric"...