Player X should only hit player N if player X is willing to gain corruption.
If player X isn't willing to gain corruption, they should leave player N alone.
If this system gives player N a means to punish player X for bothering them without intention of following through, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Player X will soon learn to leave player N alone unless they are serious about getting player N out of the area.
Yoinked another comment that makes as much sense as the age of consent in Yemen.
Not sure which part doesn't make sense to you.
If your desire to remove a player from the area is not equal to or greater than your desire to not gain corruption, you have no business interrupting that players gameplay.
So best is to see voting polls for hot topics, otherwise what we do now is more for our own entertainment, in the forum, and not for a change or for the rest "up to 1 million players"
The result of the polls is already known. Majority of players will vote against majority of AoC's designs. This is exactly why Steven keeps repeating "this game is not for everyone, but that's ok".
He knew that L2 wasn't as popular as WoW back in mid 00s. He knew that AA failed despite showing a lot of promise. He liked both of those games, took a ton of inspiration from both and designed Ashes in the way that resembles those 2 games.
Players from all the other mmos will dislike a ton of design decisions in Ashes, so if Steven simply followed the popular opinion - Ashes would not longer be Ashes. And some of us don't want that to happen, which is why we keep yelling "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here".
The result of polls is fairly dependent on the previous MMO experience of people taking part.
For the most part, people kind of do want a game similar to the MMORPG's they have played before - you do, I do, everyone does.
Edit to add; for the record, I want Ashes to be as similar to Archeage as possible, but with significantly better PvE content.
Maybe you right, but i feel like that there is no attention from up there, to show a sign that posts like your or others are read by the team. If there was at least an icon sign next to the post "this topic has been read by the team", would somehow give your ideas and the time you put in your posts some admiration.
Mods take all the threads and posts and summarize them for the devs. Margaret has mentioned this countless times.
Yes, the devs themselves are probably not receiving each and every message we type out, but they get the general pulse of the community and, I'd imagine, any standout idea and conversation around them.
Like, even the AoE dev discussion that's going on right now most likely stems from several past threads of us discussing aoes.
And as for appreciation of posts or whatever, I see my questions getting onto the showcase streams frequently as acknowledgement of my invested time. I've already had several questions asked (a few even 2 months in a row), which, considering the amount of questions they get, simply cannot be a sheer coincidence. And I've seen other posters or well-known personalities from the community get their questions answered as well.
Also the way you put it "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here", feels like everything is decided and feedback and ideas are a waste of time.
As Xit pointed out, feedback is appreciated when it's not changing the core principles of the game. There's gonna be endless testing and balancing actions done by Intrepid and feedback will directly impact that.
One of the biggest examples of that was the combat animations. Intrepid went through several applications of it purely because people kept giving feedback about it being off.
But when people come to Intrepid and say "well, I disagree with one of the biggest designs of your game and I think you should completely change it" - that's when the feedback will not be appreciated. And that's the reason why I said what I said. We don't have any good owpvp mmos out there. Steven is trying to make one.
Majority of mmo players come from games like WoW and FF14 (literally 2 biggest mmos ever), so of course they dislike owpvp because they're not used to it, or at least to L2-like design of it, and because of that they start "giving feedback" that's usually along the lines of "the game will be fucking dead on arrival if you don't listen to me!!"
And so when I say "we're still here and want your design, Steven" - that simply means that I like the game as it has been presented, exactly because it's different from all the other mmos. And I want Steven to know that there ARE still people interested in his design, and the game will not be DOA just because of it. It will surely be way less popular than wow or ff14, but Steven already knew that from the start.
If your desire to remove a player from the area is not equal to or greater than your desire to not gain corruption, you have no business interrupting that players gameplay.
Mate, I've seen enough comments from you across multiple topics. I don't mind talking to you the moment you actually start conducting discussions properly. For now, it's enough for me to see your name here, actively arguing against it, so that when this issue eventually happens, I'll come back to it and enjoy reading your newly generated excuses that everyone is wrong and you aren't. Apologies if it sounds somewhat harsh, but I'm being honest and I mean no offence.
But when people come to Intrepid and say "well, I disagree with one of the biggest designs of your game and I think you should completely change it" - that's when the feedback will not be appreciated. And that's the reason why I said what I said. We don't have any good owpvp mmos out there. Steven is trying to make one.
It's extremely entertaining to see people coming to a PvX game with open world PvP and Risk vs Reward as one of the core pillars and demanding to make it PvE and remove the risks. Somehow people people are okay with Reward part and even with Risk part, but not when there is a chance that Risk part may apply to them. Makes as much sense as someone coming from Rust to WoW and demanding the opportunity to build bases and full loot upon death.
Like duh, in such game you can be killed. Surprise! You can even get PKed sometimes! What a bloody Greek tragedy, omg! I prefer to refrain from making broad statements, but damn, this is a GAME. You win some battles, you learn from the others. You still get revived when you die and carry on, the death of your character is not final. Stop complaining about anything and everything for god's sake.
So best is to see voting polls for hot topics, otherwise what we do now is more for our own entertainment, in the forum, and not for a change or for the rest "up to 1 million players"
The result of the polls is already known. Majority of players will vote against majority of AoC's designs. This is exactly why Steven keeps repeating "this game is not for everyone, but that's ok".
He knew that L2 wasn't as popular as WoW back in mid 00s. He knew that AA failed despite showing a lot of promise. He liked both of those games, took a ton of inspiration from both and designed Ashes in the way that resembles those 2 games.
