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.
It might be a personal preference if you touch this aspect. PvP can be meaningful even without them and have a higher skill ceiling cap. Personally, as long as both sides of PvP are in equal conditions (when it comes to HP bars specifically), I don't care whether it's visible or not. It doesn't matter how challenging the circumstances are, the only thing that matters is who performs better.
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.
For this topic specifically, comparing Ashes with WoW would be false equivalence as games have different design when it comes to open world PvP and PK. That's why it is much more relevant to compare Ashes with MMOs with identical or at least remotely system. Lineage 2 is obviously one of them, someone mentioned Archeage (but I'm not sure as I never played it) and basically any other game, if there is any.
You feel, that due to one pvp MMO, out of numerous, it's the one and only design?
Those MMOs might not have all the prerequisites that create an environment for that specific part of interaction that we talk about. It's like comparing dog with an elephant, instead of comparing dog with another dog. Technically, both dog and elephant are animals, but comparing 2 dogs makes more sense. Probably not the best metaphor, but I guess you got the idea
This subject has already been discussed multiple times. Personnally, I played games with health bars and games without health bars. Ashes' health system is new to me and I will test it in A2 and give my opinion when I have tested it.
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?
As a thought - and I am asking you specifically because your experience probably provides a perspective that mine does not - what about changing kill count to "green attack" count?
So, you can attack a green with no immediate penalty, but you don't want to make that a standard part of your gameplay, otherwise you will gain a massive amount of corruption at what ever point you do eventually kill a green.
As a thought - and I am asking you specifically because your experience probably provides a perspective that mine does not - what about changing kill count to "green attack" count?
So, you can attack a green with no immediate penalty, but you don't want to make that a standard part of your gameplay, otherwise you will gain a massive amount of corruption at what ever point you do eventually kill a green.
I highly doubt that Intrepid would seriously consider doing this and here is why.
The original system in Lineage 2 (in which health bars were not visible, at least in the most popular patches) provided a relatively optimal amount of risk and reward for both sides. In vast majority of cases it achieved it's goal of preventing random PKing and griefing (not by modern definition of griefing, where gatekeeping or contesting certain areas/resources/POIs is counted as such, but by the old-school definition, let's put it that way), despite having certain leaks that allowed to somewhat exploit it in some cases.
Intrepid did a decent job by addressing those leaks, thanks to Steven's L2 experience. If Ashes didn't have visible health bars, I'd bet it would be perfectly fine or very close to that state. However, the original conditions are not the same for Ashes and Lineage 2, because in one of them you can see the health bar and in the other one - you can't. Visible health bars significantly reduce the risk for the attacking side and the whole balance of both sides may end up collapsing. The system itself would still achieve it's goal and work in majority of cases, but in all other cases you will be able to hear people screaming even from Mars. So basically:
Lineage 2 system:
Attacker - had certain ways to circumvent the system (mostly hardcore players)
Victim - had certain tricks to provoke the attacker go corrupt and face the consequences of that
Overall - worked well in majority of cases, but there were issues. Risk vs Reward balance was relatively fine
Ashes of Creation system under the same conditions (hidden HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious
Victim - feels much better as there are less potential ways to circumvent the system
Overall - more risks to the attacker, less risks for victim, no room for already known ways to exploit the system. Risk vs Reward balance is either perfect or favors the defender a little bit due to more serious punishments for the attacker. In general, potentially a 10/10 outcome.
Ashes of Creation system at it's current state (visible HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious, but who cares when you can safely harass players with little to no risk of going corrupt
Victim - still feels very happy about eliminating flaws of L2 system. Feels extremely unhappy, because even those flaws were not that serious as being harassed with no risk by attacker
Overall - the balance shifts significantly in favor of attacker as they take little to no risk, unless they make a serious mistake. Even more serious consequences of going corrupt do not compensate that.
Hope this comparison provides a better explanation. Once again, please keep in mind that Lineage 2 players (at least from what I see) are on YOUR side and we want YOU to have a pleasant gameplay experience. Because the majority of us wouldn't care about the outcome of this discussion as we are mostly used to tougher conditions, unfair fights and all kinds of dirty tricks used against us (such as PK alts; fighting for a spot/boss for many hours; having certain parts of gameplay gatekept by other players; straightforward griefing; losing valuable gear due to PK etc.). The average modern MMO player is apparently not. Not trying to sound arrogant, but I assume that you understand very well what I'm talking about.
Ashes of Creation system at it's current state (visible HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious, but who cares when you can safely harass players with little to no risk of going corrupt
There will always be a risk of going corrupt.
If the suggestion above is set in place, so that attacking a green increases what is currently your PK score, that means people won't attack greens as a means of harassment.
If you do, and you gain a large amount of what is currently a PK score, and since this score acts as a multiplier to corruption gain, a single kill of a green player could incapacitate your character to the point where it may not even be worth trying to play any longer.
Since there is always a risk of corruption, most people will not be willing to then attack a green just to harass them - which is what the goal of any system around this should be.
At that point, health bars are irrelevent.
Again, keep in mind that Archeage had visible health bars showing perfect information and didn't have the issues you are talking about - so the issues you are talking about are not an inherent result of showing health information. It is possible and proven that you can show perfect health information of rival players and still not have this kind of behavior.
It is worth pointing out that since Archeage was a faction game, you could see the health of people you were able to attack without any penalty at all, and still there wasn't any of this issue.
Ashes of Creation system at it's current state (visible HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious, but who cares when you can safely harass players with little to no risk of going corrupt
If the suggestion above is set in place, so that attacking a green increases what is currently your PK score, that means people won't attack greens as a means of harassment.
I'm like 99% sure that Steven would say a hard no to such suggestion. There is no need to reinvent the bicycle when it has already been invented. The solution is simple and known.
The problem that we are trying to solve here is not "preventing players from attacking other green players". That's a part of the gameplay. The goal is to reduce the chance of griefing. Attacking another person is not necessarily griefing and not always griefing. Here is a simple example: we meet somewhere in Verra and agree to have a friendly PvP fight. We both must hit each other first in order to flag and then fight. Why should you or me be punished for hitting the other one first? Obviously, you can make the system more complicated, take several factors into account, put a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid, but what's the point? There isn't much sense to solve a problem in 10 steps when you can solve it brilliantly in 1 step and potentially save the work hours of the devs who are supposed to be focused on more important things. I don't know about you, but I hope to play Ashes before I celebrated my 79th birthday.
I don't get it, what's the problem that you have with a suggestions that HP bars are not visible for non-compabatants, but visible for purple and red players?
So, as long as "non-combatants" (greens) can be attacked, which is the root cause of all following issues but also the supposedly "core" of the design, we start to get the main issue of harassment as long as this non-combatant is not killed but "only" attacked.
In my opinion a solution with health bars being invisible will not solve this issue at all, because this risk will survive.
As stated somewhere and time before, I also like the idea, IF this core-design (non-combatant can be attacked and this remains in the game - and it will) that the harassing guy starts to fill up a quota, a "pk score" as Noaani mentioned. This will not solve the issue if this troublemaker sowhow can deal with not killing greens all over the time, because he will collect "pk score" for weeks but nothing will happen. So we need the next solution: Once pk-score is full he get's corrupted and he will get it twice or triple as high as normal (so algorithm / multiplier needed here for more punishment).
Also it's good that you, Flanker, talk about this in a meaning that Ashes wants to make a better game-player for greens with all this systems in place. I guess, everybody understands this. All these systems are not in place to advantage the harassing troublemaker, but the harmless non-combatant.
But back to two topics:
1.) Just as imagination: What happens, if non-combatants cannot be attacked. I'm not saying it will ever change (we don't need to discuss this), but I'm interested in your fear why the game will not work if this would be implemented in a different way. It's about playing pvp against each other - on a fair basis. What everybody wants to achieve all the time is exactly this, otherwise we would not talk about "invislble health bars", "pk score" or whatever. Fair pvp means, both sides by intention and choice WANT to fight and play pvp. For me personally this condition is being a combatant. So, what happens to the game if a non-combatant cannot be attacked? Which fear does a L2 player have here? Is it the world events (fighting for loot?), gathering materials (ore farm spots, or whatever), ...? All this topics can work and be solved also in an open world where only players can be attacked that wants to get attacked. You can flag all people as "combantant" (by the system) in a certain (large) radius aournd the world boss, you can change the location of ore veins popping up (this is already in place) so pk-ing someone at the same place makes no sense because the ore vein will show up anywhere else. What's the real, I mean real, issue, which would not be able to be solved, if there is no possibility available to attack a non-combatant? Asking this because I know there are MMOs out there where this was completely fine and not an issue at all, because if you want to set systems in place that encourage real fair pvp, you just have to leave this design and think about something better. Open world pvp still exists on a much more fair basis if only players that WANT to fight each other CAN fight each other. I think in this scenario its most important that all L2 players here think outside the box for a constructive discussion. So please, try it this experiment without only "it's core design, will not change" answers (we all know that - but provide us reasons and thinks about a game not having this in place - which issues are really existing then?)
