Then these flaws are what we should be discussing.
What's out there to discuss? The problems that no longer exist?
Are you like... even okay?
If you believe that these things that Intrpid have fixed will alter the effect that showing this information will have on player behavior, then they are what we should be talking about.
We shouldn't be talking about it in order to convince Intrepid of anything, but that is only because Intrepid shouldn't be listening to us.
Right, but the idea is to stop people doing that by making them not feel a need to do it - not to make them not do it because they feel the need, but don't want the punishment.
As we can all see, the thing people are asking for didn't work in L2, so why ask for it in Ashes if we know it doesn't do the thing people are wanting it to do?
Nope, the point is not to completely stop them as it is unable to stop people from trying to risk it even without HP information, the point is the amount of people willing to do so is diminished unless they would PK anyway(with or without info) but will still try their luck with limited information as a possibility.
Come on Nooani, are you really understanding the main point of the thread?
Why wouldn't the point be to stop it?
We all agree it is a negative interaction. Other games have managed to eliminate it from their game, why should we accept it at all in Ashes?
If you believe that these things thst Intrpid have fixed will alter the effect that adoring this information will have on player behavior, then they are what we should be talking about.
Is there some of challenge currently going that I haven't heard about? To write the most meaningless comment on this forum?
We shouldn't be talking about it in order to convince Intrepid of anything, but that is only because Intrepid shouldn't be listening to us.
Intrepid: we need feedback and suggestions
Noaani: Intrepid doesn't need feedback and suggestions. Unless they are suggestions that fit my personal preferences.
Because that's exactly what Steven said himself. I posted a video in this thread where he talks about that, but you are not looking for the actual truth, you are arguing for the sake of arguing like a kid
0
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Elaborating on my earlier point, I don't see how PvP in Ashes of Creation will be as instinctive and intuitive as it was in Lineage 2. Once you were experienced in L2, you knew the exact damage your class could deal to different classes, as well as how much damage you could withstand from each. After a while, the fights were feuds between known groups, and the individuals that engaged in pvp were known for their individual class and tactics.
With AoC's wider range of classes, which will be visually disguised by different gear, and a much much larger player base, I envisage PvP will likely to be inherently more challenging.
However, hit bars or not, those that decide to pk or try to initiate pvp will eventually learn how many hits you can land on a player before turning red. It will just take a bit of time!
We all agree it is a negative interaction. Other games have managed to eliminate it from their game, why should we accept it at all in Ashes?
Not necessarely, but a option that would do so without compromising the essense of the system would certainly be nice.
As long as people are free to flag as combatent whenever and the combatant status is one of the flagging status i don't see such thing happening unless you would add something like a 4th convoluted flagging status like Doylem theorized in the past
Hm.. Other games you say... which ones would they be? Other than Ashes, L2 and kinda BDO, which other games have a somewhat comparable OW flagging Karma/Corruption System?
However, hit bars or not, those that decide to pk or try to initiate pvp will eventually learn how many hits you can land on a player before turning red. It will just take a bit of time!
It doesn't really work like that buddy and let me explain why.
Max HP has nothing to do with it. Current player's HP is what matters because this is what determines how many hits an attacker can make in order not to go PK.
That said, any potential griefer would say "Thank you very much" for providing him this information and will do his thing.
On the other hand, without knowing that information, attacker doesn't know which hit will be the last hit. Not only it adds additional risk for him, but also allows an opporunity for a counterplay that I described in this thread:
Attacker > harasses the victim
Victim > calls his friends / guild mates for help
Attacker > keeps harassing the victim
Friends > we are here, right behind the hill, he didn't see us
Victim > provokes the attacker with words, behavior or intentionally keeps their HP low
Attacker > does the last hit
Victim > RIP
Friends > jump on the attacker from behind
Attacker > RIP, gets 4x death penalty, loses pieces of gear
Victim > happy
Friends > happy
Attacker > next time will think twice
0
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
However, hit bars or not, those that decide to pk or try to initiate pvp will eventually learn how many hits you can land on a player before turning red. It will just take a bit of time!
It doesn't really work like that buddy and let me explain why.
Max HP has nothing to do with it. Current player's HP is what matters because this is what determines how many hits an attacker can make in order not to go PK.
That said, any potential griefer would say "Thank you very much" for providing him this information and will do his thing.
On the other hand, without knowing that information, attacker doesn't know which hit will be the last hit. Not only it adds additional risk for him, but also allows an opporunity for a counterplay that I described in this thread:
Attacker > harasses the victim
Victim > calls his friends / guild mates for help
Attacker > keeps harassing the victim
Friends > we are here, right behind the hill, he didn't see us
Victim > provokes the attacker with words, behavior or intentionally keeps their HP low
Attacker > does the last hit
Victim > RIP
Friends > jump on the attacker from behind
Attacker > RIP, gets 4x death penalty, loses pieces of gear
Victim > happy
Friends > happy
Attacker > next time will think twice
Having played L2 under the circumstances of not knowing the exact HP of an opponent had at the time of engagement and quite adeptly hitting just sufficient to leave the player in danger of going down to a mob rather than to self, I beg to differ. Whilst one can get caught out occasionally, it was not that hard to do.
I doubt the range will be that different that after sufficent experience, it will still be indeterminate within a range!
Having played L2 under the circumstances of not knowing the exact HP of an opponent had at the time of engagement and quite adeptly hitting just sufficient to leave the player in danger of going down to a mob rather than to self, I beg to differ. Whilst one can get caught out occasionally, it was not that hard to do.
Oh, of course it's not impossible, especially with experience. It's still pretty obvious that without HP bars it is more difficult and carries additional risk anyway. That risk will vary depending on experience and victim's behavior, yet it's still there
If you believe that these things thst Intrpid have fixed will alter the effect that adoring this information will have on player behavior, then they are what we should be talking about.
Is there some of challenge currently going that I haven't heard about? To write the most meaningless comment on this forum?
We shouldn't be talking about it in order to convince Intrepid of anything, but that is only because Intrepid shouldn't be listening to us.
Intrepid: we need feedback and suggestions
Noaani: Intrepid doesn't need feedback and suggestions. Unless they are suggestions that fit my personal preferences.
Because that's exactly what Steven said himself. I posted a video in this thread where he talks about that, but you are not looking for the actual truth, you are arguing for the sake of arguing like a kid
There's a boss that has a mechanic of "you gotta keep it below 1% hp for 10 seconds and then it blows up. Getting it to 0hp with direct attacks would instead resurrect it with full resources".
Now the question is, would it be easier for you to keep the boss at <1% w/o killing it, if you can see its hp?
There's a boss that has a mechanic of "you gotta keep it below 1% hp for 10 seconds and then it blows up. Getting it to 0hp with direct attacks would instead resurrect it with full resources".
Now the question is, would it be easier for you to keep the boss at <1% w/o killing it, if you can see its hp?
You do realize what kind of answer you will get from him?
"It's a totally irrelevant comparison, why are you talking about boss, we talk about different topic, griefing is bad, but we don't want to hide HP bars because we don't like it, so griefing is bad but I don't care because it doesn't fit my personal preferences to the point that I would literally ask to make game PvE instead of PvX despite Steven openly saying that it will never going to happen, but I don't care, I argue just to argue and because I want to increase the comment count on my account to reach 20,000 comments, I'm so close to it boys"
Intrepid: we need feedback and suggestions
Noaani: Intrepid doesn't need feedback and suggestions. Unless they are suggestions that fit my personal preferences.
Intrepid; we have hundreds of years of combined experience designing some of the longest living MMORPG's to ever exist, but please,you people thst have no experience at all in MMORPG design, please, tell us what you think.
Players; OMG! They want our feedback, isn't thst great!
The reason they ask for "feedback" is because people like being asked for feedback.
There's a boss that has a mechanic of "you gotta keep it below 1% hp for 10 seconds and then it blows up. Getting it to 0hp with direct attacks would instead resurrect it with full resources".
Now the question is, would it be easier for you to keep the boss at <1% w/o killing it, if you can see its hp?
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
Intrepid; we have hundreds of years of combined experience designing some of the longest living MMORPG's to ever exist, but please,you people thst have no experience at all in MMORPG design, please, tell us what you think.
Calling you out again on a totally bs point that contains a logical fallacy
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand.