Players from all the other mmos will dislike a ton of design decisions in Ashes, so if Steven simply followed the popular opinion - Ashes would not longer be Ashes. And some of us don't want that to happen, which is why we keep yelling "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here".
Edit to add; for the record, I want Ashes to be as similar to Archeage as possible, but with significantly better PvE content.
Basically I'm in the same boat. That's why I always compare certain designs with Archeage's.
The reason I even started to follow this project back in 2017/18 was because Steven played Archeage, and was unhappy with the way it was handled, so he wanted to make his own game without all the bs and p2w stuff.
That's why I came with expectations that Ashes will be similar in a lot of ways to Archeage, and that is the case in some ways.
If your desire to remove a player from the area is not equal to or greater than your desire to not gain corruption, you have no business interrupting that players gameplay.
Mate, I've seen enough comments from you across multiple topics. I don't mind talking to you the moment you actually start conducting discussions properly. For now, it's enough for me to see your name here, actively arguing against it, so that when this issue eventually happens, I'll come back to it and enjoy reading your newly generated excuses that everyone is wrong and you aren't. Apologies if it sounds somewhat harsh, but I'm being honest and I mean no offence.
And again you've done nothing to address the actual point.
In my opinion, I do want something similar. Where you gain corruption just by initiating or attacking a green player, which does decay and disappears gradually. Obviously this isn't enough to turn you corrupted and it shouldn't be. But after you attack 5 or 10 people in a certain amount of time, you should turn corrupted. It shouldn't matter you didn't kill them.
If you are harassing other players constantly, you pay the price.
Now in Archeage you had bloodstains, small bloodstains for attacking players, larger bloodstains when you kill them. Maybe this corruption bar or whatever can increase depending on how much damage you do to an enemy or how many times you attack them.
For example: I go out and flag up against a green, and attack them with my whole combo, but I only take them down to 50% hp maybe. I should still get punished for it with some corruption, but I should only turn corrupted if I kill that target (all of that is provided they don't fight back), or if I go and do the same thing to a few other people within idk 30 minutes?
I disagree maybe with the other point where everyone who attacked the target gets corruption when that player dies, because it is exploitable, as mentioned.
Btw, for anyone who wants the "attacks generate corruption, but the target getting healed can remove the generated corruption back to 0" kind of design.
What would you say when 2 people simply attack a person and heal them back up and then attack again, rinse repeat. I wanted to say just 1 cleric does this, but I'd imagine that the game could track that both the dmg and the heals are coming from the same person, so the heals might not count.
This would still be harassment, right? Cause the victim would be hit, to try and prevent them from fighting mobs, but then could be healed back up to prevent corruption gain. And even outside of mob farming, people could just go around attacking random people and healing them back up if they see the danger of becoming corrupted.
I should still get punished for it with some corruption, but I should only turn corrupted if I kill that target (all of that is provided they don't fight back), or if I go and do the same thing to a few other people within idk 30 minutes?
Any amount of corruption make you immediately corrupted, so I wanna make sure. Are you suggesting that there's some "hanging" corruption that would only be given to the player in case the victim dies (seemingly what you mean with the clarification), or do you want having corruption not to equal "being corrupted"?
I mainly ask this cause you also say that you disagree with "everyone who attacked a dead person should get corrupted".
Or do you mean that if the victim dies to a mob and there's a person (potentially people) around with "hanging corruption" - that person would become corrupted?
Btw, for anyone who wants the "attacks generate corruption, but the target getting healed can remove the generated corruption back to 0" kind of design.
What would you say when 2 people simply attack a person and heal them back up and then attack again, rinse repeat. I wanted to say just 1 cleric does this, but I'd imagine that the game could track that both the dmg and the heals are coming from the same person, so the heals might not count.
This would still be harassment, right? Cause the victim would be hit, to try and prevent them from fighting mobs, but then could be healed back up to prevent corruption gain. And even outside of mob farming, people could just go around attacking random people and healing them back up if they see the danger of becoming corrupted.
I should still get punished for it with some corruption, but I should only turn corrupted if I kill that target (all of that is provided they don't fight back), or if I go and do the same thing to a few other people within idk 30 minutes?
Any amount of corruption make you immediately corrupted, so I wanna make sure. Are you suggesting that there's some "hanging" corruption that would only be given to the player in case the victim dies (seemingly what you mean with the clarification), or do you want having corruption not to equal "being corrupted"?
I mainly ask this cause you also say that you disagree with "everyone who attacked a dead person should get corrupted".
Or do you mean that if the victim dies to a mob and there's a person (potentially people) around with "hanging corruption" - that person would become corrupted?
To answer the first part of your post:
Getting healed should have nothing to do with corruption, so getting healed shouldn't remove it.
Anyways, onto the quote:
I want a system, where there's a corruption bar that can fill up and make you corrupted. The bar fills up by attacking green players. Once the bar is full, you actually turn corrupted. The bar can decay on its own if you don't attack greens for a while, and it fills up the more greens you attack, and the more damage you do to them.
In a sense, that's just an addition to the current system (which from my understanding there's only 2 states, corrupted and non-corrupted, and you only get corrupted if you kill a green player).
This way, constantly attacking greens can also make you corrupted, if you do it enough times within a certain period of time.
So yeah, I want having corruption to be separate from actually "being corrupted" in a way, or like I mentioned, this bar thing can just be added on top of the current system.
