Lawless Areas

Hutchy1989

If you didn't catch in on stream, they announced that there will be lawless areas that will not be affected by Corruption. They will be higher level areas and they will have caravan drop off point that will pay more.

Just wondering what people thoughts about this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

It may not need a focus of testing straight away, but once the alpha 2 seems stable enough is when I would direct players to focus on testing the lawless area content if I were Intrepid. Just because it isnt necessarily a good idea to test it early during the alpha doesnt mean it shouldnt be there and tested later.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be tested, I'm saying the way they are doing it suggests Steven has no clue what an alpha test should be.

Put it in the game with no work other than just implementing the feature, then when you want it tested, ask people to go test it. That is how an alpha should function.

I guarantee that Intrepid are going to get as much feedback about the alpha specific features as they get of the actual system they want tested.

That all being said, part of the test should definitely be progressing through the game. Itd be terrible if we didnt test the progression of the game and then it turned out to feel terrible. This is simply one of the aspects that should eventually be tested. Its not counter productive as long as its focused on at a proper point during the alpha, just like with any other content that is to be tested.

Testing how the game feels in regards to progression is 100% a part of beta testing, not alpha. In alpha, we are testing that we do indeed gain levels when we get enough experience, not how gaining levels feels.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Testing how the game feels in regards to progression is 100% a part of beta testing, not alpha. In alpha, we are testing that we do indeed gain levels when we get enough experience, not how gaining levels feels.

This is fair honestly. I do think it is fair to still put it in the later phase of alpha 2 though. And I would also say that while typically you are correct in that is how testing is supposed to pan out for game development (despite most modern games half-assing all of their testing). But as long as game functions are being tested and being remedied, I don't see a reason to not include this testing in alpha as long as its after all of the technical aspects are fixed or at the very least mostly fixed. I would be ecstatic if we knocked out enough testing in alpha to make beta look like a 'finished' game with the only things needing tweaked being balancing.

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

This is fair honestly. I do think it is fair to still put it in the later phase of alpha 2 though.

100%.

The thing is, the test we should be doing in alpha for this is things like making sure corruption isn't being applied when it shouldn't. That is why all that is needed is for the basic function that will be in the live game to be put in to an area on the alpha server, and then ask players to go there and test it.

Again, I don't have any issue at all with them testing it during alpha - that is what alpha is for. My issue is with them feeling the need to provide players on an alpha server with a progression based incentive to test it.

The fact that they are introducing a reward structure specifically for this during alpha is so far out of what an alpha test should be that it's actually kind of wild.

That is literally what I would expect from someone that has no idea what an alpha test is.

Myosotys

Hutchy1989 wrote: »

If you didn't catch in on stream, they announced that there will be lawless areas that will not be affected by Corruption. They will be higher level areas and they will have caravan drop off point that will pay more.

Just wondering what people thoughts about this.

I hope these lawless, corruption-free zones will exist beyond Alpha.
As long as a player goes there by choice, in full knowledge of the potential consequences, and as long as these zones contain no major content.

Arya_Yeshe

arkileo wrote: »

Just the usual concern about the potential for big guilds to monopolize them, especially when there's a reward like the caravan thing.

Generally I am in favor of them, though, so long as there isn't strong incentive to form a zerg.

Flatearthers disliked it basically, but to me the lawless area is just hunting grounds to farm big guilders

SmileGurney

hleV wrote: »

I wouldn't be opposed to a lawless area or two staying there for the live game, open sea PvP might get stale.

I thought that was the intention? I like the idea of lawless zones, with dangerous mobs, rare resources and open pvp, even if I wouldn't see myself going there at all times.

They could feed into the idea that dangerous conditions like climate, wildlife, dangerous PvE faction, plague make those zones unhabitable, too dangerous for settling. People still go there for some rare resources. Something like Stalkers in the Zone (STALKER games for reference).

ExiledByrd

I dont understand the point of it at all.
1. Caravans already autoflagged you, so why would you get more rewards going to a lawless node.
2. The success of the entire game rides on the corruption mechanic, it needs all of the testing possible.
3. If there are pvp zones, people will argue for pve zones. Unless they are looking if they can make the corruption rough enough that they will basically be pve zones.

Aszkalon

Smaashley wrote: »

Can't wait to zerg lawless zones with my guild 😈

tautau

Perhaps the PKers and PvP intensive groups will be drawn to the lawless lands, leaving the more developed areas to the people who prefer PvE...who will then be able to test and enjoy that part of the game with less interruptions.

Solvryn

It's for testing purposes.

ariatras

Why a PvP-Enabled Zone with Higher Rewards Might Be a Bad Idea

While the idea of introducing a zone with PvP enabled for everyone and offering higher rewards might sound exciting, it can have several unintended consequences that could negatively impact the overall player experience and game balance.

1. Player Retention and Engagement: Forcing all players into a PvP environment to access higher rewards can alienate a significant portion of the player base that prefers cooperative or solo play. Players who are not interested in PvP may feel excluded from accessing these rewards, leading to frustration and potentially causing them to disengage from the game.

2. Community Dynamics: Mandatory PvP zones can foster a toxic environment where aggressive players dominate, discouraging casual or less skilled players from participating. This could lead to a divide within the community, creating an atmosphere where only the most competitive players thrive, which may harm the inclusive nature of the game.