Don't we have plenty of examples when studios fail despite having competent people and experience? A rhetorical question with an obvious answer
The reason they ask for "feedback" is because people like being asked for feedback.
Another bs statement, based on absolutely nothing, that you make with a straight face. According to that, they ask for feedback just to pretend they care when in reality they don't, and the number of times they've taken the feedback into account is 0. And this is not true. Recent example: the announcement of A2 keys and changes made shortly after because players were unhappy.
There's a boss that has a mechanic of "you gotta keep it below 1% hp for 10 seconds and then it blows up. Getting it to 0hp with direct attacks would instead resurrect it with full resources".
Now the question is, would it be easier for you to keep the boss at <1% w/o killing it, if you can see its hp?
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand.
See, once again, you are misusing this fallacy.
An appeal to authority fallacy would be if I quoted Asmon to support an argument on game design. Asmon is not an expert on game design.
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy. If it were, it would mean you can use this fallacy to dismiss all expert opinion, which should not be done.
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
Yes, I'm sure there are. But you keep saying that visible hp has no impact on what we're trying to minimize.
That example illustrates what we're talking about. It's way easier to do the abuse if you have direct visual feedback of how close you are to killing a person.
You don't want to kill them yourself, because that means corruption. You don't want to keep them only at half or more hp, because this really doesn't stop them from fighting mobs. And if they are already fighting mobs, you want to bring them down as low as possible at just the right time (usually in-between mob attacks) in order to get the mob to kill them instead of you.
All of those things are harder to do when hp is invisible. As aka said, it's still doable and in L2 you could definitely train yourself to get it right by feel or simply be using proper abilities, cause you knew your victim's stats after multiple encounters with them.
In ashes it would be reaaaaally difficult to do, because there's way more people in the game, there might be more farming locations (as you yourself keep believing), there's waaaay more potential builds of any given player, with at least one of those builds literally healing the character cause of cleric augments.
In other words, the exact abuse we're discussing would be way harder to do in Ashes if green hp was invisible. There's also literally no reason to see green hp values, unless you want to PK that green "for free" by only hitting them when they're super low. But at that point the system is simply encouraging PKers instead of limiting their gameplay.
And visually speaking there wouldn't have to be anything convoluted. When a character is green there's simply no hp bar under their name. But as soon as their state changes to purple - the bar appears underneath. It would be a very straightforward and intuitive design imo. Well intuitive once you either read the tutorial or experience it once, just as resource bars would have to be explained or experienced.
No other changes to the system would need to be made, in relation to this particular interaction. And considering that party members will see each others' hp 1-to-1 - it's obvious that Intrepid have already implemented variable states of hp bar visuals. And this would just be another state for it.
Please tell me, what is the drawback in this kind of system? Or maybe give me a reason why you'd need to see green hp. Oh, right, one of the reasons stated previously was "to help out the green by healing him". I admit that it's a viable reason, but the same action can be taken at literally any point of you seeing a green that's fight mobs or running away from them or running away from a purple/red player or is literally screaming in chat "AHHH PLEASE SOMEONE SAVE ME I'M GONNA DEIIII".
When I played a healer in L2 I've helped out multiple people when I saw them running away from mobs or asking for help, so it's not like invisible green hp magically prevents people from doing good things or being social.
So outside of this specific reason, what else is there to warrant visible green hp?
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy. If it were, it would mean you can use this fallacy to dismiss all expert opinion, which should not be done.
I'll skip the rest of the nonsense you wrote and highlight this
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy.
So how come when I directly refer to Steven and what he said publicly, you just skip it and ignore, just as you always do when you face an argument you can't even theoretically argue with?
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy. If it were, it would mean you can use this fallacy to dismiss all expert opinion, which should not be done.
I'll skip the rest of the nonsense you wrote and highlight this
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy.
So how come when I directly refer to Steven and what he said publicly, you just skip it and ignore, just as you always do when you face an argument you can't even theoretically argue with?
Because Steven is not an expert in game design.
He owns this company, this game gets built how he wants.
That means he has money, not that he is an expert.
Edit to add; the above are my general opinions, I have no idea about the specific case you are talking about.
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
Yes, I'm sure there are. But you keep saying that visible hp has no impact on what we're trying to minimize.
No, I'm saying (or trying to say) that it is proven to not be overly effective, other things are proven to work, and since showing health information has benefits those other avenues should be explored and exhausted before obfuscating health information is even considered.
People here arguing for this all seem to have the view that if this one thing isn't implemented, this kind of behavior will be rampant in Ashes. That is very clearing incorrect.
Well, I think that one will be my last post in this particular topic in this thread – all opinions and standpoints were discussed comprehensively.
But I will try to pick up some last quotes for courtesy:
What else? I mean, what are we talking about – sharing opinions. As you (and the others) read my postings with emotion and precision you all know, that it’s not about changing a system but about disliking it. Intrepid has been developing Ashes for years, ofc the will not change something like this. BUT I still disagree with it. I dislike the fact that players can, by intention, be ganked. Steven himself states, yes, there will be ganking (there is a quote in wiki of that, I guess you all know it). And that is what even more confirms my conclusion, that it’s not funny and strange that the root cause is known but still accepted and allowed.
It doesn't mean that the idea behind PvP/PK system is bad.
Depends on the standpoint. For the one getting PK without his will it is actually bad. For the “ganker” (you call him “pvp player by game design” in a soothing way) it’s not bad. For the guy that attacks a non-combatant during a pve-gameplay (questing / fighting against (pve)mobs) it’s not bad, he exploits (my wording, your wording is: takes advantage of) this situation and will try to attack, but perhaps not kill, the farming guy (baiting with mobs, finding the sweet spot to harass him, but not killing him). You know, I understand ALL your points, and ALL from the others. I have to clarify once again, that my English (as you all can see – I just can apologize once more for that, but it’s an international forum and by my choice I’ve done the registration although I was reading here since years, so I pushed myself into the cave of you lions) is not the best and I’m 100% sure and therefore convinced that the entire discussion perhaps would be smarter and not so weird.
You are simply trying to rationalize why it is necessary to make everything how you want it.
I actually have a very rational view on the topic, but I don’t’ want to change it (I can’t, how should I?). But that will not stop criticising it. You will have to understand, accept and tolerate that. I will not change my mind and opinion on that. Can I adapt to it later on in the game? Time will tell, idk yet. My gamestyle changed during the years. I’m not the pvp arena gladiator player from earlier times. I’m just still hoping that overall the game is fine for me. I’m convinced you all read my “balance sheet” why I THINK Ashes still is the right game also for players (time-casual, but willing to perform and able to play at an average to good level, due to experience and willingness to learn class mechanics and combat mechanics; Because that’s what I’ve done in pvp MMO before all the time, with success). At this point the “rain metaphor” started in this thread or the other.
If you are looking for a game where you can peacefully go fishing with 0 risk of being attacked and toggleable PvP, I'd recommend you to play New World, because it would fit you perfectly.
I disagree, again. But thanks for providing this answer and example, it proves my worries even more. There are players out there that will attack harmless fishing guys. That’s the community of “games like this”. And therefore I disagree, that the game itself is wrong for me, but perhaps it’s a small part of the community that’s wrong for me. With this differentiation we are much more precise. Your loved “design” (yes, I’m putting it in quotes by full intention) is for players “like you”, but there are not only “players like you” in Ashes. You will see that I’m right with my forecast at launch, at the latest. And afterwards. And the game will run smoothly, or not, depending on the community and behave. If it’s a childish playing ground for gankers, so the nostalgic dream of our young Steven 20 to 25 years ago (he was 15 to 20 to perhaps 25 at that time, I assume), well then yes, I will probably will not come with my big excavator and play in this sandbox to find out who has the biggest excavator. I’ve enough satisfaction and fulfilment in real life, I just want to play a 3rd person fantasy MMO with all the nice things I love at MMO and why I’ve been playing them since nearly two decades. I hope you understand my standpoint now even more. If not, I seriously cannot help you.