I said I maybe disagree with the example where a few people could attack a green, leave them at 5% hp, and then if mobs kill them, or if they jump of a cliff, the players who attacked them get corrupted. Or rather, I don't necessarily disagree, I just think there's a better way to do it maybe.
At the same time, if you get someone down to 5%, and they die to mobs or fall damage shortly after, it kind of is your fault, so you should still get corrupted, even if you didn't deal the last hit.
2
Ayeveegaming1Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I did make a statement on healing and corruption. I need to clarify it as I was a bit ambiguous.
Now if the damage is gone, and the hit points that are taken from the non combatant by the aggressor are healed, then he should not be flagged or corrupted if the mob kills him.
What I mean by this is if the Non combatant had help from his party and his party healed him, not healing from the aggressor.
And again you've done nothing to address the actual point.
This is a conversation between me and him and he knows what I mean. You don't
If it's a conversation between you two, might as well take it to private messages.
Otherwise, you can expect other people to "chime in".
I'm not interested in going into your personal issues with Noaani, I just want to talk about the stuff related to the game.
I just addressed the (very valid) point/suggestion they brought up, that you just dismissed entirely. I've also expanded on it, and offered a different suggestion as well.
I'm not interested in going into your personal issues with Noaani, I just want to talk about the stuff related to the game.
Personally, I have no issues with him or anyone else in the community. I totally realize that even if we have different opinion, in the end of the day we still want a game to be good eventually.
I just addressed the (very valid) point/suggestion they brought up, that you just dismissed entirely. I've also expanded on it, and offered a different suggestion as well.
Honestly, I'm tired of discussing it for a very specific reason. We (L2 players) played the game with the same PvP/PK system that did not have the improvements that Ashes will. When we share our experience and point out the potential issues that are not hypothetical, not some random theorycrafting, but actually real, they are being ignored by people... who had no experience with L2 whatsoever. And it's literally close to impossible to explain simple things, because some people are just stubborn, some are afraid of literally anything remotely PvP-related, some want it to be "like it was in Wow(insert any other game) even if they try to somehow rationalize it.
What's the point? We couldn't care less if HP bars would remain visible. We perfectly know what that means and how to take advantage of that. We are literally screaming on top of our lungs that this is gonna be an issue, especially nowadays when the average MMO player gets a mental breakdown after the tiniest failure.
At this point, I just give up and step back. If you want it, you'll get it, so be ready to accept the consequences of your desires if you think you know it better.
P.S. I was actually in the process of reading your thread about sociopathic/psychopathic behavior in games. That kinda explains why you think what you think to a certain degree
I'm not interested in going into your personal issues with Noaani, I just want to talk about the stuff related to the game.
Personally, I have no issues with him or anyone else in the community. I totally realize that even if we have different opinion, in the end of the day we still want a game to be good eventually.
I just addressed the (very valid) point/suggestion they brought up, that you just dismissed entirely. I've also expanded on it, and offered a different suggestion as well.
Honestly, I'm tired of discussing it for a very specific reason. We (L2 players) played the game with the same PvP/PK system that did not have the improvements that Ashes will. When we share our experience and point out the potential issues that are not hypothetical, not some random theorycrafting, but actually real, they are being ignored by people... who had no experience with L2 whatsoever. And it's literally close to impossible to explain simple things, because some people are just stubborn, some are afraid of literally anything remotely PvP-related, some want it to be "like it was in Wow(insert any other game) even if they try to somehow rationalize it.
What's the point? We couldn't care less if HP bars would remain visible. We perfectly know what that means and how to take advantage of that. We are literally screaming on top of our lungs that this is gonna be an issue, especially nowadays when the average MMO player gets a mental breakdown after the tiniest failure.
At this point, I just give up and step back. If you want it, you'll get it, so be ready to accept the consequences of your desires if you think you know it better.
P.S. I was actually in the process of reading your thread about sociopathic/psychopathic behavior in games. That kinda explains why you think what you think to a certain degree
Edit: typos
However, I do not see many people arguing against hp bar being invisible while not in combat. Most people are ready for that compromise.
They (me as well) only care about it being visible in combat.
Also that thread is, well, a lot to take in. If you don't read throughout all of my replies in that thread, you probably won't get the full picture of what I'm getting at. I have changed my mind slightly on it from the initial post, until now, but I still think there's some truth to it, even if it wasn't written in the best way, and if I maybe didn't get my actual point across in a better way.
TL:DR = I very much dislike my gameplay experience being ruined by someone, just because it's fun for them. I hate being treated as an NPC, a punching bag, rather than as a real player. I hate pointless PvP, but I very much like objective-based PvP in the open-world. I hate the disbalance, where people with higher level or gs can freely PK you without many consequences. I think some of these players genuinely have 0 empathy, and it's very enjoyable for them to ruin other people's mood. I also think many of these players are in certain types of hardcore guilds.
However, I do not see many people arguing against hp bar being invisible while not in combat. Most people are ready for that compromise.
They (me as well) only care about it being visible in combat.
Also that thread is, well, a lot to take in. If you don't read throughout all of my replies in that thread, you probably won't get the full picture of what I'm getting at. I have changed my mind slightly on it from the initial post, until now, but I still think there's some truth to it, even if it wasn't written in the best way, and if I maybe didn't get my actual point across in a better way.
Gotcha. It was pretty interesting for me and I've scrolled through several pages of comments as well
However, I do not see many people arguing against hp bar being invisible while not in combat. Most people are ready for that compromise.