2.) If health bars are fully invislbe, we reduced that (already?) to the proposal: Only hp bars from non-combatants (because the several solutions only need to be done because of this root cause all the time) should be invisible, to safe them bit more and disadvantage the potential harassing attacker.
Would you please provide me some situations, where this is an real advantage for the non-combatant?
Why I'm asking this: Because I have a hypothesis, an assumption: Harassing attackers are watching their victims before they attack. I want especially (to get the message clear) adress a class like a rogue at this stage of the discussion. A rogue, in Ashes, will have true stealth. There are several MMOs out there where this is not the case, but some (like WoW...) where this is the case. So you truly will not see him at all (but there will be conter-skill from outher classes that work agaings this "issue"). Whatever, but he will be watching the non-combatant - that' his entire class design. So, if you are talking about a situation like that the non-combatant is fighting against npcs/mobs in the open world (because of farming or whatever), than the rogue obviously knows, that the health bar of this non-combatant it not 100%, because he is fighting an Ashes will be challenging in PvE content also during farming. If the non-combatant attacks 2-3 mobs and wins this fight, he will have lower hp. The rogue knows this reduced risk already, it makes no difference whether he sees it or not. So he probably will attack, if he wants to harass and pk.
That's (as one example) for me invisible health bars will solve nothing and "collecting pk-score" also during attacks, not only getting corruption at kills, seems to make more sense at all.
The first one I'm just interested (as it will not change), the second one is more topic related here ofc.
Again, keep in mind that Archeage had visible health bars showing perfect information and didn't have the issues you are talking about - so the issues you are talking about are not an inherent result of showing health information. It is possible and proven that you can show perfect health information of rival players and still not have this kind of behavior.
Same here (knowing Archege but not L2, and some other MMOs with pvp in opern worlds).
Seems to be a particular problem of the community that played L2, because health bars are not solving anything. If I want to attack (my example of the stealthy rogue), I will attack - and I will do it with or without healthbars by intention because I'm of course watching my vicitim and I WANT to attack (or kill) my opponent. I will do it because I assume he is on lower health and I will do it because i know he is on lower health - the risk difference is minor to not existing. The problem is in front of the screen: Toxic harassing troublemaker. And if we DONT want this players in Ashes, and we dont want them!, then a completely other solution must be in place - we are really not talking about health bars then, but about making non-combatants real safe or punish troublemakers up from their attacks not only up from their kills - thats more than logically and more than needed. Punishment, punishment, punishment. It will decrease the "entertainment" of toxic players - and thats the entire and major goal.
I don't get it, what's the problem that you have with a suggestions that HP bars are not visible for non-compabatants, but visible for purple and red players?[/b]
I am against anything convoluted that doesn't serve an actual purpose - and also often convoluted things that do serve a purpose.
SInce health information is proven to not be the root cause of the issue you are talking about (as per Archeage), I see no reason to do anything other than display it.
My suggestion wouldn't prevent players attacking others - it would prevent players attacking without the intent to follow through. While you can argue that this is part of gameplay - that means the specific action you are trying to stop via not displaying health bars would have to be considered a part of gameplay (that action can specifically be defined as attacking a player without the intent to follow through).
So, you and I are indeed looking at trying to prevent the same behavior. The difference is, you are looking at it in a way that isn't going to stop it. Again, it happened in L2 with no health information, it didn't happen in Archeage with perfect health information, thus health information is of no importance at all as to whether this happens in a given game or not.
The problem that we are trying to solve here is not "preventing players from attacking other green players".
For sure it is :-) It's the only one.
We both must hit each other first in order to flag and then fight.
Perfect, so you want to make a duel? That's a simple game feature. Start a duel for a fair pvp fight - directly in the open world. Both are by intention combatants then. No issues here. Don't think only about L2, but about other solutions/games, please.
Why should you or me be punished for hitting the other one first?
You are not, make a feature called "duel", because you want to do fair pvp without pk-score or corruption. That's fine, that's normal, thats not toxic. Its the most easy solution available since 20y in MMOs and open world MMOs. You fear an artificial issue.
Health bars are not the topic, attacking greens is the issue and the consequences (or better: no consequences) out of it. But there MUST be consequences, because non-combatant dont wants to fight, otherwise he would be combatant and would stay combatant by fighting and attacking all the time. That's his decision.
A griefer or bad-faith player is a player in a multiplayer video game who deliberately and intentionally irritates, annoys or trolls other players within the game. Griefing is often accomplished by destroying things constructed by other players or stealing items. A griefer derives pleasure from the act of annoying other users, and as such, is a nuisance in online gaming communities.
We really dont need to define griefing, That's already done since decades. And no individual re-defining is needed and wanted.
We dont want to have griefers in the game at all. That is the MAJOR goal. This can only be achieved if there is no possibility for those toxic players to fullfill their wet dreams. So stop providing systems to them and feeding those trolls. IF L2 didnt count about that, its an issue in L2 which was not solved correctly or with the community playing it and abusing it. If you want griefers in the game, stop all those mechanics, all of them. Invest the effort in something better.
Excursus: WoW pvp servers had those trouble makers. Really, believe me. But there was support from the developer with Gamemasters and ticket-systems were you just published the cause and those players were punished if griefing was to bad. On the other side. On this servers you are a permanent "combatant", so by intention you want to play pvp all the time. No mechancis needes, nothing in place to safe you (beside real human support from humans working for blizzard helping you if your game experience really was disturbed too hard. Helping means in "real time" of course. The stepped into the game and the PKer just is removed or thats done via console command and the player is logged out or his account is just banned - nobody needs them, nobody wants them).
Guys, I appreciate long comments, but writing long detailed replies across multiple threads to several people takes a lot of time for me, as English is only my third language.
I said what I wanted to say, shared my opinion and suggestions, as well as the reasons for that opinion and suggestions to exist.
If you agree with - fine. If you disagree, so be it, it's your right after all.
As I said, I don't care much whether it will or will not change. If people need those health bars so desperately - fine, but I want them to be ready to accept the potential consequences of such choice and not complain about it afterwards.
In fact, when Alpha 2 begins, I might consider making a video with me torturing a random player in a way I described just to show how it all works. Not with the intention to actually grief them, as I'm not interested in that. Obviously, I will let that player know in the end the reason behind my actions and I hope his suffering will help other people to take this issue more seriously. We will sacrifice him for the overall good. I say "we" because you will have a degree of responsibility for that as well
In fact, when Alpha 2 begins, I might consider making a video with me torturing a random player in a way I described just to show how it all works. Not with the intention to actually grief them, as I'm not interested in that.
Cool, and I'll use that to point out why something akin to giving you corruption if that player is killed by mobs within 8 seconds of you attacking them (and then not fighting back) is a valid fix to this situation.
If someone then says "not showing health information is a valid fix", I'll just point to L2 and say "nope".
Cool, and I'll use that to point out why something akin to giving you corruption if that player is killed by mobs within 8 seconds of you attacking them (and then not fighting back) is a valid fix to this situation.
If someone then says "not showing health information is a valid fix", I'll just point to L2 and say "nope".
Guys, I appreciate long comments, but writing long detailed replies across multiple threads to several people takes a lot of time for me, as English is only my third language.
It's also not my native language (and my English is not very good as you can read), but I try my best to be part of the community.
My posting was not only adressed to you, I just took your good summary. Don't feel stressed. If you want to reply, do so, I'm really interested in all those answers.