Overall, this situation reminds me about people who are afraid to fly on a plane, despite it being the safest transport method, as fatal accidents are extremely rare and statistics prove it. You can't use logic to convince them that it's fine and their fear is irrational. You just can't. So doing that is almost always pointless[/b]
Limping example, but I got the message. Yes, fear of flying is something terrible. I know people with this fear. But I disagree that you can’t convince them with rational arguments, because I did that in real life and convinced a guy, that was afraid of flying but finally he did it. But, from a psychological perspective it’s of course not the fear of the flying, but the crash. If I continue your metaphor, then that’s the ganking and griefing. So, the guy with worries about crashing is RIGHT all the time, because he hates crashing down and that’s why he has worries. And if the crash comes, he cannot avoid it. He doestn’t have control about it. And this, exactly and precisely, is my criticism about this “design” for non-combatants being allowed to get attacked. But, I neither can stop the rain (hi@NiKr) nor the crash, right, Flanker? But there is no conclusion that I’m not right or rational, by contrast, it confirms all I mentioned so far.
Now, at latest at this point, you (and the others) come back with: That will not happen often! (like the crash). And I’m NOT convinced about that, by contrast, I’m SURE it will happen more often because it is ALLOWED that it can happen. And therefore players WILL abuse (my words, “play” in your words) this situation (Jason, the fisher, Kevin, the assassin). It will happen. And if “time” is the aspect of the most valuable thing in life (and some of you will learn that in the future, but maybe just not yet and today), you will dislike, if somebody steals your time that you invest for something. It’s obvious and therefore trivial to understand this, if you are willing to change your standpoint and accept and tolerate, that there are other player styles out there, out in the market which is millions of MMO players. Can you follow me here without the feeling that I offend you?
Character on the account not account wide lol. So what they go somewhere at 7am, that doesn't mean other people aren't going to be on just cause there is less lmao. If they go corrupt that is up to them it is not going to be a common occurrence do to all the draw backs.
I don’t understand (my English perhaps?) what you mean. For me an account is what the human is using (and paying) to play the computer game. On this account he can have 5 characters. “Character on the account not account wide” is no contradiction for me, it’s the same.
And, if you think that at 7am in the morning, on Sunday, there are more players online that on Friday evening at 20pm then it’s your first MMO ever I believe. Sorry, but I really smiled at this point writing my lines. You know when I did my “personal” and single stuff in all MMOs I’ve played so far? You can guess, when. And the group-content? Surprise, in the evenings and weekends.
If attacking another player is bad design for you, why are you investing in a game around that that is going to have a lot of pvp. I'd recommend more pve focused games.
You don’t understand why? I can tell you, it’s trivial and basic education. Because of Aristoteles: The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Most of the parts are fine in Ashes. Like in other MMOs I’ve played. But not ALL parts are good. This design is bad. And yes, repetitive once again, in my opinion – still and always. About which other opinion do you think I’m talking about? That I “represent” kind of a community that YOU dislike is more than obvious, but I don’t see the point that this player types are wrong or “false”, but, that they are allowed to play Ashes and they got attracted do to several “parts” that were promised and shown so far. If this game for you (and others) is ONLY the owpvp part, that’s your choice alone. Your choice alone. But in your world you want to force everybody else to think and play like this, and that’s why you like the fact and “design”, that you can attack a player, like me, during gathering flowers. I’m a player that likes to pvp with you, really. But under same conditions. Everything, really everything else is coward-pvp for me. It’s that simple. If you attack me although I don’t want that at this time, you are a coward for me. Sorry for the offense, but’s that’s my clear statement for you and all others. But you already know that from my last postings, so no surprise yet, right?
Please, you don’t have to remember at this point, “but the game…”. I know that. Believe me. But it does not change anything. As long as pvp is done in this way, I disagree and dislike it. I appreciate workarounds like corruption and hope that this punishment will be as hard as possible. I will not attack harmless players in Ashes. I will attack purple ones. Yes, I will do that really really often. Because I like pvp. But we have a different approach when it comes to coward-pvp and serious-pvp. And this will never change and that’s why that’s my last posting about this topic in this forum. It’s my opinion, I will not change it. I will have, unfortunately, live with this situation that a 14years old teenager is ganking me and stealing my time, but I hope he get’s punished by developers and the game then, because perhaps the parents missed out something before that he gets joy and fun out of harassing other players.
I feel you really don't understand how node / guild wars work as well, so you don't really understand the full scope of the level of pvp this game is going to have.
But I do. You think I don’t, but you are wrong. I’m just not talking about this stuff, I’m talking about situations that are different to a node or guild war. Read my postings here (and the other thread) and you will see that.
If you are on the alpha i look forward to your reaction when you get jumped as you are alone
I’m not paying for an unfinished product and moreover of course I’m not investing my time AND paying for it – by contrast, if somebody pays me and wants to afford my daily rate, well ok, but with a smile: No, my friend, of course I’m not paying for testing (what the hell..) and I’m in general not buying unfinished products.
Yes, at release there will be online times in which I play alone. Yes, there will be situations in which I want (or have to) do lonewolf stuff. It’s you thinking that everybody is playing 24/7 in groups and raids. And my fact, that players will also play alone, has nothing to do with being social or not and nothing to do, whether they are in a guild or not. I will be in a guild, we are already starting to group/from and gather they guys from the other MMOs. So, you are, once again, completely wrong about quite all of your assumptions about me because you lack to differentiate between standpoints and player styles.
You can complain as much as you want, one of the core elements of this game isn't going to be changed
For sure I will always criticize aspects of game design that I don’t like or I disagree with.
For sure this particular topic will not change (as repeatedly said…), but that is not changing my mind and opinion on it.
"Non-combatant" means "hasn't taken part in an attack yet." That doesn't mean they can't be attacked. I feel like these misinterpretations of terminology are seriously screwing with your understanding of the game.
You are wrong, I understand. I just don’t like it. You obviously (!) don’t know how other MMOs align PvE and PVP to PvX work for this. There is a completely different “flagging” implemented. If you are in PvE content by intention, you are doing PvE content – by intention. You cannot be attacked, it makes no sense during this time of gameplay and even if it would make sense, it’s the decision from the player – so player decision really counts there. You flag yourself pvp, or not. You can do this for instance with a simple command line in chat, just type “/pvp” and you are pvp flagged. That’s it. Up from this point of time, you WANT to play pvp. All other pvp players know and see it. That’s serious, mature pvp. If you get attacked, you know it – you decided it by yourself before. So, you “understanding” of PvX is just restricted to one, maybe two, other MMOs in that context, so don’t ask my about understanding of this mechanics or the ones in other MMOs.
There is no misinterpretation, it’s a simple fact. I’m starting as non-combatant in Ashes. And I can remain at this state as long as I’m not attacking back or attending a clear pvp situation (there are some objective-based pvp events in the game). Am I wrong?
So, I’m non-combatant, not playing pvp, but gathering flowers. For whatever reason, it’s my choice, I guess. Or I’m fishing, as non-combatant (so still the default, I’m green). It’s quite simple. Up from now you can read everything I’ve posted so far once again, because I will not explain it just for you once again. You will understand it, but you will not at all share my opinion, I know, but you can tolerate and accept, that I see this particular aspect differently and always will.
Yes, there are protections for non-combatants to prevent griefing.
Hopefully corruption is as hard as possible to get rid of the childish, toxic trolls and coward pvp’ers.
But the reason those protections have to exist is that it is fully intentional for non-combatants to be attackable in the first place, as a core part of the game's design.
I know that, again and again.. But I disagree with it and dislike it, because my understanding for serious and fair pvp is, that this is only done between combatants. If you would understand my standpoint here and if you would have the experience of other MMOs you would not ask such questions or put such lines in this thread. You defend this design because it’s “core” for you. I know that, it’s obvious. I don’t like that it is intended and permitted to attack non-combatants, because I prefer fighting between "combatants" only. If you want to rephrase this to other MMOs (without flagging of L2 system, or perhaps AA): It’s “pvp-flagged” status. You set this status manually (!) by intention (!) because you want (!) to play PVP. Now you should understand why, in other games, player choice really (!) counts. In Ashes this choice is not existing. And that “loss of control” is one of my core criticism. The second one is the attitude and behaviour of some coward “pvp” players, that are ganking, griefing and harassing other players and steal their time.
And… we repeat and repeat once again. You will not change my mind, safe your time, if you will. Anyhow, I will not post about this topic again in this thread, as stated above.
And absolutely nothing could be deeper inside the box than carebear PvP protections. You can't be serious with that accusation. I'm not willing to "change my perspective", because you're trying to rid the game of a fundamental design pillar; you're the one inside the mainstream box.