They (me as well) only care about it being visible in combat.
Also that thread is, well, a lot to take in. If you don't read throughout all of my replies in that thread, you probably won't get the full picture of what I'm getting at. I have changed my mind slightly on it from the initial post, until now, but I still think there's some truth to it, even if it wasn't written in the best way, and if I maybe didn't get my actual point across in a better way.
Gotcha. It was pretty interesting for me and I've scrolled through several pages of comments as well
Yep I saw that thread as well when it was linked to me.
Overall, I do not have an issue with invisible player health bar, because I can see why it would matter. I understand the need for it.
I have also given an example/suggestion on how you can adjust the corruption system to maybe help with that as well, where maybe an invisi health bar wouldn't be needed (even though I'd still probably be for it).
Also I've added a TLDR to my previous post to sum up my points on that thread I made a year or so ago.
1
Ayeveegaming1Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm going to bed. Something is wrong. People are getting along and agreeing. We simply cannot have this!! :P J/K Have a happy Friday the 13th guys. I am really going to bed tho.
I'm going to bed. Something is wrong. People are getting along and agreeing. We simply cannot have this!! :P J/K Have a happy Friday the 13th guys. I am really going to bed tho.
It's only been specified that healing a Combatant flags you for combat, so I'd assume healing a Non-Combatant doesn't alter your flag state, since you can cast a heal on anyone whenever you want.
This is correct. Healing/buffing a purple player makes you purple. Healing/buffing a red player also makes you purple.
As for sharing corruption, I don't think it should flag anyone but the last-hitter with the Corrupted state, but it should count into the backend tracking of PK score if you assist in a PK so you can't just have a group of PKers slip by with just one dedicated Corruption dump character while the rest have no consequence.
"Corrupted dump character" will suffer from progressive stat dampening and progressively increasing chances and quantity of items he drops upon death.
Also, any group punishment might be an issue when it comes to PUG groups. If one person does it for whatever reason, why should others bear responsibility for that?
If they're buffing/healing the person while they attack a non-combatant, that's an active choice to take part in the PK. Likewise if they were damaging the player but didn't get the last hit, they're contributing.
But if they weren't doing either of those things to facilitate a PK, then I don't see how the system would flag them with a corruption score. Same way you don't become a combatant just by being grouped with one, you have to contribute to the fighting first.
It's only been specified that healing a Combatant flags you for combat, so I'd assume healing a Non-Combatant doesn't alter your flag state, since you can cast a heal on anyone whenever you want.
Thanks for that info. It's what I would think as well.
As for sharing corruption, I don't think it should flag anyone but the last-hitter with the Corrupted state, but it should count into the backend tracking of PK score if you assist in a PK so you can't just have a group of PKers slip by with just one dedicated Corruption dump character while the rest have no consequence.
I tend to agree to a certain extent. I'm not sure how the tracking on the backend would work, but I assume it could.
It makes me think of another question: If the attacker is in a party, would it flag the party for attacking a non combatant that ended up dying.
In this case it would be from a mob they where fighting. But it should apply to either actually. Dying from the mob or from the aggressor. So does the whole party get flagged if in group?
As a rule, no. Just being in combat with them when they die doesn't necessarily qualify as something worth assigning corruption (much less a full flag red) unless they get the last hit, but at certain thresholds it should start factoring in even in the case of a PvE mob getting the last-hit. Ex. If your group did 90% of their hp before a mob smacked them, the lifetime PK score of those involved should definitely go up, but if it was only 5%? If that wasn't the killing blow, they definitely shouldn't get an increased PK score.
As an aside, backend tracking of PK scores is already planned, and is stated that it will have a ramping consequence to future PKing as a deterrence feature.
If they're buffing/healing the person while they attack a non-combatant, that's an active choice to take part in the PK. Likewise if they were damaging the player but didn't get the last hit, they're contributing.
But if they weren't doing either of those things to facilitate a PK, then I don't see how the system would flag them with a corruption score. Same way you don't become a combatant just by being grouped with one, you have to contribute to the fighting first.
They won't change this aspect of it, because that's not how it is supposed to work. Mark my words.
So L2 has the same gameplay as WoW even w/o visible hp, good to know
Nice try
IF any comparision is possible, it's pvp server in WoW (not pve server). And to be honest, if you've played on a pvp server in wow, than you decided to always be ready to pvp/pk. No rules circling around this decision no chance that you can avoid pvp.
In AoC there is a design around non-combatants. This leads to the situation, that you don't want to pvp (you are not attacking anybody, that's why you are non-combatant - that's how it starts) or you do want to pvp (if you attack, you start being combatant - or more, following the rules/design around corruption). And this artificial saftey leads to several workarounds needed. And that's why I don't like this design. If it is PvX, than it's not only PvP. Per definition. And therefore it's a gray area when talking about non-combatants. In other pvp MMOs (not only talkign about WoW) you are flagged pvp. There is no ruleset needed, you don't start harmless, you are not getting punished to do pvp fights. That's just not needed, because you decided for - pvp.
That's different on pve servers in other MMOs. On a pve server, in WoW for instance, you are cannot be attacked. But you can flag yourself pvp (it's just a commandline in chat) and up from that moment you can do pvp. If you want to switch it back, you do the same command and after some time you get "pve only" again. So a pvp player just cannot attack you. That's working perfectly fine and is the perfect mix, but cannot be compared to Ashes and nobody will compare it with a pve server.