In fact, when Alpha 2 begins, I might consider making a video with me torturing a random player in a way I described just to show how it all works. Not with the intention to actually grief them, as I'm not interested in that. Obviously, I will let that player know in the end the reason behind my actions and I hope his suffering will help other people to take this issue more seriously. We will sacrifice him for the overall good. I say "we" because you will have a degree of responsibility for that as well
This, Flanker, is a problem of the community and not the game. This problem can be solved be removing those players. And that will always be the only and sustainable soltuion for it. Done in other MMOs as well. Must be done fast, directly and without compassion. Intrepid should be consequent and not nice and friendly here. They can safe a lot of their (or your) money during development not designing hundrets of workaounds because of toxic, griefing players. Not you, but in general.
Your test ist the best example. If you were just not in a position to do this, you will not test it - we will not need a solution for it. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. What if you are only allowed to attack players that really want to do pvp (so only combatants/pvp-flagged ones)? Which solution do you need then? Or: What do you miss then? You miss harassing other people or what's the real issue?
This, Flanker, is a problem of the community and not the game. This problem can be solved be removing those players. And that will always be the only and sustainable soltuion for it. Done in other MMOs as well. Must be done fast, directly and without compassion. Intrepid should be consequent and not nice and friendly here. They can safe a lot of their (or your) money during development not designing hundrets of workaounds because of toxic, griefing players. Not you, but in general.
Your test ist the best example. If you were just not in a position to do this, you will not test it - we will not need a solution for it. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. What if you are only allowed to attack players that really want to do pvp (so only combatants/pvp-flagged ones)? Which solution do you need then? Or: What do you miss then? You miss harassing other people or what's the real issue?
I strongly disagree with this.
1. Those players exist in any game, not necessarily PvP-related
2. This is a game with Risk vs Reward AS A CORE PILLAR. If you remove all the risks, it ends up being another copy-paste MMO clone for carebears. If you can't take any risks, this is not a game for you, just like Steven said.
3. Once again, there are a huge difference between competition and griefing.
4. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. - it's not a problem in a game when it is an element of gameplay and PvP system. Every time you leave safe areas, there are risks that may come from hostile environment or hostile players. As I said, if you are not ready to take those risks, this game is not for you. If non-combatants can't be attack - the whole PvP/PK system servers no purpose and collapses, along with other systems that are tied to it, such as Bounty Hunters, for example.
5. What if you are only allowed to attack players that really want to do pvp (so only combatants/pvp-flagged ones)? - because that's basically a duel mechanic, not a true open world PvP.
6. Which solution do you need then? Or: What do you miss then? You miss harassing other people or what's the real issue? - No, I would miss a lack of choice in this case. I want to be able to PK a player, if I have strong reason to do so. I don't want to see people camping spots/resources with PvP toggled off in a game with open-world PvP and Risk vs Reward. I want to be able to actually fight for contested spots and areas.
In New World with toggleable PvP, a pretty casual game where you didn't lose ANYTHING upon death (apart from a little gold to repair your gear, but that's negligible) - even in those soft circumstances you could barely see anyone flagged, unless it's a chest run.
1. Those players exist in any game, not necessarily PvP-related
Which still doesnt change the fact, that they are a main source of the problem. So removing this source leads to better games for the other players.
2. This is a game with Risk vs Reward AS A CORE PILLAR. If you remove all the risks, it ends up being another copy-paste MMO clone for carebears. If you can't take any risks, this is not a game for you, just like Steven said.
The risk is only on the side of the player that doesnt want to be attacked but can be attacked.
As long as a non-combatant can be attacked without his will and those attacks have no consequence for the attacker there is no risk for this troublemaker, so that's completely unbalanced.
Moreover: It's risk and reward. Don't take this "slogan" just with one of both arguements just that it suits your hypocritical arguments, that's no base for a meaningful discussion.
What's the reward for the non-combatant player being attacked and killed? Tell me.
You know why he is non-combatant, right? Because of no attacks and pvp fights - he just dont want to play pvp. Otherwise he is a combatant by his decision. The game should encourage this by allowing players to actively pvp-flag themselves.
3. Once again, there are a huge difference between competition and griefing.
Competion takes place only between two combatants - both have a goald, one will win, one will lose. That's the definition of competion.
Everything else is no competion, because only one side wants to be competetive. And this is the special scenario and situation we are talking about all the time. Nobody is talking about two players attacking and fighting each other by intention - that's fine, that's ok, that's fair and real pvp. Everything else is inbalanced and unfair pvp were only one side, the harassing attacker or murder, is entertained.
Example, happing thousend times in open worlds:
Jason, the highsword, is gathering fish at a lake. Doing non-combatant, casual stuff for his node. So the really really bad things in virtual life, hm? He is talking to his friends in Discord and is doing fishing.
Suddenly Kevin, the rogue assassin, is showing up. Sneaking around Jason waiting for his moment. Bam, dagger-strike in the back. Fishing is interrupted for Jason, because he got attacked. Looking around seeing Kevin, jumping around with his space key and doing funny emotes to Jason. Jason turns around and starts fishing again, still non-combatant. Kevin is meanwhile a combatant and ready to strike again. Stealthmode, second attack. Rinse and repeat.
So, you are Kevin here. I'm Jason. What's my reward? Whats the meaningful "pvp" here? Whats a serious, professional, mature, balanced and reasonable pvp skrimish here?
YOU define open world pvp as ganking and griefing other players that dont want to be attacked. This is the poorest definition of a good, solid and fair pvp "design" and gameplay I've ever heard. And that has nothing to do with "it's nothing for you then", because it's nothing for everybody not being 14 years young anymore. But it's a fact, that this game provides much more and therefore this is the minor part of it and those toxic approaches must be killed from the developers - scotched from intrepid directly
And as here are only two problems available (Kevin and the allowance that he can attack Jason at fishing), exactly those two problems must be solved. THEN Jason gets his reward - a fish. A small reward, but that was his goal from the beginning, nothing more. Contribution for his node (town board questing), his guild, his MMO he likes to play and invest his (small) time - because this game is with casual and pve content. It's designed like that, there are several systems around it.
If you don't understand this, for me you are wrong in a solid, mature and good pvp MMO, not me.
Because you can pvp me, my friend. But under same conditions. And then we will see what will happen.
4. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. - it's not a problem in a game when it is an element of gameplay and PvP system.
But it's not wanted that this happens, otherwise why should there even be corruption? The root cause leads to follow up workaround because the real issue is neither wanted from developers nor from the players. Both parties agree, that this situation is no fun. Moreover we still lack the part "being attacked has NO consequence", but only killing. And this increases the toxic gameplay for clowns and trolls, because they can do it without being punished. And thats just bad game design, you can repeat "its element of game design" all day long, because it will not make it better. Again: I know, that this will not change, but I'll not change my opinion here, that the design is nonsense. Instead of solving the root cause, there are doubtful workarounds that somehow the damage done by the first decision is reduced afterwards. That's very very poor.
If non-combatants can't be attack - the whole PvP/PK system servers no purpose and collapses, along with other systems that are tied to it, such as Bounty Hunters, for example.
No, an entire PvX (by definition) MMO that wants to have all playertypes (casuals, crafters, traders, pvp-ers) and system is not collapsing because of this, it ist just fair and focussed on the choice of the players, that can play both, pvp and/or pvp.
And follow-up workarounds and features can still be in place for special situations like corpse ganking or whatever, because even for combatants that can potentially be an issue, if a combatant permanently gets ganked at his corpse (due to respawning at closest respawn point and that will be known/found out soon from toxic players).
because that's basically a duel mechanic, not a true open world PvP.
No, if players can activley decide to flag themselv pvp, then they run out into the wildernes and the are pvp-flagged all the time. Like thousands of others, because it's a pvp game and there will be A LOT of them. All those players can do open pvp 24/7. You are just wrong, that's no duel mechanic.
No, I would miss a lack of choice in this case. I want to be able to PK a player, if I have strong reason to do so.
So, it's again and ONLY the players that want to kill other players which don't want to have it. You call it "design", I call it nonsense and unfair pvp gameplay, where one side only wants to have advantages and rewards by attacking, killing, griefing, ganking, harassing other players that dont have this choice.
YOU should have a choice but the other player not? Why? Thats egoistic and childish. But we want to play a mature game. If you want to fight me, fight me under same conditions, dont be a coward.
I don't want to see people camping spots/resources with PvP toggled off in a game with open-world PvP and Risk vs Reward. I want to be able to actually fight for contested spots and areas.
Again, that's your personal issue here. Go to another place, be there before. It's not "your place" just because you show up. Be non-combatant and gather your ressources with the other player. If all of them are combatant already, step in the fight and do fair pvp, no coward pvp.