Well, that’s sound like the mainstream box is bad. That’s an interesting approach, I got the message, thanks.
Yes, there are your “linked logical dependencies”. Corruption is in place to legitimize ganking. I know that. Steven knows that. There will be ganking.
I disagree with “design” that now that something nobody wants will happen by answering to that with a reactive measure instead of a preventive one. Did you get it now? I really can’t explain it in another way. You ask what a preventive measure could be? That’s easy. The player, only the player, decides whether he wants to attend a pvp fight or not. That’s all it about. It’s to most trivial thing since 20y+ MMO gameplay out there. Give the choice to all players, not only the attacking players. You call it “core”, I call it “bullshit”. I don’t want to change it, I can’t change it (lol, how should I).
You want to attack another player at your conditions. I know that. I understand that. I’m not doing that. I never did, I never will do that in the future. My pvp gaming is under same conditions and within a fair and mature framework.
Wrong game? Repetition again, see above. Aristoteles.
Listen. I don't harass, I don't gank. I prefer fighting people of my own character level, in numbers of players that match or slightly outnumber my own.
I am very rarely "the attacker" in general, and when I am, it's only in large objective contestation.
Good to hear. But as it is allowed in this game to do it differently, it will be done. And the attacked ones will have regression and a waste of their time, which is valuable for them – perhaps it’s the most valuable for them.
I also rarely have the best gear, because I care more about my guild's and realm's strength than my individual character, so I pass opportunities for getting the best stuff on to more ambitious allies that I can enable with my support.
Sounds good.
But I like playing games where **people** are able to enforce engagements that contribute to their own power increase.
At cost of weaker, harmless players.
And games where weaker players can *choose* to attempt to contest valuable resources.
It’s no real choice if I’m running around as green (default flag, so I’m doing pve stuff and did not fight with another player so far) and suddenly somebody else is showing up and starts attacking and harassing me. You call it choice, I call it unavoidable. Game design only can avoid this by providing a REAL choice to me that I cannot be attacked.
Now, again, you start to bring in the “competiton” because 100 players want to gather that flower. I know. I understand. For me it’s no competition, it’s only one side attacks another side that don’t want to fight. Rinse and repeat.
What would you say if I’m just answering: Go to another place, you are late. Bad luck for you, not my fault. It’s already my flower. You would start to complain and criticize, because YOU want to have a choice to get that flower. Yes? So, finally, we are at the same level. I want a choice that I can avoid you attacking me so a choice that this is my flower (first come, first serve). For you it’s the complete opposite.
Because competing over, and controlling, and defending territory and contested resources is the most fun, engaging, and rewarding part of MMO PvP.
For some players, for some not. That’s just you opinion.
Under same, equal, fair, mature, serious and full agreement (consensual pvp) I’m answering YES to you. Did that 20y+ in other MMOs. And that is why I know and got the experience that this works just fine, is balanced and a lot of fun. I don’t care about attacking and killing other players that are obviously not ready or in the mood to play pvp at this particular moment. I'm no coward.
And a necessary part of that possibility is the other side: That stronger players have to have the ability to kill weaker players.
LOL. Coward PvP.
They won't always do it, weaker players can reduce the risk for themselves by avoiding conflict, and there should (at least in a game like Ashes) be effective mechanics to discourage stronger players from abusively harassing weaker players.
Issue still not solved, only reduced a bit. Depends on toxic behaviour of the community and the hardness of corruption punishment.
If you want the best stuff, compete at the level of the people who get the best stuff.
I’m investing my time, so I want stuff. I’m not saying that I want the best stuff out of one content if I’m not playing the other content. You don’t understand my playing style at all. I want to differentiate and choose by myself at any time, what I want to play and where to participate. You want to force my to participate in something I don’t want and that’s a bossy attitude I disagree and I dislike in a computer game. In business we can do it like this, in a computer game I don’t need and want that.
Otherwise, learn to accept that they'll have better stuff, and find your role in that dynamic.
Nothing to learn here, by contrast I know all of it. I survived all drama in the last 20y of playing MMOs, guild theatre and drama, personal human drama and how progression, loot und non-challenging and challenging content works in MMOs when it comes to casual, hardcore, Lonewolfs and groups/raids – both PvE and PVP wise. I was gathering flowers and on highest pvp ranks in WoW, I was doing jumping riddles in GW2 and playing structured PvP on high rankings at the same time. I did small to large-scall hardcore raids, I did them up from MMOs getting popular (so WoW for instance) and did dungeons and elite-runs until the last one, New World. I experienced all of it in between. There is nothing left to learn, but, there is a possibility to share experience for players like you, which know some parts of it, but obviously not all.
And because of my knowledge and experience I will find “my role”, as always, but I’m still disliking and disagreeing with bad designs (there is no MMO out there with no bad designs and disadvantages!), that are the root cause of this “solution”, which says: Find your role. Because, if you concept and implement it in a different way, with more choice for the player, this role finding will be way better and way more meaningful than getting forced to do something just because of coercion.
If you can't do that, sorry, why are you here? Isn't there a new dungeon in ESO or FFXIV for you to run 50 times a month?
I know that this is your limited approach and knowledge about it, you spread this wisdom through all your lines. But it is just wrong and has nothing to do with the situation and issue and bad design we are talking about. I’m here because Ashes attracts different player styles and because of “Aristoteles”. There is a lot in this game which I like. Both PvP and PvE wise. I completely disagree with the approach how Ashes “handles” the grey area between both content areas.
Because you don't understand Corruption.
That’s a lie, I understand corruption. But for me it’s only a reactive measurement done because of an issue that raised before. I dislike the issue before, the root cause. I disagree that the root cause is not solved directly, but follow-up mechanics are implemented to reduce the damage done because of the decision done before - up to the point of this thread, health point bars. LOL.
The only reason you're not having fun there is that you can't handle trying something and failing because someone else gets to stop you.
Correct. I have reasonable doubts about this. That’s all. And this all comes from my player style and my understanding of fair, mature and balanced pvp. Because THIS pvp is the most fun pvp ever, because if you win a game under same conditions and the same initial situation (!), than, my young friend, you can be the hero you want to be and play pvp with or against me the entire day. But don’t waste my very very valuable time by harassing, attacking and killing me at points of time where you clearly can see (green) that I don’t want to play pvp with or against you. Otherwise I would usually be pvp-flagged, pardon, be a purple combatant. You want to fight combatant vs. combatant? Go for it. I will do that thousand times in Ashes. But I never will like and agree with the situation, and this situation WILL happen for sure, that another player is decreasing my entertainment and enlarges his entertainment to fulfil his wet, childisch, toxic and elitist dreams.
Yes, harassment is a somewhat unfortunate side effect of this policy.
Not somewhat. It’s the core of the entire discussion. You can appease it as often as you want, it will always stay a fact that it is bad, childish and as long as it is allowed a bad design.
By removing it, you'd have to replace it with something else to make the game interesting, and you'd make the game no longer be Ashes.
You fear the situation that open pvp will not take place if this kind of “ganking” (you call it permitted attacking) and some reactive measurements afterwards will not work (or not needed at all). I cannot share this worries at all. By contrast, I’m convinced that Ashes is attracting more than enough pvp fans and players but pvp players that do have my understanding of fair, mature and balanced pvp and therefore there will be countless “combatants” running around and fighting alone, in groups or in raids. This will happen, this is an absolute great game and place to do so and this will happen for sure. But, at the same time you neutralize the root cause of ganking, harassing, griefing and all those downsides instead of allowing and legitimizing them.
Off-topic: Absolutely no hate, but if you learn the differences in the use of adverbs and adjectives in English, you'll reduce your syntax errors by like 60% in one go. Just saying.
I'll stop commenting on your English now, promise. It's fine, just caught my eye in this one, I guess because the conversation is a little more heated.
I want to excuse again, you are right, it’s not my native language and I guess you understand my point of view?
I like Ashes. I want to have a mature community. After years of reading/watching/consuming passively I decided to register here to talk about a game which attracted me. Yes, I did. Because of the promises, designs, systems and mechanics. I already stated that. But here, in this forum (believe me – not in others.. ) I’m in the cave of the lions. You are one of those lions. But I’m in here, because I’m experienced (and old) enough that I’m not taking something personally. But as it is not my native language AND we are keyboard warriors like 1v5 here (my perspective) it’s challenging not to mix up quotes/words/whatever. And as I’m trying to answer/respond to everybody (-> courtesy) I’m doing this in a rush (and alongside doing other things, I’m just playing Lies of P, which is annoying me from time to time as you can imagine).