Seems like this game is not for you then
So if there is one topic it's no game for me. Funny. There are several topics in each MMO I've played that where designed badly and the same is valid for Ashes. You have concerns about mechanics/designs which are completely irrelevant for me - I'm sure, because I'm reading the forum way longer than writing in it.
The difference between us is that I'm not in the same bubble (and experience of 1-2 MMOs), but I'm more critical and not seeing it too naive.
A lot of developers said and designed things that changed completely because the players crushed it completely. Happend in every MMO (even for core mechanics by the way) and is happening and will happen for Ashes. Time will prove it.
In any case, it's good that this topic exists. When people start complaining about it, we'd be able to refer them here, so they could see what other people wrote. I won't get any joy or satisfaction from doing that, but at least I hope that some people will learn.[/b]
In both directions, because it's still valid and true, that HP bars with indication of healt points or precise health points are needed and make sense for good, responsive and meaningful pvp.
In other MMOs, like WoW (on pvp servers ofc) you always saw (and you always see) all health bars. Same in other MMOs. I guess there is one (or two?) where this is not the case, right? So, we are stil ltalking about the expection but not the rule, right? So, guys will lern from this thread, yes - but in a completely different direction than you think.
You feel, that due to one pvp MMO, out of numerous, it's the one and only design?
The result of the polls is already known. Majority of players will vote against majority of AoC's designs. This is exactly why Steven keeps repeating "this game is not for everyone, but that's ok".
So, we just ignore what the market wants and the majority of players want and we insist in a stoic way on a design or decision which is nonsense. Sure, that's a professional and mature way how to deal with it. Sounds like a plan.
Just wait for test phaes and release. It will not withstand.
New World is, due to other issues (just think about the auction house bug that needed a server reroll... or lack of endgame with this shitty treasure chest runs...), but you know that this game would not exisit any more if it wouldn't have changed to a mix with pve and pvp, out of "pvp only". And the developers - for themselves - tried to be stoic for a very long phase but the market showed them, that it's not demanded and not expected. New World really was or is a solid MMO with lots of fun in gameplay, graphics, sounds (it's amazing to fire your musket in the forest), especially in leveling phase. Dungeons/Group Content was cool, solo content was available and fine. Gathering resources work (phu!) and crafting hard work (puh!!), but with frieds you were able to push you crafting level. But, never ever it had worked as pvp-only game, and therefore it's at least available, not dead, addons was provided and future will show, what happens next. But without that change: DOA.
Players from all the other mmos will dislike a ton of design decisions in Ashes, so if Steven simply followed the popular opinion - Ashes would not longer be Ashes. And some of us don't want that to happen, which is why we keep yelling "Steven, we believe in your vision and we're still here".
Sure, being resistent to learn is an attitude, but just take care that "some of you" will be enough for playing big scaled elitist hardcore pvp on 10k servers for the next years. Because if you just ignore the market and real player needs you are designing a game for a minority that will not withstand, but we all (that's why WE are here) want, that Ashes will be a solid, good MMO that picks out several goods things out of several good MMOs out there. L2 was played by millions of people. WoW as well. GW2 as well. ESO as well.
So your opinion is: We ignore everything that worked and was successful, because we insist our little L2-copy will be everything that is needed?
Why don't you want to have players more from pve or casual side to do content a hardcore pvp player don't want to do? Or a player that needs solo time due to different reasons or circumstances? Maybe he is deaf, can't speak, but wants to play a MMO, but alone. I've already brought in countless examples we it makes sense that lonewolfs are existing and available, or players that decide just to avoid pvp or just want to focus on pve content for some topics, goals and days. We a healthy community would not want those different player times all together but instead only 24/7 competitive and raid-players?
Who wants, by intention, have a small player base?
People are looking for a new MMO to play because they are unhappy with their current MMOs. Yet, given the chance, they demand a clone of the game they played to get disappointed again. Typical
You are talking about L2 and there fans, true. Clone, right?
There are very good MMOs out there, but "over-played". Perhaps you've seen enough/everything, perhaps you just played it too long. You are not playing the same game for 20 years (usually not...). If you like MMO games, of course you search for... MMO games. If you like high fantasy 3rd person MMO games - of course you are looking for them. You "typical" is strange.
So, we just ignore what the market wants and the majority of players want and we insist in a stoic way on a design ore decision which is nonsense. Sure, that's a professional and mature way how to deal with it. Sounds like a plan.
I'll reuse an example given by someone else.
Should all metal bands start making pop music? Cause it's pop that's POPular, not metal.
Same applies to Ashes. There are popular mmos out there and then there's niche ones. Ashes will be a niche mmo, which, if done well, will bring them more than enough money.
Ashes can easily pull in everyone who liked L2, AA, EVE, Ultima, Albion, BDO, because it has some elements that appeal to those players and the big design pillars won't immediately trigger a response of "you gotta change this or the game will die".
And all of those games have survived for several years, with some of them surviving for 2+ decades, so I think Ashes can easily succeed, even if it's not the size of WoW.
Why don't you want to have players more from pve or casual side to do content a hardcore pvp player don't want to do? Or a player that needs solo time due to different reasons or circumstances? Maybe he is deaf, can't speak, but wants to play a MMO, but alone. I've already brought in countless examples we it makes sense that lonewolfs are existing and available, or players that decide just to avoid pvp or just want to focus on pve content for some topics, goals and days. We a healthy community would not want those different player times all together but instead only 24/7 competitive and raid-players?
