blat wrote: » I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios? 1v1: Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp. Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper. The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker. To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way. Group v group: Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined. My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond? Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource. I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!). I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though. Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
Dygz wrote: » Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE. So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me.
Otr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE. So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me. I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC. .
Depraved wrote: » Otr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE. So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me. I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC. . I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream
Otr wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Otr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Originally, PvX referred to Guilds on PvP servers who were equally interested in PvP and PvE instead of being a Guild focused on PvP or a Guild focused on PvE. So... the way Steven is trying to use PvX is new to me. I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC. . I agree with that. the same way pvp players arent encouraged to play pve games. or people who like strawberry ice cream arent encouraged to buy vanilla ice cream or to encourage pizza eaters to put pineapple on top... oh wait...
Otr wrote: » When you say "Originally, PvX referred to..." you say how PvX is used by guilds in other MMORPGs Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect. AoC environment is different.
Otr wrote: » The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games. The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016.
Otr wrote: » I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC.
Otr wrote: » This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » When you say "Originally, PvX referred to..." you say how PvX is used by guilds in other MMORPGs Those PvX guilds exist in environments which allow them to do both PvP and PvE or only one aspect. AoC environment is different. EVen in Ashes, there can be Guilds that focus more on PvP and other Guilds that focus more on PvE and other Guilds that are PvX.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » The way Steven is using PvX suggests he wants to make a PvP game but to put more effort into the PvE part compared to those sandbox PvP focused games. The "PvX" label is intended to sandbox PvPers who want more PvE rather than to PvE players. PvE-ers are constantly pushed away from the very beginning, in 2016. No. The way Steven is using PvX is, he wants to make a PvP-centric game. And he wants all players to constantly be thinking about PvP even when doing PvE activities, like Gathering. So that there is minimal separation between PvP stuff and PvE stuff. PvEers were more supported when Jeffrey Bard was Lead Game Designer. Actually, Jeffrey Bard would have said that diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs. And Steven would attempt to parrot that. Steven's obsession with PvP and Risk v Reward became more clear after Jeffrey left and Steven no longer had an experienced Lead Game Designer to counsel him about making the game too niche.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » This is the disadvantage of people using labels and logos. We should always pay attention to what product we buy. Well, the disadvantage comes when the Creative Director strives to creatively use terms to obfuscate his true intentions and refuses to clearly state what the designs are. Pay attention to the products we buy, sure. I financially support Ashes so that devs can gain experience working on systems like Nodes - which help eliminate Endgame. Regardless of whether I actually choose to play Ashes. So that it will be quicker and easier for them to develop similar systems in future games that I might enjoy playing more than Ashes. Pretty sure I got what I paid for.
Dygz wrote: » There were several years where I needed to wait to test Corruption to know how comfortable I would be with the PvP in Ashes because I like flagging for PvP sometimes - specifically to defend objectives. The addition of the Open Seas and Steven's now clear obsession with Risk v Reward finally made it apparent that my playstyle is not part of the Ashes target audience. Which is great to know.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » I cannot find any encouragement for PvE-only players to come to AoC. Yep. This is true. But, what Jeffrey and Steven said in 2016 and 2017 is that Ashes should feel comfortable for the majority of MMORPG players except those who want 0% PvP. Because Corruption is in play everywhere and Corruption should keep the occurances of ganking down to a reasonable level - especially since it is harsher than L2 Karma. So... come test it. And see if Corruption is a reasonable compromise for those who don't 100% hate PvP combat.
Otr wrote: » The guilds which focus more on PvE, if have no choice but also do some PvP, would we still call them PvE guilds or PvX guilds? But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE.
Otr wrote: » Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too. I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews. "diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE.
Dygz wrote: » Maybe the node concept will help with the end game elimination. I think the progress in AI will have an even bigger impact. NPCs with such an AI will have a more realistic behavior. Players will want to team up with NPCs rather than other players.
Dygz wrote: » The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you? You think those players would not have joined AoC? The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea.