In New World with toggleable PvP, a pretty casual game where you didn't lose ANYTHING upon death (apart from a little gold to repair your gear, but that's negligible) - even in those soft circumstances you could barely see anyone flagged, unless it's a chest run.
Casual is nothing bad!
Steven wants and needs casuals. It's a clear promise and clear statement that those players are attracted and the game needs them to survive and that systems are running.
To sum it up:
You want to attack and kill other players up to YOUR choice only independent from the will and choice of the other player. And you call this "game design", I call it nonsense. Balanced fair open world pvp in a mature and non-toxic community enviroment is the goal for a healthy PvX MMO. The one and only goal we all want to achieve that this game survives for years/decades. Because nobody wants those troublemakers, the major goal is to avoid those players and to remove them as fast as possible (there is Fortnite, LoL & other stuff out there, enough for those players), so that the overall health of the game is working and the game is fun and entertaining, not frustrating and full of regression and wast of time.
Player problem combined with root cause "non-combatant can be attacked". Still nothing changed here.
You want to play pvp? Get yourself pvp-flagged, combatant, and fight other combatants. Be a honest fighter, no coward. I'm still missing real arguments why a non-combatant should be allowed to be attacked or even killed. I can only read hiding behind doubtful game design decision that advantage trolls that want to attack harmless players instead of doing equal fights between active combatants (solo, groups, raids, sieges -> in all scenarios its working and perfectly fine).
Most of the adjustments of corruption needs to cover the above exploiting and griefing done by abusing technicalities of the system. Base it on total damage done to a non-combatant. Once you've exceeded their total hp bar in cumulative damage over (ex) ten minutes, and they still don't flag on you, then you start gaining corruption. That gives you plenty of time to decide if you want to experience the consequences of your actions hassling a player that is 1) not interested in meaningless PvP and 2) clearly willing to let you farm in the area.
I've brought this up so many times in the past discussions on Corruption, you have no idea. Nice to see someone sharing the same views and understanding what the actual problem is for once.
As long as a non-combatant can be attacked without his will and those attacks have no consequence for the attacker there is no risk for this troublemaker, so that's completely unbalanced.
In a game with open world PvP it's impossible for non-combatants to not be attacked. Otherwise, it's not a game with open-world PvP.
Moreover: It's risk and reward. Don't take this "slogan" just with one of both arguements just that it suits your hypocritical arguments, that's no base for a meaningful discussion.
Point out which one of my arguments are hypocritical and provide explanation, instead of making random broad accusations.
What's the reward for the non-combatant player being attacked and killed? Tell me.
There is none and there shouldn't be any as that player didn't do anything to achieve a reward. Reward must require actions to be done. This is not a game with "participation trophy" mindset and existing in the world doesn't give any rewards.
You know why he is non-combatant, right? Because of no attacks and pvp fights - he just dont want to play pvp.
If you come to a game with open world PvP and demand making it 100% safe for you, you've come to the wrong place. I don't even mention that majority of PvP content tied to opt-in events and systems.
Otherwise he is a combatant by his decision. The game should encourage this by allowing players to actively pvp-flag themselves.
How well did it work in New World lol? It didn't at all.
Here is the definition of open world PvP for you: Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset.
Competion takes place only between two combatants - both have a goald, one will win, one will lose. That's the definition of competion.
Everything else is no competion, because only one side wants to be competetive. And this is the special scenario and situation we are talking about all the time. Nobody is talking about two players attacking and fighting each other by intention - that's fine, that's ok, that's fair and real pvp. Everything else is inbalanced and unfair pvp were only one side, the harassing attacker or murder, is entertained.
It's player's choice not to fight back IN A GAME WITH OPEN WORLD PVP. If you don't want to fight or use any other way to turn the situation in your favor (such as diplomacy; making an agreement; asking your friends/guild to help etc.), then accept the consequences of your actions.
Jason, the highsword, is gathering fish at a lake. Doing non-combatant, casual stuff for his node. So the really really bad things in virtual life, hm? He is talking to his friends in Discord and is doing fishing.
Suddenly Kevin, the rogue assassin, is showing up. Sneaking around Jason waiting for his moment. Bam, dagger-strike in the back. Fishing is interrupted for Jason, because he got attacked. Looking around seeing Kevin, jumping around with his space key and doing funny emotes to Jason. Jason turns around and starts fishing again, still non-combatant. Kevin is meanwhile a combatant and ready to strike again. Stealthmode, second attack. Rinse and repeat.
So, you are Kevin here. I'm Jason. What's my reward? Whats the meaningful "pvp" here? Whats a serious, professional, mature, balanced and reasonable pvp skrimish here?
Somehow you completely miss a point that "Kevin" turns red, now he can drop his gear, his stats are progressively dampening, any other player can kill him without any consequences and bounty hunters can see him on them. He risked going PK for whatever reason and now faces the consequences of suffering 4x death penalty, losing his gear and potentially ending up on someone KOS list or even the entire guild that "Jason" belongs to.
Jason's reward is still the fish he caught. Leaving safe area carries certain risks and it was an unlucky chain of events. Instead of whining and having a mental breakdown, Jason can go to another spot or wait till Kevin leaves or gets killed.
YOU define open world pvp as ganking and griefing other players that dont want to be attacked.
Never said such thing. And I provided a definition of open world PvP above. That's a straight lie, you are twisting my words. Ganking or griefing is like 1-2-3% of the overall playtime, yet people get so hurt mentally due to negativity bias (look it up).
quote="Chaliux;c-471544"]Those toxic approaches must be killed from the developers - scotched from intrepid directly[/quote]
According to whom? People who would, metaphorically, come to Rust PvP server and complain that they got killed or they base was raided? Good luck with that
If you don't understand this, for me you are wrong in a solid, mature and good pvp MMO, not me.
What I understand is that most likely it's either your first PvX game or you had bad experience it the past or the anxiety this topic brings you is so serious, that you attempt to make Intrepid basically change one of the core elements of Risk vs Reward. Simple as that. If you want a game where you are safe - by all means, go for it. It's funny how you are so hyperfocused on this while having 0 problems with caravan system, for example, where ANYONE can kill you with no consequences and taking your loot. You want that to be removed from the game either, huh?
No, an entire MMO and system is not collapsing because of this, it ist just fair and focussed on the choice of the players, that can play both, pvp and/or pvp.
And follow-up workarounds and features can still be in place for special situations like corpse ganking or whatever, because even for combatants that can potentially be an issue, if a combatant permanently gets ganked at his corpse (due to respawning at closest respawn point and that will be known/found out soon from toxic players).
I offered a solution to reduce the chance of griefing, an obvious one that will work 100%. Not you complain about open world PvP. If that's a deal-breaker, I wish you luck in finding a game that meets your preferences. This whole debate is basically you attemting to change the game the way it fits your preferences and desperately attempting to rationalize it somehow. Pretty obvious at this point
No, if players can activley decide to flag themselv pvp, then they run out into the wildernes and the are pvp-flagged all the time. Like thousands of others, because it's a pvp game and there will be A LOT of them. All those players can do open pvp 24/7. You are just wrong, that's no duel mechanic.
If you talk about toggleable PvP - once again, Ashes will no longer be an open world PvP game.
So, it's again and ONLY the players that want to kill other players which don't want to have it. You call it "design", I call it nonsense and unfair pvp gameplay, where one side only wants to have advantages and rewards by attacking, killing, griefing, ganking, harassing other players that dont have this choice.
YOU should have a choice but the other player not? Why? Thats egoistic and childish. But we want to play a mature game. If you want to fight me, fight me under same conditions, dont be a coward.
Oh, boy, looks we're getting emotional. Attacker has risks, attacker has reward.
Why? Why? Because sometimes games with competitive nature, scarcity of resources and open world PvP might be unfair. Even life is unfair, yet you continue living.
Again, that's your personal issue here. Go to another place, be there before. It's not "your place" just because you show up. Be non-combatant and gather your ressources with the other player. If all of them are combatant already, step in the fight and do fair pvp, no coward pvp.
And your message is your personal issue. Yet it goes against Intrepid's core mechanics and I'm wondering what are you even doing here if that's such a big issue. If you want to play it safe, don't come to a game with Risk vs Reward. Simple as that.
Casual is nothing bad! Steven wants and needs casuals. It's a clear promise and clear statement that those players are attracted and the game needs them to survive and that systems are running.