All those solos and casuals are more than free to play the game. They simply need to realize that the game won't reward them purely because they CAN play it. Ashes is built around group and guild gameplay, so those are the people that will get the biggest rewards. If a solo player expects to get anywhere near equal rewards for a fraction of investment - this will not be the game for them
Who wants, by intention, have a small player base?
Because niche things can be and have been successful. So why not cover a niche that's been left dead and burried in a ditch? There's no good owpvp mmo out there that's not p2w. Ashes can be that and appeal to anyone who's interested in that.
You can attack and heal an enemy at the same time? LOL
If you can't - that's a skill issue on your side git gut
I guess you didn't understand my point (once again). That makes discussion issues all the time, because of 1 vs 15 MMO experience, but whatever...
Bringing back WoW (pvp server, ofc): You cannot heal your opponent, the skill is disabled (of course). No question about skill at all omg... Not as paladin, not as priest, not as druid, not as shaman or whatsoever. You can't and WHY should you ever do that.
You really don't know that, right? I mean, healing the same target which is the current enemy you're attacking is weird and pointless.
You really don't know that, right? I mean, healing the same target which is the current enemy you're attacking is weird and pointless.
And you really don't know that Ashes doesn't have factions, right?
A green player is not an "enemy". A targeted heal can be applied to literally any player (corrupted players included), so even your "enemies" would still be able to receive heals from you.
Comments
Not sure which part doesn't make sense to you.
If your desire to remove a player from the area is not equal to or greater than your desire to not gain corruption, you have no business interrupting that players gameplay.
The result of polls is fairly dependent on the previous MMO experience of people taking part.
For the most part, people kind of do want a game similar to the MMORPG's they have played before - you do, I do, everyone does.
Edit to add; for the record, I want Ashes to be as similar to Archeage as possible, but with significantly better PvE content.
Yes, the devs themselves are probably not receiving each and every message we type out, but they get the general pulse of the community and, I'd imagine, any standout idea and conversation around them.
Like, even the AoE dev discussion that's going on right now most likely stems from several past threads of us discussing aoes.
And as for appreciation of posts or whatever, I see my questions getting onto the showcase streams frequently as acknowledgement of my invested time. I've already had several questions asked (a few even 2 months in a row), which, considering the amount of questions they get, simply cannot be a sheer coincidence. And I've seen other posters or well-known personalities from the community get their questions answered as well.
As Xit pointed out, feedback is appreciated when it's not changing the core principles of the game. There's gonna be endless testing and balancing actions done by Intrepid and feedback will directly impact that.
One of the biggest examples of that was the combat animations. Intrepid went through several applications of it purely because people kept giving feedback about it being off.
But when people come to Intrepid and say "well, I disagree with one of the biggest designs of your game and I think you should completely change it" - that's when the feedback will not be appreciated. And that's the reason why I said what I said. We don't have any good owpvp mmos out there. Steven is trying to make one.
Majority of mmo players come from games like WoW and FF14 (literally 2 biggest mmos ever), so of course they dislike owpvp because they're not used to it, or at least to L2-like design of it, and because of that they start "giving feedback" that's usually along the lines of "the game will be fucking dead on arrival if you don't listen to me!!"
And so when I say "we're still here and want your design, Steven" - that simply means that I like the game as it has been presented, exactly because it's different from all the other mmos. And I want Steven to know that there ARE still people interested in his design, and the game will not be DOA just because of it. It will surely be way less popular than wow or ff14, but Steven already knew that from the start.
And as you know, I'm the same in the context of L2.
Like duh, in such game you can be killed. Surprise! You can even get PKed sometimes! What a bloody Greek tragedy, omg! I prefer to refrain from making broad statements, but damn, this is a GAME. You win some battles, you learn from the others. You still get revived when you die and carry on, the death of your character is not final. Stop complaining about anything and everything for god's sake.
Basically I'm in the same boat. That's why I always compare certain designs with Archeage's.
The reason I even started to follow this project back in 2017/18 was because Steven played Archeage, and was unhappy with the way it was handled, so he wanted to make his own game without all the bs and p2w stuff.
That's why I came with expectations that Ashes will be similar in a lot of ways to Archeage, and that is the case in some ways.
And again you've done nothing to address the actual point.
In my opinion, I do want something similar. Where you gain corruption just by initiating or attacking a green player, which does decay and disappears gradually. Obviously this isn't enough to turn you corrupted and it shouldn't be. But after you attack 5 or 10 people in a certain amount of time, you should turn corrupted. It shouldn't matter you didn't kill them.
If you are harassing other players constantly, you pay the price.
Now in Archeage you had bloodstains, small bloodstains for attacking players, larger bloodstains when you kill them. Maybe this corruption bar or whatever can increase depending on how much damage you do to an enemy or how many times you attack them.
For example: I go out and flag up against a green, and attack them with my whole combo, but I only take them down to 50% hp maybe. I should still get punished for it with some corruption, but I should only turn corrupted if I kill that target (all of that is provided they don't fight back), or if I go and do the same thing to a few other people within idk 30 minutes?
I disagree maybe with the other point where everyone who attacked the target gets corruption when that player dies, because it is exploitable, as mentioned.
What would you say when 2 people simply attack a person and heal them back up and then attack again, rinse repeat. I wanted to say just 1 cleric does this, but I'd imagine that the game could track that both the dmg and the heals are coming from the same person, so the heals might not count.