That thinking comes from pvp-toggle/server design, because under those designs you are either a perma-untouchable-pver or a perma-pvper. And you cannot just change your state at your whim.
Bullseye.
While Ashes (and L2) gives you a choice at every interaction, which is much freer. I hope Chaliux gets to experience it to understand it better, but I doubt they'll like it, considering this entire discussion.
True on both assumptions, but this freedom is an artificial one for the player that get's attacked but don't want to get attacked. No real freedom, no choice. It's just unavoidable. Real freedom? Try to attack a non-pvp flagged player in another MMO. That's real choice.
Conclusion:
I will not change my mind on this particular topic. I thank you for perseverance and endurance. I apologize for my nasty English which made things even worse (in some quotas, answers).
I hope, someday, Ashes will be a place for all different player styles, as promised and I hope even more, that all the reactive measurements taken will avoid at all cost the situations I’m worrying about, because it’s only fun for one side to waste the time of the other side.
Maybe we can finally agree to disagree and document that in the minutes?!
I will not write/reply in this thread any more about this topic, so don’t feel offended (or confirmed) just because I’m not answering. Thanks.
He is an expert in deciding which core pillars will exist in his game and defining which of them are negotiable and which of them are not. Stop this clownery for god sake.
No, I'm saying (or trying to say) that it is proven to not be overly effective, other things are proven to work, and since showing health information has benefits those other avenues should be explored and exhausted before obfuscating health information is even considered.
Proven by whom? Where? When? What is that nonsense again?
People here arguing for this all seem to have the view that if this one thing isn't implemented, this kind of behavior will be rampant in Ashes. That is very clearing incorrect.
You are using a strawman fallacy again. This behavior won't be rampant in both cases, but with no HP bars for non-combatants it will have a much lower chance to occur.
He is an expert in deciding which core pillars will exist in his game and defining which of them are negotiable and which of them are not. Stop this clownery for god sake.
I mean, sure.
But two points;
First, the above is not a field in which you become an expert. It is literally saying "I am an expert in my own opinions".
Second, this is the same guy that has decided on the current game design for health display. You are the one arguing with him right now, not me.
This behavior won't be rampant in both cases, but with no HP bars for non-combatants it will have a much lower chance to occur.
So, according to you, it won't be rampant regardless, it is just a lower occurance.
Lets assume I agree with you here (I do not).
That still isn't worth it for what you are losing.
And for the record, I'm not ignoring the question, I'm ignoring Mag. You are coming in to a situation where people have been interacting for years. You have no clue as to the history of those interactions, so you really should - as I have said to you earlier for a similar reason - keep your head in.
Second, this is the same guy that has decided on the current game design for health display. You are the one arguing with him right now, not me.
I'm making a suggestion how to fix the last known flaw of the system. I'm not trying to force him change his mind about something that he said is non-negotiable.
And just as I said, I don't care if it stays as it is. I'm perfectly fine with that. But other players, including some of those who are so desperately commenting against it, will find out soon enough why that is not the best choice.
P.S. And if you think that 1/4 segments are not a big deal, wait till you find out that after certain progression it becomes possible to see 1/6 or 1/8 segments which will make the situation even worse.
P.S. And if you think that 1/4 segments are not a big deal, wait till you find out that after certain progression it becomes possible to see 1/6 or 1/8 segments which will make the situation even worse.
I'm all good with 1000 segments - as long as there are other mechancis in place to deal with the behavior we are all talking about here.
Again, that seems to be the thing people asking for this aren't grasping - there are other ways to achieve the end result, without removing something that has positive value.
Right, and if corruption is that punishing, it is failing to perform its primary role. That role is to curb needless PvP, but not stop it when there is a reason.
Yes, the balance is razor-thin and will have to be figured out during testing (and most likely after release as well).
Which is why I think the system is flawed to begin with. You're never going to hit that razor think mark of balance, and you are always going to get complaints from either side of the argument.
But this isn't particularly related to whether or not health bars should be shown, so I didn't want to bother with it. All I know is that using L2 as the blueprint and saying 'I want it to be designed this way because OTHERWISE an L2 problem will happen' doesn't make sense when you are countered by 'I don't think it needs to be designed that way because AA did it that way and the problem didn't happen'.
Ok, but Noaani said that in AA people did have enough content to not really go to the same extent of competition that L2's players did.
So which approach has the higher chance of impacting the amount of PKing and the abuse of said PKing?
We have @iccer as well. Iccer, how much content competition did you experience in AA and how much did people kill each other during that competition if there was any?
Competition was there.
- World bosses: You'd often see several guilds competing for a kill, mostly faction vs faction, but ofc with some guilds it can always be in-faction fighting as well. Whether those were sea bosses, like kraken, or land bosses that dropped valuable loot. My favorite moments from AA were from Red Dragon PvP.
- Events like CR & GR: Appear a few times a day, you can often see reds coming in to ruin the party, even if it's meant to be a daily event without any meaningful loot drops.
- You'd even have competition for housing: When a certain plot is about to expire, people would gather around. Often you'd see people PK other's in order to eliminate the competition.
- Trade runs in general, especially going with a ship: You were always at risk of PvP and getting your shit stolen.
The thing is, Archeage allowed you a low risk, lower reward option as well. You could do traderuns in safe zones, which would obviously not be as rewarding, you had stuff to do outside of PvP competition. But the "main" group content was always PvP related.
There were options to avoid competition, as the game allowed you to do a ton of other stuff, besides just PvP related stuff.
The thing is, Archeage allowed you a low risk, lower reward option as well. You could do traderuns in safe zones, which would obviously not be as rewarding, you had stuff to do outside of PvP competition. But the "main" group content was always PvP related.
There were options to avoid competition, as the game allowed you to do a ton of other stuff, besides just PvP related stuff.
You see. That's good design. Because there is a choice, options. Enlarging playerbase, investing in healthy communities working on both sides, PvE and PvP content. We will all see what AA2 will bring in the future, at least it looks fantastic so far.
Comments
If you believe that these things that Intrpid have fixed will alter the effect that showing this information will have on player behavior, then they are what we should be talking about.
We shouldn't be talking about it in order to convince Intrepid of anything, but that is only because Intrepid shouldn't be listening to us.
Why wouldn't the point be to stop it?
We all agree it is a negative interaction. Other games have managed to eliminate it from their game, why should we accept it at all in Ashes?
Noaani: Intrepid doesn't need feedback and suggestions. Unless they are suggestions that fit my personal preferences. Because that's exactly what Steven said himself. I posted a video in this thread where he talks about that, but you are not looking for the actual truth, you are arguing for the sake of arguing like a kid
With AoC's wider range of classes, which will be visually disguised by different gear, and a much much larger player base, I envisage PvP will likely to be inherently more challenging.
However, hit bars or not, those that decide to pk or try to initiate pvp will eventually learn how many hits you can land on a player before turning red. It will just take a bit of time!
Not necessarely, but a option that would do so without compromising the essense of the system would certainly be nice.
As long as people are free to flag as combatent whenever and the combatant status is one of the flagging status i don't see such thing happening unless you would add something like a 4th convoluted flagging status like Doylem theorized in the past
Hm.. Other games you say... which ones would they be? Other than Ashes, L2 and kinda BDO, which other games have a somewhat comparable OW flagging Karma/Corruption System?
Aren't we all sinners?
Max HP has nothing to do with it. Current player's HP is what matters because this is what determines how many hits an attacker can make in order not to go PK.
That said, any potential griefer would say "Thank you very much" for providing him this information and will do his thing.
On the other hand, without knowing that information, attacker doesn't know which hit will be the last hit. Not only it adds additional risk for him, but also allows an opporunity for a counterplay that I described in this thread:
Attacker > harasses the victim
Victim > calls his friends / guild mates for help
Attacker > keeps harassing the victim
Friends > we are here, right behind the hill, he didn't see us
Victim > provokes the attacker with words, behavior or intentionally keeps their HP low
Attacker > does the last hit
Victim > RIP
Friends > jump on the attacker from behind
Attacker > RIP, gets 4x death penalty, loses pieces of gear
Victim > happy
Friends > happy
Attacker > next time will think twice
Having played L2 under the circumstances of not knowing the exact HP of an opponent had at the time of engagement and quite adeptly hitting just sufficient to leave the player in danger of going down to a mob rather than to self, I beg to differ. Whilst one can get caught out occasionally, it was not that hard to do.