3. Game Balance and Fairness: Higher rewards in a PvP-enabled zone can disrupt the balance of the game. Players who excel in PvP may accumulate these rewards at a faster rate, creating a disparity between them and other players. This could lead to an imbalance in power, making it difficult for new or less experienced players to compete, further widening the gap between different segments of the player base.

4. Content Accessibility: Designing content that is accessible only through PvP can limit the diversity of gameplay experiences. Players who enjoy PvE content might feel compelled to participate in PvP against their preference, reducing their enjoyment of the game. This forced participation can result in a negative perception of the game’s design and content accessibility.

In summary, while a PvP-enabled zone with higher rewards might seem like an exciting challenge, it risks alienating a portion of the player base, disrupting community harmony, and creating imbalances that could undermine the long-term success of the game. A more balanced approach that caters to diverse playstyles would likely result in a healthier and more engaged player community.

Otr

Solvryn wrote: »

It's for testing purposes.

Testing what?

Solvryn

Otr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It's for testing purposes.

Testing what?

Can't build a game if it crashes, engineers need data.

Otr

Solvryn wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It's for testing purposes.

Testing what?

Can't build a game if it crashes, engineers need data.

I doubt is about crashes.
They want to see a lot of PvP to be able to balance it.
And social interactions, player behavior...

Aszkalon

Otr wrote: »

Testing what ?

Anarchy.

Solvryn

Otr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

It's for testing purposes.

Testing what?

Can't build a game if it crashes, engineers need data.

I doubt is about crashes.
They want to see a lot of PvP to be able to balance it.
And social interactions, player behavior...

We know its about testing, my guess is as good as yours.

What their actual purpose for lawless zones? No one knows but Intrepid.

TopWombat

Sounds fun in theory, but in reality the only people that are going to go into those zones are if you're in a big guild group.

Diamaht

nanfoodle wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

I would 100% play in a lalwsss zone with a solid team. If the Risk reward is balanced right. Could be a real thrill.

Plus the player factions in those zones govern themselves. No reason they can't have nodes as well.

I don't think the lawless area will be part of the node system. I don't think that's what it's about.

I know.

I'm hoping the "pirate" factions get their own nodes out somewhere at sea. Not planning to live there, but I like that it's there for high risk content, and that part of the player base should be able to participate in the node system too. I'm also hoping to see a section of the game map be lawless on land. Maybe a part of the underdark can be that way.

As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars?

High player count orgs will use the war system to exert their will on everyone else. The only opportunity you will have to hit back will be when they declare war on you. That will always be on their terms.

Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies.

Renathras

I associate AoC a lot with EVE Online (I think of it at this point of "if you smashed WoW and EVE together and got a baby out of them..."), but 0.0 (lawless space where people could form empires) makes me think of the normal nodes, while W-Space (wormhole star systems, which were even more 0.0 than 0.0 was due to their nature) was a total free for all no mans land.

But the most dangerous space in the game was LowSec 0.1-0.5 space. Little police response but the transition from HiSec to Nullsec, so pirates were everywhere and it was often total chaos and the most dangerous systems to travel through.

I think of this sort of thing like THAT, and typically, those were the places very few people went. The only reason people went there was they had to pass THROUGH there, and in the end, that makes those spaces only for the most niche of the most niche of players.

That you have no reason to go there in this case (why do a high risk dropoff that only pays 2-3x when you could easily run 2-3x as much cargo along the safer routes and get more pay for less risk?) just means this will end up being dead content except for the most piratey of the pirates.

Ludullu

Diamaht wrote: »

As to wars being the primary method to declare player conflict, nothing promotes zergs more. Who, besides the largest and most organized player organizations, will be declaring wars?

Which is exactly why I said that GWs gotta be balanced well to account for this exact situation. Multiwars should be super expensive. High power difference wars should be also super expensive. Stuff like this makes it harder for huge zerg guilds to simply dominate the game. Obviously it's still possible, but it's at least harder.

Lawless zones literally gives them top content on a platter and says "kill everyone you see with 0 penalty and have this best content in the game for free". If a zerg guild wardecced an enemy to have the ability to defend a location from said enemy - they'd be presented with a choice: do they defend the location but potentially lose the war (cause the enemy can go do the war objective) or do they go do the objective but potentially miss a boss respawn window or smth along those lines.

And any zerg guild that tries to go for the corruption route of fighting their enemies would get fucked over by that very corruption.

None of this would be the case with a lawless system. Why even fucking have a corruption system, if you gonna just put all the best content in a ffa pvp zone.

Diamaht wrote: »

Fantasies about Robin Hood or the little guy striking back in areas that punish spontaneous pvp are just fantasies

The spontaneity is the problem. Spontaneus pvp doesn't have any meaning behind it. Any fights for bosses or location will not be spontaneous. They'll be calculated way ahead of time and planned for (mainly cause there's no fast travel, so big groups will have to move their forces way ahead of time).

Also, I wasn't saying that small guilds will suddenly win just because they're small. I expect small guilds to band together and work in coordination with each other. GWs would simply help with that, because they create a choice, rather than just making it a "hold this location and you'll win" situation.

Child Item