This would still be harassment, right? Cause the victim would be hit, to try and prevent them from fighting mobs, but then could be healed back up to prevent corruption gain. And even outside of mob farming, people could just go around attacking random people and healing them back up if they see the danger of becoming corrupted.
Also, on a related note, but a more targeted one Any amount of corruption make you immediately corrupted, so I wanna make sure. Are you suggesting that there's some "hanging" corruption that would only be given to the player in case the victim dies (seemingly what you mean with the clarification), or do you want having corruption not to equal "being corrupted"?
I mainly ask this cause you also say that you disagree with "everyone who attacked a dead person should get corrupted".
Or do you mean that if the victim dies to a mob and there's a person (potentially people) around with "hanging corruption" - that person would become corrupted?
To answer the first part of your post:
Getting healed should have nothing to do with corruption, so getting healed shouldn't remove it.
Anyways, onto the quote:
I want a system, where there's a corruption bar that can fill up and make you corrupted. The bar fills up by attacking green players. Once the bar is full, you actually turn corrupted. The bar can decay on its own if you don't attack greens for a while, and it fills up the more greens you attack, and the more damage you do to them.
In a sense, that's just an addition to the current system (which from my understanding there's only 2 states, corrupted and non-corrupted, and you only get corrupted if you kill a green player).
This way, constantly attacking greens can also make you corrupted, if you do it enough times within a certain period of time.
So yeah, I want having corruption to be separate from actually "being corrupted" in a way, or like I mentioned, this bar thing can just be added on top of the current system.
I said I maybe disagree with the example where a few people could attack a green, leave them at 5% hp, and then if mobs kill them, or if they jump of a cliff, the players who attacked them get corrupted. Or rather, I don't necessarily disagree, I just think there's a better way to do it maybe.
At the same time, if you get someone down to 5%, and they die to mobs or fall damage shortly after, it kind of is your fault, so you should still get corrupted, even if you didn't deal the last hit.
If it's a conversation between you two, might as well take it to private messages.
Otherwise, you can expect other people to "chime in".
I'm not interested in going into your personal issues with Noaani, I just want to talk about the stuff related to the game.
I just addressed the (very valid) point/suggestion they brought up, that you just dismissed entirely. I've also expanded on it, and offered a different suggestion as well.
What's the point? We couldn't care less if HP bars would remain visible. We perfectly know what that means and how to take advantage of that. We are literally screaming on top of our lungs that this is gonna be an issue, especially nowadays when the average MMO player gets a mental breakdown after the tiniest failure.
At this point, I just give up and step back. If you want it, you'll get it, so be ready to accept the consequences of your desires if you think you know it better.
P.S. I was actually in the process of reading your thread about sociopathic/psychopathic behavior in games. That kinda explains why you think what you think to a certain degree
Edit: typos
However, I do not see many people arguing against hp bar being invisible while not in combat. Most people are ready for that compromise.
They (me as well) only care about it being visible in combat.
TL:DR = I very much dislike my gameplay experience being ruined by someone, just because it's fun for them. I hate being treated as an NPC, a punching bag, rather than as a real player. I hate pointless PvP, but I very much like objective-based PvP in the open-world. I hate the disbalance, where people with higher level or gs can freely PK you without many consequences. I think some of these players genuinely have 0 empathy, and it's very enjoyable for them to ruin other people's mood. I also think many of these players are in certain types of hardcore guilds.
But it's so freaking hard to explain that to people. Gotcha. It was pretty interesting for me and I've scrolled through several pages of comments as well
Yep I saw that thread as well when it was linked to me.
Overall, I do not have an issue with invisible player health bar, because I can see why it would matter. I understand the need for it.
I have also given an example/suggestion on how you can adjust the corruption system to maybe help with that as well, where maybe an invisi health bar wouldn't be needed (even though I'd still probably be for it).
Also I've added a TLDR to my previous post to sum up my points on that thread I made a year or so ago.
If they're buffing/healing the person while they attack a non-combatant, that's an active choice to take part in the PK. Likewise if they were damaging the player but didn't get the last hit, they're contributing.
But if they weren't doing either of those things to facilitate a PK, then I don't see how the system would flag them with a corruption score. Same way you don't become a combatant just by being grouped with one, you have to contribute to the fighting first.
As a rule, no. Just being in combat with them when they die doesn't necessarily qualify as something worth assigning corruption (much less a full flag red) unless they get the last hit, but at certain thresholds it should start factoring in even in the case of a PvE mob getting the last-hit. Ex. If your group did 90% of their hp before a mob smacked them, the lifetime PK score of those involved should definitely go up, but if it was only 5%? If that wasn't the killing blow, they definitely shouldn't get an increased PK score.
As an aside, backend tracking of PK scores is already planned, and is stated that it will have a ramping consequence to future PKing as a deterrence feature.
IF any comparision is possible, it's pvp server in WoW (not pve server). And to be honest, if you've played on a pvp server in wow, than you decided to always be ready to pvp/pk. No rules circling around this decision no chance that you can avoid pvp.
In AoC there is a design around non-combatants. This leads to the situation, that you don't want to pvp (you are not attacking anybody, that's why you are non-combatant - that's how it starts) or you do want to pvp (if you attack, you start being combatant - or more, following the rules/design around corruption). And this artificial saftey leads to several workarounds needed. And that's why I don't like this design. If it is PvX, than it's not only PvP. Per definition. And therefore it's a gray area when talking about non-combatants. In other pvp MMOs (not only talkign about WoW) you are flagged pvp. There is no ruleset needed, you don't start harmless, you are not getting punished to do pvp fights. That's just not needed, because you decided for - pvp.