I doubt the range will be that different that after sufficent experience, it will still be indeterminate within a range!
Which has been my point all along.
There's a boss that has a mechanic of "you gotta keep it below 1% hp for 10 seconds and then it blows up. Getting it to 0hp with direct attacks would instead resurrect it with full resources".
Now the question is, would it be easier for you to keep the boss at <1% w/o killing it, if you can see its hp?
"It's a totally irrelevant comparison, why are you talking about boss, we talk about different topic, griefing is bad, but we don't want to hide HP bars because we don't like it, so griefing is bad but I don't care because it doesn't fit my personal preferences to the point that I would literally ask to make game PvE instead of PvX despite Steven openly saying that it will never going to happen, but I don't care, I argue just to argue and because I want to increase the comment count on my account to reach 20,000 comments, I'm so close to it boys"
Players; OMG! They want our feedback, isn't thst great!
The reason they ask for "feedback" is because people like being asked for feedback.
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
Appeal to authority fallacy refers to the use of an expert’s opinion to back up an argument. Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand.
Don't we have plenty of examples when studios fail despite having competent people and experience? A rhetorical question with an obvious answer
Another bs statement, based on absolutely nothing, that you make with a straight face. According to that, they ask for feedback just to pretend they care when in reality they don't, and the number of times they've taken the feedback into account is 0. And this is not true. Recent example: the announcement of A2 keys and changes made shortly after because players were unhappy.
What a clownery. RIP
You could have saved your time and just stop there. That would be enough and the value of your comment will remain the same
Sure, but much like I am doing here, I would argue that there are better ways to achieve that same end goal.
An appeal to authority fallacy would be if I quoted Asmon to support an argument on game design. Asmon is not an expert on game design.
Citing actual experts in the field in question is not a fallacy. If it were, it would mean you can use this fallacy to dismiss all expert opinion, which should not be done.
That example illustrates what we're talking about. It's way easier to do the abuse if you have direct visual feedback of how close you are to killing a person.
You don't want to kill them yourself, because that means corruption. You don't want to keep them only at half or more hp, because this really doesn't stop them from fighting mobs. And if they are already fighting mobs, you want to bring them down as low as possible at just the right time (usually in-between mob attacks) in order to get the mob to kill them instead of you.
All of those things are harder to do when hp is invisible. As aka said, it's still doable and in L2 you could definitely train yourself to get it right by feel or simply be using proper abilities, cause you knew your victim's stats after multiple encounters with them.
In ashes it would be reaaaaally difficult to do, because there's way more people in the game, there might be more farming locations (as you yourself keep believing), there's waaaay more potential builds of any given player, with at least one of those builds literally healing the character cause of cleric augments.
In other words, the exact abuse we're discussing would be way harder to do in Ashes if green hp was invisible. There's also literally no reason to see green hp values, unless you want to PK that green "for free" by only hitting them when they're super low. But at that point the system is simply encouraging PKers instead of limiting their gameplay.
And visually speaking there wouldn't have to be anything convoluted. When a character is green there's simply no hp bar under their name. But as soon as their state changes to purple - the bar appears underneath. It would be a very straightforward and intuitive design imo. Well intuitive once you either read the tutorial or experience it once, just as resource bars would have to be explained or experienced.
No other changes to the system would need to be made, in relation to this particular interaction. And considering that party members will see each others' hp 1-to-1 - it's obvious that Intrepid have already implemented variable states of hp bar visuals. And this would just be another state for it.
Please tell me, what is the drawback in this kind of system? Or maybe give me a reason why you'd need to see green hp. Oh, right, one of the reasons stated previously was "to help out the green by healing him". I admit that it's a viable reason, but the same action can be taken at literally any point of you seeing a green that's fight mobs or running away from them or running away from a purple/red player or is literally screaming in chat "AHHH PLEASE SOMEONE SAVE ME I'M GONNA DEIIII".
When I played a healer in L2 I've helped out multiple people when I saw them running away from mobs or asking for help, so it's not like invisible green hp magically prevents people from doing good things or being social.
So outside of this specific reason, what else is there to warrant visible green hp?
So how come when I directly refer to Steven and what he said publicly, you just skip it and ignore, just as you always do when you face an argument you can't even theoretically argue with?
He owns this company, this game gets built how he wants.
That means he has money, not that he is an expert.
Edit to add; the above are my general opinions, I have no idea about the specific case you are talking about.
People here arguing for this all seem to have the view that if this one thing isn't implemented, this kind of behavior will be rampant in Ashes. That is very clearing incorrect.
But I will try to pick up some last quotes for courtesy: What else? I mean, what are we talking about – sharing opinions. As you (and the others) read my postings with emotion and precision you all know, that it’s not about changing a system but about disliking it. Intrepid has been developing Ashes for years, ofc the will not change something like this. BUT I still disagree with it. I dislike the fact that players can, by intention, be ganked. Steven himself states, yes, there will be ganking (there is a quote in wiki of that, I guess you all know it). And that is what even more confirms my conclusion, that it’s not funny and strange that the root cause is known but still accepted and allowed.
Depends on the standpoint. For the one getting PK without his will it is actually bad. For the “ganker” (you call him “pvp player by game design” in a soothing way) it’s not bad. For the guy that attacks a non-combatant during a pve-gameplay (questing / fighting against (pve)mobs) it’s not bad, he exploits (my wording, your wording is: takes advantage of) this situation and will try to attack, but perhaps not kill, the farming guy (baiting with mobs, finding the sweet spot to harass him, but not killing him). You know, I understand ALL your points, and ALL from the others. I have to clarify once again, that my English (as you all can see – I just can apologize once more for that, but it’s an international forum and by my choice I’ve done the registration although I was reading here since years, so I pushed myself into the cave of you lions) is not the best and I’m 100% sure and therefore convinced that the entire discussion perhaps would be smarter and not so weird.
I actually have a very rational view on the topic, but I don’t’ want to change it (I can’t, how should I?). But that will not stop criticising it. You will have to understand, accept and tolerate that. I will not change my mind and opinion on that. Can I adapt to it later on in the game? Time will tell, idk yet. My gamestyle changed during the years. I’m not the pvp arena gladiator player from earlier times. I’m just still hoping that overall the game is fine for me. I’m convinced you all read my “balance sheet” why I THINK Ashes still is the right game also for players (time-casual, but willing to perform and able to play at an average to good level, due to experience and willingness to learn class mechanics and combat mechanics; Because that’s what I’ve done in pvp MMO before all the time, with success). At this point the “rain metaphor” started in this thread or the other.
I disagree, again. But thanks for providing this answer and example, it proves my worries even more. There are players out there that will attack harmless fishing guys. That’s the community of “games like this”. And therefore I disagree, that the game itself is wrong for me, but perhaps it’s a small part of the community that’s wrong for me. With this differentiation we are much more precise. Your loved “design” (yes, I’m putting it in quotes by full intention) is for players “like you”, but there are not only “players like you” in Ashes. You will see that I’m right with my forecast at launch, at the latest. And afterwards. And the game will run smoothly, or not, depending on the community and behave. If it’s a childish playing ground for gankers, so the nostalgic dream of our young Steven 20 to 25 years ago (he was 15 to 20 to perhaps 25 at that time, I assume), well then yes, I will probably will not come with my big excavator and play in this sandbox to find out who has the biggest excavator. I’ve enough satisfaction and fulfilment in real life, I just want to play a 3rd person fantasy MMO with all the nice things I love at MMO and why I’ve been playing them since nearly two decades. I hope you understand my standpoint now even more. If not, I seriously cannot help you.
Limping example, but I got the message. Yes, fear of flying is something terrible. I know people with this fear. But I disagree that you can’t convince them with rational arguments, because I did that in real life and convinced a guy, that was afraid of flying but finally he did it. But, from a psychological perspective it’s of course not the fear of the flying, but the crash. If I continue your metaphor, then that’s the ganking and griefing. So, the guy with worries about crashing is RIGHT all the time, because he hates crashing down and that’s why he has worries. And if the crash comes, he cannot avoid it. He doestn’t have control about it. And this, exactly and precisely, is my criticism about this “design” for non-combatants being allowed to get attacked. But, I neither can stop the rain (hi@NiKr) nor the crash, right, Flanker? But there is no conclusion that I’m not right or rational, by contrast, it confirms all I mentioned so far.