Who said it was something bad? Let me also remind that Steven said about game's core pillars: they are non-negotiable. If you wanna complain about it, you do you. Doesn't makes much sense imo, you've made a mistake choosing the wrong game that doesn't fit your preferences.
To sum it up: You want to attack and kill other players up to YOUR choice only independent from the will and choice of the other player. And you call this balanced fair open world pvp in a mature and non-toxic community enviroment, because nobody wants those troublemakers, the major goal is to avoid those players and to remove them, so that the overall health of the game is working and the game is fun and enternaining, not frustrating and full of regression and wast of time. Player problem combined with root cause "non-combatant can be attacked".
If I ever decide to attack a non-combatant or kill him, I will be ready to accept the negative consequences of that. Same as anyone else who understand the concept of PvP/PK system
You want to play pvp? Get yourself pvp-flagged, combatant, and fight other combatants. Be a honest fighter, no coward. I'm still missing real arguments why a non-combatant should be allowed to be attacked or even killed. I can only read hiding behind doubtful game design decision that advantage trolls that want to attack harmless players instead of doing equal fights between active combatants (solo, groups, raids, sieges -> in all scenarios its working and perfectly fine).
Your advice is important, but I prefer to make my own decisions when it comes to playing a videogame
P.S. Who or what game hurt you that bad that you are so afraid of being killed in a videogame? I swear, I don't understand. If I get jumped by 5 people who attack me for no reason and/or kill/harass me for no reason, I wouldn't care even for a single second. Damn, that would even sound like a challenge to overcome! Because I know that there is always a solution and always a way out, no matter what's going on and how bad it is. You should consider adopting this kind of mentality instead of whining, meaning no offence.
And yeah, btw, sorry if I sound somewhat harsh. I mean no offence.
I would actually be interested to talk to you about this, but not on the forum as these long messages take a lot of time. If you wanna discuss it in VC on discord, drop me a line, it would be an interesting conversation
Well this was a long and exhausting read, but worth it. Basically all my claims and suspicions of the L2 Acolytes were proven. I loved the tidbit about Lineage not having health bars and still having the same issues this fractional health bar is intended to address. Yet they claim removing the health bar entirely will resolve it, when they know damn well it won't. They don't see a problem with the system from their sacred beloved game because they WERE the problem. All the loopholes people have spotted and brought up, they've been using those for years in their holy MMO to skate around penalties. There's no issue. They've been able to abuse these things for a long time. Bypassing the corruption system entirely, You can't take that away from them, that's just normal intended gameplay! Changes? Changes??! How dare you suggest such things! If it's not a carbon copy from their holy grail, it's against the pillars and is not allowed!
As I've said before the health bar was never the problem, thus there's no justification for having the fractional health bar. ZERO. It's a band aid over a wound that needs surgery. It doesn't even solve the issue it was created for. All the mentioned exploits are still possible no matter what you do with the health bar. If people want to be dicks, there's nothing stopping them from running through a zone dropping everyone to 25% HP stopping others from leveling or getting them killed. You could camp an area this way and attack anyone attempting to progress making it impossible. This substantially effects solo players or small groups more than others because they won't be able to do anything about it. What are they gonna do, go to another area and get griefed the same way by another group? I don't think you understand how truly game breaking that is. This could mean solo and small groups aren't even able to play the game because they get instantly griefed anytime they try to kill camps.
Taking away valueable information is not a solution and is as silly as removing all health bars allied and enemy. The current setup favors healers and support classes because they have 0 restrictions and get to see 100% accurate hp while DPS or more offensive roles are punished. So much for executes. Meanwhile healers will have no problem timing their life saving abilities. The answer has always been contribution based corruption whether people want to admit it or not. Based on damage, healing, buffs and debuffs. The meter builds the more you attack greens or help others doing so. Once it fills completely you go corrupt. If the green player dies the killer goes corrupt and everyone involved gets an additional burst on their meter. If they leave them alone and don't kill them, the meter goes down gradually on its own or from killing mobs/gaining xp. This solves the issue of players attacking others without the intention of killing them and only to weaken them for nefarious reasons. This should not be a thing to begin with, either commit to killing someone or don't attack them. That's all there is to it. It solves all the corruption related exploits with one addition to the existing system. Get rid of the fractional hp and no CC on greens.
Flagging itself leads to a certain risk - your name is now purple and random 3rd party can attack you and kill you.
Thats intended decision so self-responsible choice. A non-combatant doesnt have this choice, so his risk is much higher.
In a game with open world PvP it's impossible for non-combatants to not be attacked. Otherwise, it's not a game with open-world PvP.
No, all combatant/flagged pvp players play pvp in an open world MMO, there is no need to force other players and harmless players to do so. Flagging (so pvp-ing) is a consciously decsion.
Point out which one of my arguments are hypocritical and provide explanation, instead of making random broad accusations.
Did that. The slogan is "risk AND reward". You point out "risk" whenever to want, but you leave out all the points around reward so far.
There is none and there shouldn't be any as that player didn't do anything to achieve a reward.
Excactly, there is NO rewards. So "risk and rewards" is untrue, it's marketing speech. The reward for the non-combatant player is achieving his goald he was working out UNTIL he got harassed by a troll. So he did
Reward must require actions to be done.
There were actions done, see my examples. Questing, gathering ressources, whatsoever. There is no reward out of it if another player is interrupting this actions. The risk is only available and much higher for the attacked non-combatant.
If you come to a game with open world PvP and demand making it 100% safe for you, you've come to the wrong place. I don't even mention that majority of PvP content tied to opt-in events and systems.
Not sure, see when it comes about player types, styles and offered PvX, so PvE and PvP, content. I'm not sure if it the correct place for players that just wants to harass and troll other players due to their own egoistic decision, because they are allowed to attack, but the defender cant avoid to be attacked. That design in imbalanced and wrong. If you want to pvp in a open world you do this with other pvp-flagged players - of course, because there is a consensus about this and thus its balanced and fair. And there are thousands of players in an open world pvp game so there is absolutely no fear that pvp will not take place.
There is only one simple fear: Toxic players cant harass and distrub other players, but they want to do this. But again, this wet dreams shouldnot be encouraged.
How well did it work in New World lol? It didn't at all.
Why not? On our realm/server it worked perfectly fine.
Here is the definition of open world PvP for you: Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset.
Can. Not "must". And the permission of the ruleset is exactly the design critics I'm talking about. Combat can occur between players if they want. It MUST NOT occure. That's untrue and no definition out there is calling it like this. If you want to play pvp, do it with players that want to pvp with you. That's combatants in speech of Ashes.
[quoote]It's player's choice not to fight back IN A GAME WITH OPEN WORLD PVP. If you don't want to fight or use any other way to turn the situation in your favor (such as diplomacy; making an agreement; asking your friends/guild to help etc.), then accept the consequences of your actions.[/quote]
No that's no real choice. The choice is already done before, otherwise he would be combatant/pvp-flagged already. The open world does not change this in any way, it's a player decision - or should be. The attacking player, not the victim, has to take out the consequences. That's no victim blaming here, lol.
It's no competition, as I've said, if only one side wants to fight and is allowed to, but the other side dont want so do it and is not allowed to avoid it. That's not choice, that's a obligation by imbalanced game design.
Somehow you completely miss a point that "Kevin" turns red, now he can drop his gear, his stats are progressively dampening, any other player can kill him without any consequences and bounty hunters can see him on them. He risked going PK for whatever reason and now faces the consequences of suffering 4x death penalty, losing his gear and potentially ending up on someone KOS list or even the entire guild that "Jason" belongs to.
That's fine, because it was his decision, he needs this punishment. Thare is no compassion. It's his fault entirely. He can run away, escape, even log out bit later and start the same on his alt/twink again and again. At Jason, or somebody else. Jason by contrast got disturbed, maybe killed as well. Loosing time, haveing no chance to avoid it, having regression and is disturbed in his gameplay entirely.
What about Jason? No fun gameplay for Jason, right?
Never said such thing. And I provided a definition of open world PvP above. That's a straight lie, you are twisting my words. Ganking or griefing is like 1-2-3% of the overall playtime, yet people get so hurt mentally due to negativity bias (look it up).
Not saying something but meaning something makes no difference in the result, but only in the way of communication before. Having the attitude and toxic behavior to attack other harmless players where it is clear (green) that they dont want to pvp is answer and fact enough. I never did this in my 20y+ MMO career. Never. What I did is fighting against other players that WANT to play pvp against me. So again and still: Here the problem is infront of the screen.