Otr wrote: » We have to see how corruption will be balanced. They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values. And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » The guilds which focus more on PvE, if have no choice but also do some PvP, would we still call them PvE guilds or PvX guilds? But I see your point. If the guild advertises PvX then it embraces the PvP too. If the guild wants to avoid PvP, (even if AoC will not allow that), such a guild can call itself PvE. If they are playing Ashes, it's unlikely that the PvE Guilds will want to avoid PvP, they just focus significantly more on PvE than they do on PvP.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » Maybe difference of vision played a role in Jeffrey Bard's leaving too. I do not know much about Jeffrey Bard. I seen only a few quotes on wiki and older interviews. "diverse playstyles are necessary for good MMORPGs" - to maximize profit. Yet when profit is chased we see more often studios trying to separate PvP from PvE. Not even to maximize profit - just to have comfortable sustainability for more than a decade. In EQ and WoW, PvE servers have the highest populations. And, yes, PvP-centric MMORPGs tend to be niche. So publishers hoping to sustain populations similar to EQ or WoW or FF for more than a decade are very likely to have separate servers types (PvP/PvE/RP)... or, like, NWO have instanced PvP... or, like NW have a toggle that allows players to have PvP turned off when they are not interested in PvP combat.
Dygz wrote: » Dygz wrote: » The deep sea was created for a different audience. Why does it bother you? You think those players would not have joined AoC? The only reason I see to be upset is if you want to gather achievements and you cannot visit some interesting areas in the sea. I dunno what you mean by "bother" me. And who said I was upset? It's just a ruleset that I don't like to play because I abhor non-consensual PvP. The Open Seas was added for the target audience playstyle. I think that's great. I am not upset by that at all.
Dygz wrote: » Otr wrote: » We have to see how corruption will be balanced. They'll start with some values but at the end of Alpha 2 there might be other values. And I still see the divine nodes the preferred place to those guilds which will try to do more PvE than PvP. How Corruption is balanced will have no effect on my decision not to play. But, yes, we will have to see whether Corruption meets its design goals. I expect it will.
CROW3 wrote: » The corruption system has one purpose: punish griefing to deter griefing. Willing PvPers in OW will not trigger corruption. You’re both purple. Killing one green isn’t designed to immediately corrupt you into oblivion. It’s meant to build up logarithmically as more greens are murdered. Trust me, Steven isn’t looking to curb a perfect ambush on a green gatherer loaded up with mats. That’s a perfect risk v. reward scenario. What they don’t want is some schmuck with epic gear trouncing either the new folks in the starter zone or repetitively ganking players that don’t want to pvp for fun.
Otr wrote: » Unlikely yes but not present at all?
Otr wrote: » I don't like the NW toggle system. And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side. I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players. And some to not come at all.
Otr wrote: » I that area makes you less likely to play the game, then you have a problem with it.
Otr wrote: » You are not a typical PvE player. Also players playing on present day PvE servers are different from the players 20 years ago. They are not there only for a story and combat with NPCs but for cosmetics and achievements. Those were less present long time ago.
Otr wrote: » Will it be logarithmic or exponential? Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.
Depraved wrote: » lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
Dygz wrote: » Depraved wrote: » cosmetics have been around since at least the early 2000s also, lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp I categorize by the server type the player plays on - so, for me, PvP players who play on PvE servers in WoW because they don't like "Open World PvP" would be PvEers. Technically, I don't consider myself to be a PvEer because I like to flag for PvP sometimes in order to participate in Town defense and other forms of PvP-related objective-defense. Like, I would enjoy Sieges and Caravans even though that is Open World PvP. I abhor non-consensual PvP to the degree that I always eventually leave PvP-Optional servers to play on PvE-Only servers - even though I sometimes like to flag for PvP. But, in these discussions, it's easier to place myself into the PvEer category.
Depraved wrote: » cosmetics have been around since at least the early 2000s also, lots of PVP players play in wow pve servers. they like pvp arenas, they just don't like open world pvp