Now, at latest at this point, you (and the others) come back with: That will not happen often! (like the crash). And I’m NOT convinced about that, by contrast, I’m SURE it will happen more often because it is ALLOWED that it can happen. And therefore players WILL abuse (my words, “play” in your words) this situation (Jason, the fisher, Kevin, the assassin). It will happen. And if “time” is the aspect of the most valuable thing in life (and some of you will learn that in the future, but maybe just not yet and today), you will dislike, if somebody steals your time that you invest for something. It’s obvious and therefore trivial to understand this, if you are willing to change your standpoint and accept and tolerate, that there are other player styles out there, out in the market which is millions of MMO players. Can you follow me here without the feeling that I offend you?
I don’t understand (my English perhaps?) what you mean. For me an account is what the human is using (and paying) to play the computer game. On this account he can have 5 characters. “Character on the account not account wide” is no contradiction for me, it’s the same.
And, if you think that at 7am in the morning, on Sunday, there are more players online that on Friday evening at 20pm then it’s your first MMO ever I believe. Sorry, but I really smiled at this point writing my lines. You know when I did my “personal” and single stuff in all MMOs I’ve played so far? You can guess, when. And the group-content? Surprise, in the evenings and weekends.
You don’t understand why? I can tell you, it’s trivial and basic education. Because of Aristoteles: The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Most of the parts are fine in Ashes. Like in other MMOs I’ve played. But not ALL parts are good. This design is bad. And yes, repetitive once again, in my opinion – still and always. About which other opinion do you think I’m talking about? That I “represent” kind of a community that YOU dislike is more than obvious, but I don’t see the point that this player types are wrong or “false”, but, that they are allowed to play Ashes and they got attracted do to several “parts” that were promised and shown so far. If this game for you (and others) is ONLY the owpvp part, that’s your choice alone. Your choice alone. But in your world you want to force everybody else to think and play like this, and that’s why you like the fact and “design”, that you can attack a player, like me, during gathering flowers. I’m a player that likes to pvp with you, really. But under same conditions. Everything, really everything else is coward-pvp for me. It’s that simple. If you attack me although I don’t want that at this time, you are a coward for me. Sorry for the offense, but’s that’s my clear statement for you and all others. But you already know that from my last postings, so no surprise yet, right?
Please, you don’t have to remember at this point, “but the game…”. I know that. Believe me. But it does not change anything. As long as pvp is done in this way, I disagree and dislike it. I appreciate workarounds like corruption and hope that this punishment will be as hard as possible. I will not attack harmless players in Ashes. I will attack purple ones. Yes, I will do that really really often. Because I like pvp. But we have a different approach when it comes to coward-pvp and serious-pvp. And this will never change and that’s why that’s my last posting about this topic in this forum. It’s my opinion, I will not change it. I will have, unfortunately, live with this situation that a 14years old teenager is ganking me and stealing my time, but I hope he get’s punished by developers and the game then, because perhaps the parents missed out something before that he gets joy and fun out of harassing other players.
But I do. You think I don’t, but you are wrong. I’m just not talking about this stuff, I’m talking about situations that are different to a node or guild war. Read my postings here (and the other thread) and you will see that.
I’m not paying for an unfinished product and moreover of course I’m not investing my time AND paying for it – by contrast, if somebody pays me and wants to afford my daily rate, well ok, but with a smile: No, my friend, of course I’m not paying for testing (what the hell..) and I’m in general not buying unfinished products.
Yes, at release there will be online times in which I play alone. Yes, there will be situations in which I want (or have to) do lonewolf stuff. It’s you thinking that everybody is playing 24/7 in groups and raids. And my fact, that players will also play alone, has nothing to do with being social or not and nothing to do, whether they are in a guild or not. I will be in a guild, we are already starting to group/from and gather they guys from the other MMOs. So, you are, once again, completely wrong about quite all of your assumptions about me because you lack to differentiate between standpoints and player styles.
For sure I will always criticize aspects of game design that I don’t like or I disagree with.
For sure this particular topic will not change (as repeatedly said…), but that is not changing my mind and opinion on it.
You are wrong, I understand. I just don’t like it. You obviously (!) don’t know how other MMOs align PvE and PVP to PvX work for this. There is a completely different “flagging” implemented. If you are in PvE content by intention, you are doing PvE content – by intention. You cannot be attacked, it makes no sense during this time of gameplay and even if it would make sense, it’s the decision from the player – so player decision really counts there. You flag yourself pvp, or not. You can do this for instance with a simple command line in chat, just type “/pvp” and you are pvp flagged. That’s it. Up from this point of time, you WANT to play pvp. All other pvp players know and see it. That’s serious, mature pvp. If you get attacked, you know it – you decided it by yourself before. So, you “understanding” of PvX is just restricted to one, maybe two, other MMOs in that context, so don’t ask my about understanding of this mechanics or the ones in other MMOs.
There is no misinterpretation, it’s a simple fact. I’m starting as non-combatant in Ashes. And I can remain at this state as long as I’m not attacking back or attending a clear pvp situation (there are some objective-based pvp events in the game). Am I wrong?
So, I’m non-combatant, not playing pvp, but gathering flowers. For whatever reason, it’s my choice, I guess. Or I’m fishing, as non-combatant (so still the default, I’m green). It’s quite simple. Up from now you can read everything I’ve posted so far once again, because I will not explain it just for you once again. You will understand it, but you will not at all share my opinion, I know, but you can tolerate and accept, that I see this particular aspect differently and always will.
Hopefully corruption is as hard as possible to get rid of the childish, toxic trolls and coward pvp’ers.
I know that, again and again.. But I disagree with it and dislike it, because my understanding for serious and fair pvp is, that this is only done between combatants. If you would understand my standpoint here and if you would have the experience of other MMOs you would not ask such questions or put such lines in this thread. You defend this design because it’s “core” for you. I know that, it’s obvious. I don’t like that it is intended and permitted to attack non-combatants, because I prefer fighting between "combatants" only. If you want to rephrase this to other MMOs (without flagging of L2 system, or perhaps AA): It’s “pvp-flagged” status. You set this status manually (!) by intention (!) because you want (!) to play PVP. Now you should understand why, in other games, player choice really (!) counts. In Ashes this choice is not existing. And that “loss of control” is one of my core criticism. The second one is the attitude and behaviour of some coward “pvp” players, that are ganking, griefing and harassing other players and steal their time.
And… we repeat and repeat once again. You will not change my mind, safe your time, if you will. Anyhow, I will not post about this topic again in this thread, as stated above. Well, that’s sound like the mainstream box is bad. That’s an interesting approach, I got the message, thanks.
Yes, there are your “linked logical dependencies”. Corruption is in place to legitimize ganking. I know that. Steven knows that. There will be ganking.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging I disagree with “design” that now that something nobody wants will happen by answering to that with a reactive measure instead of a preventive one. Did you get it now? I really can’t explain it in another way. You ask what a preventive measure could be? That’s easy. The player, only the player, decides whether he wants to attend a pvp fight or not. That’s all it about. It’s to most trivial thing since 20y+ MMO gameplay out there. Give the choice to all players, not only the attacking players. You call it “core”, I call it “bullshit”. I don’t want to change it, I can’t change it (lol, how should I).
You want to attack another player at your conditions. I know that. I understand that. I’m not doing that. I never did, I never will do that in the future. My pvp gaming is under same conditions and within a fair and mature framework.
Wrong game? Repetition again, see above. Aristoteles.
Good to hear. But as it is allowed in this game to do it differently, it will be done. And the attacked ones will have regression and a waste of their time, which is valuable for them – perhaps it’s the most valuable for them.
Sounds good.
At cost of weaker, harmless players. It’s no real choice if I’m running around as green (default flag, so I’m doing pve stuff and did not fight with another player so far) and suddenly somebody else is showing up and starts attacking and harassing me. You call it choice, I call it unavoidable. Game design only can avoid this by providing a REAL choice to me that I cannot be attacked.