According to whom? People who would, metaphorically, come to Rust PvP server and complain that they got killed or they base was raided? Good luck with that
From all, if a healthy, fair and mature community is wanted. From developers, from the players. Just from everybody. If there are clown and cowards running around that think different, to should leave, not the victims (-> no victim blaming).
What I understand is that most likely it's either your first PvX game or you had bad experience it the past or the anxiety this topic brings you is so serious, that you attempt to make Intrepid basically change one of the core elements of Risk vs Reward. Simple as that. If you want a game where you are safe - by all means, go for it.
Thats entirely wrong. I guess I've much more experience than you think (or you have), but only not from L2. The difference between us probably is the available quota of time. If I'm playing 2 hours in the evening (just giving you an example), and they games OFFERS that for me because of PvX (do not leave out the PvE part all the time), then I'm allowed by my choice to do PvE casual stuff for my guild, my node, for whatever - maybe myself. And it's not "my" problem (lol), but the problem of ALL this players (and you would know that if you would have the same experience), that they don't want to get their limited time disturbed from other clowns and troll that are toxic childs harassing me and my gameplay. Because if I want to pvp, I'm doing pvp. I did thousands of hours PvP up to highest pvp ranks in structured pvp scenarios/arena and battlegrounds or 1v1 duels or fights in the open world. You seriously don't need to explain even one single point out of it, but what you dont want to accept and tolerate is respecting the players time and their REAL choice. And a non-combatant hast no real choice not being attacked. And I dislike this design entirely and for me its absolutely bad design as it encourages griefers and gankers - excatcly what we dont want to have.
You want to play pvp against me? Do it if we both agree. Dont do it, if only you agree. That's not even a fight then, lol. It's childisch whatsoever shit from a coward harassing other players.
Can you accept and tolerate my playing time and my way of playing a video game? If yes, what's your attidute and toxic behaviour then to attack me? Because you are an egoist and you, only you, want to have that ore vein? But what if that is my ore vein because I already started to mine it? It's my fault then, because you appear on the field and so I should run away? As I've said - wet dreams, nothing more.
If I'm at that spot and I'm mining as combatant THEN I'm taking the slogan "risk and reward", because combatant leads to the free call: Hey guys, attack me if you can and want, I'll be ready for you.
Everything else, Flanker, is just entirely bullshit and nonsene. Obviously you are that fixed on L2 or whatsoever that your imagination that there are much better ways to implement and design this are just not reaching you, together with your onw attidute that you WANT to gank and grief other players, because in your world it is ok to distrub other players and force them to the gameplay you want to do. It stays simple: The issue is in front of the screen, together with wrong design decision hereby.
It's funny how you are so hyperfocused on this while having 0 problems with caravan system, for example, where ANYONE can kill you with no consequences and taking your loot. You want that to be removed from the game either, huh?
No, that's a clear decision (like doing a siege): You cannot be in a caravan fight by accident, you do this because you WANT do do it. You are (quite sure) combatant then or very very soon, because that's all about it: You defend or attack other players, your enemies in this situation, and a pvp fight is going on at will of all participants.
Jason, the fisher, is somethinge completely different, because Kevin is just a ganking, childish troll.
Its funny that you talk about experience but you cannot differentiate between aboslotely differente scenarios and situations when it comes to fair pvp both parties want or not.
Because it is an element of Risk vs Reward concept that worked relatively well in another game.
In one? Aha.. well so... It's nonsense, it's not needed, it's a follup up problem based on the first root cause/issue. It's not risk and reward, it's risk only - we already talked about that several times and it will not change.
Oh yeah, once again you forget to mention the consequences of going corrupt. How convenient.
No, but this will not help the attacked non-combatant at all, he already got his regression and waste in time. A clown can escape and log out, right? So he will play on his twink/alt then. If your are allowing it by system, then players will abuse it. You really only played 1-2 MMOs?
Don't allow absuing to happen, if you want a sustainable solution.
Why should clowns and trolls have a better situation and gameplay and all free choices but harmless players getting attacked not?
I offered a solution to reduce the chance of griefing, an obvious one that will work 100%. Not you complain about open world PvP. If that's a deal-breaker, I wish you luck in finding a game that meets your preferences. This whole debate is basically you attemting to change the game the way it fits your preferences and desperately attempting to rationalize it somehow.
What's your sustainable solution that a non-combatant is not allowed to get attacked? Because that's the major issue were all starts, this remains valid all over.
THe rest: I dont want to change it, I'm telling you that this system is disliked (not only by me because I'm writing it in this forum, the cave of the lions) from a majority of MMO players, independent from the fact that they love PvP, PvE, PvX open world MMOs. That has nothing to do with this, but a broad majority of mature and non-toxic players of a community dont like trolls, griefers and gankers. So they like all systems that avoid this completely and all systems that this even cannot happen once single time, because it has no advantage for the game, the players and the community. It is just increasing toxic behaviour and imbalanced, unfair coward pvp fights.
Again: If you want to play serious pvp, search for guys that are at your height and level. If you are no coward you will understand, what I mean.
If you talk about toggleable PvP - once again, Ashes will no longer be an open world PvP game.
Wrong, stated that several times with all the explanations.
Oh, boy, looks we're getting emotional. Attacker has risks, attacker has reward.
What about the attacked one? We are talking about the guy being attacked.
No emotions, that's real situations and facts, that abusing is happening and must be avoided. You dont want to avoid it, because you are a "pvp figther" with this attidue: For you this is pvp if you start attacking guys that dont want to pvp. That's funny and cowardly, but nothing more.
Why? Why? Because sometimes games with competitive nature, scarcity of resources and open world PvP might be unfair. Even life is unfair, yet you continue living.
This is no competition if only one side wants to do it - we were on this point several times. You cant stop players thinking like this, especially because this players are the majority of the market and Ashes also attracts them to play this game. Believe in my words, those players will be in Ashes and they will also dislike this bad designs and they will say this and eventually leave, if the rest of the game is not good enough. And other than you are thinking: "Good thing that they are gone" you will very very soon realise, that the game will break down because those players are missing that the systems all together work smoothly. Just wait and remember my words.
And your message is your personal issue. Yet it goes against Intrepid's core mechanics and I'm wondering what are you even doing here if that's such a big issue. If you want to play it safe, don't come to a game with Risk vs Reward. Simple as that.
Not at all. You are hiding behind a bad design and talking about it being nice, so that you can grief and gank other players which is what you want to do. I want to play a game were risk and rewards equals to MY choice and not to YOUR choice. That's why I dislike any concept that allows one side to do something (attack) but the other side nothing to avoid this. The attacked player has disturbance in gameplay, waste of time, regression and can be death moreover. The other player still can escape, logout, login at a twink/alt and play on.
Is corruptoin account-wide? That would be perfect. As this doubtful system stays that would be a meaningful proposals, because the action is done by a person (account), not only be a player-character.
Who said it was something bad?
Nobody, because it isn't. I justed stated it that nobody forgets. Because somethims it sounds like some players dont want to "see" casuals in "their" game. But I have to deliver bad news: This game attracts casuals by intention. I've posted several links proving this.
Let me also remind that Steven said about game's core pillars: they are non-negotiable. If you wanna complain about it, you do you. Doesn't makes much sense imo, you've made a mistake choosing the wrong game that doesn't fit your preferences.
Having no possiblity to change it I've already stated several times. But disliking it today and all over in the future will remain. This design is nonsense and only encouraging trolls and toxic players, nobody else, otherwise they would agree and say: Yes, I'm no coward, I'm only fighthing against other pvp-flagged (purple) players, because this is visible and can be seen. So it's an intended decision to harass green players because the "system" allows it. And I cannot change this, but I dont have to like it. Because its a bad design, simple as that.
If I ever decide to attack a non-combatant or kill him, I will be ready to accept the negative consequences of that.
You should neither have the attidue and behaviour to do this nor the possiblity by system design to be allowed to do it. That's harassing, ganking, disturbing and trolling other players that only want to play the game.
Still disagree and in this particular point always will.
You decide to attack a combatant. That's your goal. That's what the system should encourage and wants the pvp players to do. But you don't understand that, unfortunately, for you it's important that you can also attack harmless players. That's a topic about behavior and having a mature mindset or not.