That's different on pve servers in other MMOs. On a pve server, in WoW for instance, you are cannot be attacked. But you can flag yourself pvp (it's just a commandline in chat) and up from that moment you can do pvp. If you want to switch it back, you do the same command and after some time you get "pve only" again. So a pvp player just cannot attack you. That's working perfectly fine and is the perfect mix, but cannot be compared to Ashes and nobody will compare it with a pve server.
So if there is one topic it's no game for me. Funny. There are several topics in each MMO I've played that where designed badly and the same is valid for Ashes. You have concerns about mechanics/designs which are completely irrelevant for me - I'm sure, because I'm reading the forum way longer than writing in it.
The difference between us is that I'm not in the same bubble (and experience of 1-2 MMOs), but I'm more critical and not seeing it too naive.
A lot of developers said and designed things that changed completely because the players crushed it completely. Happend in every MMO (even for core mechanics by the way) and is happening and will happen for Ashes. Time will prove it.
In other MMOs, like WoW (on pvp servers ofc) you always saw (and you always see) all health bars. Same in other MMOs. I guess there is one (or two?) where this is not the case, right? So, we are stil ltalking about the expection but not the rule, right? So, guys will lern from this thread, yes - but in a completely different direction than you think.
You feel, that due to one pvp MMO, out of numerous, it's the one and only design?
Just wait for test phaes and release. It will not withstand.
New World is, due to other issues (just think about the auction house bug that needed a server reroll... or lack of endgame with this shitty treasure chest runs...), but you know that this game would not exisit any more if it wouldn't have changed to a mix with pve and pvp, out of "pvp only". And the developers - for themselves - tried to be stoic for a very long phase but the market showed them, that it's not demanded and not expected. New World really was or is a solid MMO with lots of fun in gameplay, graphics, sounds (it's amazing to fire your musket in the forest), especially in leveling phase. Dungeons/Group Content was cool, solo content was available and fine. Gathering resources work (phu!) and crafting hard work (puh!!), but with frieds you were able to push you crafting level. But, never ever it had worked as pvp-only game, and therefore it's at least available, not dead, addons was provided and future will show, what happens next. But without that change: DOA.
Sure, being resistent to learn is an attitude, but just take care that "some of you" will be enough for playing big scaled elitist hardcore pvp on 10k servers for the next years. Because if you just ignore the market and real player needs you are designing a game for a minority that will not withstand, but we all (that's why WE are here) want, that Ashes will be a solid, good MMO that picks out several goods things out of several good MMOs out there. L2 was played by millions of people. WoW as well. GW2 as well. ESO as well.
So your opinion is: We ignore everything that worked and was successful, because we insist our little L2-copy will be everything that is needed?
Why don't you want to have players more from pve or casual side to do content a hardcore pvp player don't want to do? Or a player that needs solo time due to different reasons or circumstances? Maybe he is deaf, can't speak, but wants to play a MMO, but alone. I've already brought in countless examples we it makes sense that lonewolfs are existing and available, or players that decide just to avoid pvp or just want to focus on pve content for some topics, goals and days. We a healthy community would not want those different player times all together but instead only 24/7 competitive and raid-players?
Who wants, by intention, have a small player base?
There are very good MMOs out there, but "over-played". Perhaps you've seen enough/everything, perhaps you just played it too long. You are not playing the same game for 20 years (usually not...). If you like MMO games, of course you search for... MMO games. If you like high fantasy 3rd person MMO games - of course you are looking for them. You "typical" is strange.
I'll reuse an example given by someone else.
Should all metal bands start making pop music? Cause it's pop that's POPular, not metal.
Same applies to Ashes. There are popular mmos out there and then there's niche ones. Ashes will be a niche mmo, which, if done well, will bring them more than enough money.
Ashes can easily pull in everyone who liked L2, AA, EVE, Ultima, Albion, BDO, because it has some elements that appeal to those players and the big design pillars won't immediately trigger a response of "you gotta change this or the game will die".
And all of those games have survived for several years, with some of them surviving for 2+ decades, so I think Ashes can easily succeed, even if it's not the size of WoW.
It was Steven who decided to copy several designs from L2. I simply like those designs and want them to stay in the game as they were promised to be.
All those solos and casuals are more than free to play the game. They simply need to realize that the game won't reward them purely because they CAN play it. Ashes is built around group and guild gameplay, so those are the people that will get the biggest rewards. If a solo player expects to get anywhere near equal rewards for a fraction of investment - this will not be the game for them
Because niche things can be and have been successful. So why not cover a niche that's been left dead and burried in a ditch? There's no good owpvp mmo out there that's not p2w. Ashes can be that and appeal to anyone who's interested in that.
I guess you didn't understand my point (once again). That makes discussion issues all the time, because of 1 vs 15 MMO experience, but whatever...
Bringing back WoW (pvp server, ofc): You cannot heal your opponent, the skill is disabled (of course). No question about skill at all omg... Not as paladin, not as priest, not as druid, not as shaman or whatsoever. You can't and WHY should you ever do that.
You really don't know that, right? I mean, healing the same target which is the current enemy you're attacking is weird and pointless.
A green player is not an "enemy". A targeted heal can be applied to literally any player (corrupted players included), so even your "enemies" would still be able to receive heals from you.
THIS IS NOT FUCKING WOW.