Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
Thank you, that's correct
Ah right. Gear durability is lost which requires resources to restore.
The main point I was reiterating to the poster I was replying to was that either you travel a distance away from home in order to PK players, or there absolutely are negative side effects to opportunistic killings.
That depends. One may want to lower a node they are in so another may rise for content reasons. Not to mention node sabotage. Both of which could include inner node turmoil. But generally you're right.
I think your statement was complete enough.
You said
"If you go around attacking players on the off chance they may have materials that you want, that is a potential black mark against you, and against your guild."
My statements are:
I will try to play on the entire map (distance is not a problem for me)
Other guild members will attack and when needed I will help them.
I find it ok entire guilds to be marked as enemies because some players attacked.
So I am interested to know what do you think will happen when small guilds which were marked as enemies end up being on the same side because the node relationships change (e.g. their nodes end up having the same parent node or one the vassal of the other).
I want your opinion about how you think guild relationships will change, if they remain enemies or will they start to cooperate.
there isn't any real issue. why is the defender more important than the attacker? there isn't any real reason for it and people are only looking at one side of the interaction.
what if there is a system that identifies the attacker and defender, to keep the game just or whatever dumb thing. I'm feeding pigeons minding my own business. I'm usually peaceful but someone attacks me because he wants those pigeons. lets also say that person is stronger than me (maybe better gear or higher levels). I run away, wait some time and heal myself, then I come back to re claim my spot from the attacker. i want to hit him a few times before he has a chance to hit me back since he is stronger than me, but guess what? he is back to being green. if I attack him now, I'm marked as the attacker, when I'm clearly not the person who initiated the conflict. anyone passing by will think I'm "the bad guy" here and attack me.
so players who decide not to hit back right away because they got down to 10% hp before they could even click their attacker are now being punished simply because they ran away and waited a lil longer to fight back instead of fighting right away. highly abusable system that keeps things "fair" lol. hell, attackers could even hit then run away, drop the flagging status and come back and bait the other person to attack them so that they are marked as the attacker xD
It doesn't matter really I agree. I made the thread in the spirit of trying to see if it mattered to people that anyone could break a fight. And it seems that people don't really care.
The point I was trying to make is that other PvP MMOs (with a PK system) chose a design that makes the one defending remain unflagged, or only flagged to the attacker. In such a way, the two players can have their battle uninterrupted
So far someone mentioned L2 but I'm not aware or any other MMO that flags someone to everyone else for defending against unsolicited engagement.
This thread derailed a bit and went on the PK system but the main point wasn't clearly addressed.
If two people are fighting, why make it so easy to interfere when it could be avoided ? It just doesn't make sens to me because of the griefing scenarios it enables.
To put it simply, why not leave the one defending green?
This has been suggested before already, but all that it would lead to is just more PKing, but way less owpvp.
No, the attacker is flagged, and someone attacking this flagged player becomes also flagged. In this design the one originally engaged stays unflagged unless they chose to engage another flagged player (other than their aggressor).