Your advice is important, but I prefer to make my own decisions when it comes to playing a videogame
So you cannot says something against my arguemnts but only hide behind some doubtful designs and as long as YOU can decide by your own everything is fine but if OTHER players want to decide by their own they should bend to the bad systems and subdue to your decision, Flanker the brave and seriouis pvp player, fighting in competetive and fair pvp skirmishes.
P.S. Who or what game hurt you that bad that you are so afraid of being killed in a videogame? I swear, I don't understand. If I get jumped by 5 people who attack me for no reason and/or kill/harass me for no reason, I wouldn't care even for a single second. Damn, that would even sound like a challenge to overcome! Because I know that there is always a solution and always a way, no matter what's going on and how bad it is. You should consider adopting this kind of mentality instead of whining, meaning no offence.
I like to invest my time, the most valuable thing for me in life, in a game I like. MMOs can be a gaming homebase for years, decades. We both know this. This is happening, if the game makes fun. Just think about this word: Fun. I dont have fun, if I decide to play for 2h and, yes, sticking to my fishing example, want to gather ressources from an pve content offered from intrepid for me to contribute to the node (which is good vor pvp and pve fans in this game - that's why I like the node system, or other systems like this in Ashes). The most particular topic I'm disagreeing to 100% and always will, is the fact, that the "design" around non-combatants for me is bad. I'm convinced it would have been possible to implement it in better ways (see my proposals and sustainable solutions). And as potential "victim" I dont have to explain myself, because we dont do victim blaming, but I want to find out, why some minority of players think, that systems like this that are abused for ganking and griefing (because if you are allowed to attack, trolls WILL attack). If you just don't offer them, you dont' have this problem at all but STILL can play open wordl pvp, becuase in a healty MMO and full severs a lot of players will be pvp-flagged/combatants (because of more rewarding stuff, here "risk and reward" is valid, but its invalid for non-combatants!!) so there is absolutely no reason why you would have to fear that your pvp game will be worse. The only thing which will be missing is: You cannot harass, troll, gank and grief other harmless players. You are the problem, not players like me are the problem in PvX MMOs.
They don't see a problem with the system from their sacred beloved game because they WERE the problem.
Wrong. We are the ones who pointed it out. Another thread about this topic was created for me, FYI. We suggest adjusting the system, so that it functions properly. Some people here demand changing the core mechanic, so that it meets their own preferences.
All the loopholes people have spotted and brought up, they've been using those for years in their holy MMO to skate around penalties. There's no issue. They've been able to abuse these things for a long time.
The experience we had allows us to identify an issue in the existing system. Your message alone contains more whining about Lineage 2 that came from Lineage 2 players when they were playing their "beloved game".
Bypassing the corruption system entirely, You can't take that away from them, that's just normal intended gameplay! Changes? Changes??! How dare you suggest such things! If it's not a carbon copy from their holy grail, it's against the pillars and is not allowed
Wrong. Emotional reply, not a logical one. We are those who explain how corruption system can be bypassed and how to prevent that.
If people want to be dicks, there's nothing stopping them from running through a zone dropping everyone to 25% HP stopping others from leveling or getting them killed. You could camp an area this way and attack anyone attempting to progress making it impossible. This substantially effects solo players or small groups more than others because they won't be able to do anything about it.
Exactly. And that's the kind of behavior that people you shit on are trying to prevent.
What are they gonna do, go to another area and get griefed the same way by another group?
Emotional overexaggeration. Such cases are not that widespread and you won't encounter them on a daily basis. Such generalization is a logical fallacy caused by a cognitive bias.
I don't think you understand how truly game breaking that is
Oh, really, I don't? I played a game where this system didn't have the improvements Intrepid made. Never complained about it even a single time even during unfair encounters. Why would I worry about something unfortunate happening in the videogame?
Taking away valueable information is not a solution and is as silly as removing all health bars allied and enemy.
As I said, if people are too stubborn to realize the issue, I don't care. I don't mind at all if they are visible or not.
Got bored, so won't break down the other part of the message. I spend too much time trying to explain simple things to people who "know better". So be it.
what about changing kill count to "green attack" count?
Imo this would have to be designed in a convoluted as hell way, to account for all the potential interactions, and it would also change the player behavior overall.
As for the convoluted part, there's multiple questions about how exactly the GAC is calculated
is it on each attack?
is it within a time window?
is it based on variating distance between players (i.e. attacker puts a ton of distance between them and the victim, at which point the game's system no longer sees this as a "single interaction" and creates a new count if an attack happens)?
what about dmg done?
what about dots (in case they're not seen as a debuff)?
And those are just the ones that came to my mind right now. I'm sure there's at least a few more to be answered and considered.
You told Flanker that you don't want the 'green hp is invisible, others are visible" cause it's convoluted, but imo this system would be way more convoluted.
And if your answer to those questions is just "every single hit/ability used gives +1 count" (dots would be a single ability here) - then we come to the change of player behavior I mentioned.
This kind of design would obviously achieve your personal goal of "you only attack a green if you're going to PK them", but this flagging system is designed with a "throw a glove into their face" challenge in mind. Every person is in a "quantum" state of pvp. They can always be killed, but you only learn if they're a pvper once you start attacking, collapsing the function by doing so.
Gaining a corruption multiplier for each hit against a person would mean that you cannot collapse that function w/o making things way worse for you in the long run. This would then require softer balancing on corruption gain per kill and costs of the count reduction methods, cause otherwise you'd be removing the danger of being attacked in the open world.
And even then, if each hit gives you a GAC and the ttk takes several hits (let alone a situation where the victim can heal itself) - the multiplier would need to be something like x1.1 and going up by 1/10s per hit, otherwise you're reducing the amount of PKing ever further.
And any other design brings us back to convolution of the system, as opposed to the simplicity of "you got corrupted from a kill - that's 1 PKC".
Again, keep in mind that Archeage had visible health bars showing perfect information and didn't have the issues you are talking about - so the issues you are talking about are not an inherent result of showing health information. It is possible and proven that you can show perfect health information of rival players and still not have this kind of behavior.
It is worth pointing out that since Archeage was a faction game, you could see the health of people you were able to attack without any penalty at all, and still there wasn't any of this issue.
I feel like you're oversimplifying the design differences here. You said that AA had enough content for people to not really contest it too much, right? This means that reasons to attack even just your enemy faction would already be fewer in number.
Iirc AA's "corruption" system only applied to within-faction attacks, right? So any potential player who COULD PK someone in the way we're discussing here, would need to find a location that was only filled with factionmates, not have enough content in that location for himself, AND not care enough about his rep within his faction (while PKing someone or trying to remove them from a location in L2 didn't really impact your rep with other players, cause it was seen as a normal part of the game). And from what I've understood of AA from your explanations, this kind of situation was well-nigh impossible.
In other words, both game design and social pressure made it so that the kind of actions we're discussing would've been insanely rare in AA, while they were fairly normal for the same reason (except with an abscence of social pressure of course).
1.) Just as imagination: What happens, if non-combatants cannot be attacked.
Which fear does a L2 player have here?
Your suggestions in this paragraph have big consequences for other things in the game.
Creating a full pvp zone around a boss immediately means that zergs go unpunished.
Randomizing gatherables spawn locations means that the caravan/market system needs to get a rebalancing. And this also makes the life of gatherers way harder, because instead of knowing where to go and building your business around that knowledge, they'd have to wonder around aimlessly hoping to find something valuable. And with a limited amount of professions per character, it's not like you could just take all the gatherer professions and just pick up everything of value you see (and this doesn't even take into the account the bag system).
Other games use pvp toggles or different server types because they're completely separating their playerbases into 2 groups. Steven doesn't want to do that, because such a split is artificial.
And considering the fact that all those other games have to have a full system-protection for their pvers - I'd imagine that there's nothing "fair" about the pvp side of things. Otherwise those pvers wouldn't need such a strong protection. Ashes will also have a protection in the form of the corruption system, but it's a softer one, which allows people to decide on the spot whether they want to pvp at that moment or not. Because even pvpers want to chill sometimes, but they also don't want to lose their ability to defend their farm if someone comes to contest it.
2.)Only hp bars from non-combatants should be invisible
Would you please provide me some situations, where this is an real advantage for the non-combatant?
You are still thinking about it in WoW pvp terms. The whole point of this discussion has been "people who attack others TRYING TO AVOID BECOMING A PKer". Yet you ask how does invisible hp help a non-combatant in the case where the attacker is completely fine becoming a PKer.