Now, again, you start to bring in the “competiton” because 100 players want to gather that flower. I know. I understand. For me it’s no competition, it’s only one side attacks another side that don’t want to fight. Rinse and repeat.
What would you say if I’m just answering: Go to another place, you are late. Bad luck for you, not my fault. It’s already my flower. You would start to complain and criticize, because YOU want to have a choice to get that flower. Yes? So, finally, we are at the same level. I want a choice that I can avoid you attacking me so a choice that this is my flower (first come, first serve). For you it’s the complete opposite.
For some players, for some not. That’s just you opinion.
Under same, equal, fair, mature, serious and full agreement (consensual pvp) I’m answering YES to you. Did that 20y+ in other MMOs. And that is why I know and got the experience that this works just fine, is balanced and a lot of fun. I don’t care about attacking and killing other players that are obviously not ready or in the mood to play pvp at this particular moment. I'm no coward.
LOL. Coward PvP.
Issue still not solved, only reduced a bit. Depends on toxic behaviour of the community and the hardness of corruption punishment.
I’m investing my time, so I want stuff. I’m not saying that I want the best stuff out of one content if I’m not playing the other content. You don’t understand my playing style at all. I want to differentiate and choose by myself at any time, what I want to play and where to participate. You want to force my to participate in something I don’t want and that’s a bossy attitude I disagree and I dislike in a computer game. In business we can do it like this, in a computer game I don’t need and want that.
Nothing to learn here, by contrast I know all of it. I survived all drama in the last 20y of playing MMOs, guild theatre and drama, personal human drama and how progression, loot und non-challenging and challenging content works in MMOs when it comes to casual, hardcore, Lonewolfs and groups/raids – both PvE and PVP wise. I was gathering flowers and on highest pvp ranks in WoW, I was doing jumping riddles in GW2 and playing structured PvP on high rankings at the same time. I did small to large-scall hardcore raids, I did them up from MMOs getting popular (so WoW for instance) and did dungeons and elite-runs until the last one, New World. I experienced all of it in between. There is nothing left to learn, but, there is a possibility to share experience for players like you, which know some parts of it, but obviously not all.
And because of my knowledge and experience I will find “my role”, as always, but I’m still disliking and disagreeing with bad designs (there is no MMO out there with no bad designs and disadvantages!), that are the root cause of this “solution”, which says: Find your role. Because, if you concept and implement it in a different way, with more choice for the player, this role finding will be way better and way more meaningful than getting forced to do something just because of coercion.
I know that this is your limited approach and knowledge about it, you spread this wisdom through all your lines. But it is just wrong and has nothing to do with the situation and issue and bad design we are talking about. I’m here because Ashes attracts different player styles and because of “Aristoteles”. There is a lot in this game which I like. Both PvP and PvE wise. I completely disagree with the approach how Ashes “handles” the grey area between both content areas.
That’s a lie, I understand corruption. But for me it’s only a reactive measurement done because of an issue that raised before. I dislike the issue before, the root cause. I disagree that the root cause is not solved directly, but follow-up mechanics are implemented to reduce the damage done because of the decision done before - up to the point of this thread, health point bars. LOL.
Correct. I have reasonable doubts about this. That’s all. And this all comes from my player style and my understanding of fair, mature and balanced pvp. Because THIS pvp is the most fun pvp ever, because if you win a game under same conditions and the same initial situation (!), than, my young friend, you can be the hero you want to be and play pvp with or against me the entire day. But don’t waste my very very valuable time by harassing, attacking and killing me at points of time where you clearly can see (green) that I don’t want to play pvp with or against you. Otherwise I would usually be pvp-flagged, pardon, be a purple combatant. You want to fight combatant vs. combatant? Go for it. I will do that thousand times in Ashes. But I never will like and agree with the situation, and this situation WILL happen for sure, that another player is decreasing my entertainment and enlarges his entertainment to fulfil his wet, childisch, toxic and elitist dreams.
Not somewhat. It’s the core of the entire discussion. You can appease it as often as you want, it will always stay a fact that it is bad, childish and as long as it is allowed a bad design.
You fear the situation that open pvp will not take place if this kind of “ganking” (you call it permitted attacking) and some reactive measurements afterwards will not work (or not needed at all). I cannot share this worries at all. By contrast, I’m convinced that Ashes is attracting more than enough pvp fans and players but pvp players that do have my understanding of fair, mature and balanced pvp and therefore there will be countless “combatants” running around and fighting alone, in groups or in raids. This will happen, this is an absolute great game and place to do so and this will happen for sure. But, at the same time you neutralize the root cause of ganking, harassing, griefing and all those downsides instead of allowing and legitimizing them.
I want to excuse again, you are right, it’s not my native language and I guess you understand my point of view?
I like Ashes. I want to have a mature community. After years of reading/watching/consuming passively I decided to register here to talk about a game which attracted me. Yes, I did. Because of the promises, designs, systems and mechanics. I already stated that. But here, in this forum (believe me – not in others.. ) I’m in the cave of the lions. You are one of those lions. But I’m in here, because I’m experienced (and old) enough that I’m not taking something personally. But as it is not my native language AND we are keyboard warriors like 1v5 here (my perspective) it’s challenging not to mix up quotes/words/whatever. And as I’m trying to answer/respond to everybody (-> courtesy) I’m doing this in a rush (and alongside doing other things, I’m just playing Lies of P, which is annoying me from time to time as you can imagine).
Bullseye.
True on both assumptions, but this freedom is an artificial one for the player that get's attacked but don't want to get attacked. No real freedom, no choice. It's just unavoidable. Real freedom? Try to attack a non-pvp flagged player in another MMO. That's real choice.
Conclusion:
I will not change my mind on this particular topic. I thank you for perseverance and endurance. I apologize for my nasty English which made things even worse (in some quotas, answers).
I hope, someday, Ashes will be a place for all different player styles, as promised and I hope even more, that all the reactive measurements taken will avoid at all cost the situations I’m worrying about, because it’s only fun for one side to waste the time of the other side.
Maybe we can finally agree to disagree and document that in the minutes?!
I will not write/reply in this thread any more about this topic, so don’t feel offended (or confirmed) just because I’m not answering. Thanks.
But two points;
First, the above is not a field in which you become an expert. It is literally saying "I am an expert in my own opinions".
Second, this is the same guy that has decided on the current game design for health display. You are the one arguing with him right now, not me. So, according to you, it won't be rampant regardless, it is just a lower occurance.
Lets assume I agree with you here (I do not).
That still isn't worth it for what you are losing.
And for the record, I'm not ignoring the question, I'm ignoring Mag. You are coming in to a situation where people have been interacting for years. You have no clue as to the history of those interactions, so you really should - as I have said to you earlier for a similar reason - keep your head in.
I'm making a suggestion how to fix the last known flaw of the system. I'm not trying to force him change his mind about something that he said is non-negotiable.
And just as I said, I don't care if it stays as it is. I'm perfectly fine with that. But other players, including some of those who are so desperately commenting against it, will find out soon enough why that is not the best choice.
P.S. And if you think that 1/4 segments are not a big deal, wait till you find out that after certain progression it becomes possible to see 1/6 or 1/8 segments which will make the situation even worse.
Again, that seems to be the thing people asking for this aren't grasping - there are other ways to achieve the end result, without removing something that has positive value.
Which is why I think the system is flawed to begin with. You're never going to hit that razor think mark of balance, and you are always going to get complaints from either side of the argument.
Competition was there.
- World bosses: You'd often see several guilds competing for a kill, mostly faction vs faction, but ofc with some guilds it can always be in-faction fighting as well. Whether those were sea bosses, like kraken, or land bosses that dropped valuable loot. My favorite moments from AA were from Red Dragon PvP.
- Events like CR & GR: Appear a few times a day, you can often see reds coming in to ruin the party, even if it's meant to be a daily event without any meaningful loot drops.
- You'd even have competition for housing: When a certain plot is about to expire, people would gather around. Often you'd see people PK other's in order to eliminate the competition.
- Trade runs in general, especially going with a ship: You were always at risk of PvP and getting your shit stolen.
The thing is, Archeage allowed you a low risk, lower reward option as well. You could do traderuns in safe zones, which would obviously not be as rewarding, you had stuff to do outside of PvP competition. But the "main" group content was always PvP related.
There were options to avoid competition, as the game allowed you to do a ton of other stuff, besides just PvP related stuff.