The advantage to the green player here is that the hidden rogue would NOT know how much hp the green player has. So if that rogue was trying to avoid becoming corrupted (and he's trying to avoid it cause corruption is bad for you, due to the penalties related to it) - invisible hp of a victim that's been in a fight means a much higher risk for the rogue to become Red.
And this higher risk for the attacker would then decrease the risk of being PKed for the green player. That is the advantage of the system.
As for building up a gauge of attacks on the greens, at the end of which you gain corruption - the result would be really similar to what I explained to Noaani above, so you can just refer to that. The behavior would change too much from what Intrepid is going for. And I know that you dislike what they're going for, but I've already spoken with you about that before.
that means the specific action you are trying to stop via not displaying health bars would have to be considered a part of gameplay (that action can specifically be defined as attacking a player without the intent to follow through).
Just to reiterate what I said above, the goal of arguing for invisible hp is to decrease the amount of green player PKings that go unpunished.
Your suggestion decreases the amount of attacks on green players.
Your suggestion would just umbrella our goal, but would also influence other interactions as well. So these two suggested mechanics do not achieve the exact same goal.
To you and some others, but not to everyone, nor is it a problem for Intrepid, cause, as I've said before, if it was a problem for Steven - he wouldn't have taken that part of the design from L2.
You are not, make a feature called "duel", because you want to do fair pvp without pk-score or corruption. That's fine, that's normal, thats not toxic. Its the most easy solution available since 20y in MMOs and open world MMOs. You fear an artificial issue.
But duels are not pvx. They're purely pvp. They also will do nothing to remove a player from the premises. If anything, when the weaker player loses - they'll stay in the same place on purpose and will never flag up, because they'd know they'll lose. So the stronger player would need to go corrupt.
But what happens when the stronger player was the one who was farming the location in the first place? Instead of having a full fight that would've removed the other player from the location, which would defend the farming spot - the stronger player now has to go corrupt to achieve the same thing. And I know that you dislike the notion of "competing over content", but that is what this game is about, so, no, they cannot just share with each other while dancing under a rainbow amidst the sunflowers.
And if you're fine with the duel fully killing a player - I dunno how many others would support your position there. I'd be personally more than fine with that, cause I'd never use a duel or accept one, but I really dunno about others.
Health bars are not the topic, attacking greens is the issue and the consequences (or better: no consequences) out of it. But there MUST be consequences, because non-combatant dont wants to fight, otherwise he would be combatant and would stay combatant by fighting and attacking all the time. That's his decision.
You are still thinking in the binarity of WoW's pvp/pve servers or of toggleable pvp.
In this kind of system any green player can be a pvper whenever they want. That's their freedom of choice at any given moment, instead of only at the server choice or in town at an npc that flips the switch.
And those greens that DO want to pvp in that moment - will simply fight back. And not only that, but they'd now have the advantage of the first CC, because they themselves couldn't be CCed when they were green. And this is the fairness of this system. The initial attacker might've chunked your hp a bit, but you can now use a CC against him and turn the battle around.
We dont want to have griefers in the game at all. That is the MAJOR goal. This can only be achieved if there is no possibility for those toxic players to fullfill their wet dreams. So stop providing systems to them and feeding those trolls. IF L2 didnt count about that, its an issue in L2 which was not solved correctly or with the community playing it and abusing it. If you want griefers in the game, stop all those mechanics, all of them. Invest the effort in something better.
Except attacking other players was not an issue in L2, nor was it griefing. It was a normal occurrence in a competition for limited content/reward.
And Steven kept this competition for Ashes, because he likes this design.
If anything, those of us who want invisible hp are the exact people trying to minimize the amount of griefers in the game. That's exactly WHY we're asking for invisible hp. Because we know that whatever the amount of griefers that L2 had - Ashes will have more due to visible hp.
Excursus: WoW pvp servers had those trouble makers. Really, believe me. But there was support from the developer with Gamemasters and ticket-systems were you just published the cause and those players were punished if griefing was to bad. On the other side. On this servers you are a permanent "combatant", so by intention you want to play pvp all the time. No mechancis needes, nothing in place to safe you (beside real human support from humans working for blizzard helping you if your game experience really was disturbed too hard. Helping means in "real time" of course. The stepped into the game and the PKer just is removed or thats done via console command and the player is logged out or his account is just banned - nobody needs them, nobody wants them).
And you should treat Ashes just as you would those WoW pvp servers, except here you have even more choice, because you choose the time when you want to pvp, instead of simply choosing a server and submitting yourself to constant attacks by the enemy w/o any rest.
What's the reward for the non-combatant player being attacked and killed? Tell me.
You know why he is non-combatant, right? Because of no attacks and pvp fights - he just dont want to play pvp. Otherwise he is a combatant by his decision. The game should encourage this by allowing players to actively pvp-flag themselves.
The reward for any green player is the content of the game. The risk for that player is the ability of others to kill him for said content.
The green player has a lower risk, because the corruption system limits the amount of people willing to kill the green player. A purple (and let alone a red) player will have way more risk because anyone else is free to kill him w/o penalties (though killing a purple does raise the risk of the killer as well).
Everything else is no competion, because only one side wants to be competetive. And this is the special scenario and situation we are talking about all the time. Nobody is talking about two players attacking and fighting each other by intention - that's fine, that's ok, that's fair and real pvp. Everything else is inbalanced and unfair pvp were only one side, the harassing attacker or murder, is entertained.
But the situation you described here will exist within the flagging system of Ashes. Someone will flag up on another player, because they want to compete for the content, and that other player will just fight back and they'll both have a fair pvp.
And both of these players will have made a conscious choice to participate in pvp right at that moment.
But where you're wrong is saying that nothing else is competition. The entire game is competitive, because it'll have limited resources, limited open world content and waaay more players trying to get those resources and participate in that content. There's an inherent competition imbedded into the design.
So far, the only non-competitive thing is the instanced story content, because Steven wants everyone to experience it. Everything else will be fought over in one way or the other.
So, you are Kevin here. I'm Jason. What's my reward? Whats the meaningful "pvp" here? Whats a serious, professional, mature, balanced and reasonable pvp skrimish here?
The example you gave is not an example of meaningful pvp. I do believe all L2 players would agree with that.
A meaningful PK there would be if Kevin killed you because he wanted to fish in that location. And that PK would've become a meaningful pvp if Jason fought back, because he neither wanted to lose the fish he had already caught, nor the spot itself, because the fish was highly valuable and he wanted to fish there for longer.
And our suggestion of invisible hp would help punish Kevin for being a dick and just attacking a random person for no real reason. Maybe Jason was only wearing the fisherman gear and had super low defense and hp. Kevin would hit him once and do half hp dmg, but wouldn't know that. Then he'd hit Jason again and kill him, making himself Red.
Now Kevin is hunted by BHs and/or by other people in the vicinity cause Jason shouted in chat "there's a PKer by the pond named Kevin". Kevin gets killed, suffers high corruption death penalties and potentially loses some gear. Now he'll think twice before mindlessly attacking others.
If he does decide to repeat this bs, Jason can just shout in chat about him again, and any pvper in the area would gladly come there and have a fun time killing Kevin-the-dick. If Kevin doesn't stop with his bs even after that - he gains bad rep with guilds and node communities. And he might even become a KOS target for Jason's guild, if Jason is in one (this is also the reason why I kept pushing for people to join guilds in our other discussion).
Imo, this is how a social mmo with deeper player interactions works. This is how L2 worked and it was great. People would always come to each other's help against dicks like Kevin.
And follow-up workarounds and features can still be in place for special situations like corpse ganking or whatever, because even for combatants that can potentially be an issue, if a combatant permanently gets ganked at his corpse (due to respawning at closest respawn point and that will be known/found out soon from toxic players).
Ah, funny how pvp-toggle/server games also need workarounds for their pvp designs. Seems that systems like that are also in no way perfect.
This is exactly why I'd rather have a system like the current one. Yes, it will need the workarounds too, but it'll have a broader spectrum of player interactions than just "pvers can't be touched, while pvpers can be slaughtered with no penalties".
YOU should have a choice but the other player not? Why? Thats egoistic and childish. But we want to play a mature game. If you want to fight me, fight me under same conditions, dont be a coward.
The other player does have a choice. He can fight back and potentially win, or he can put high penalties on his attacker, which will punish said attacker for killing this player.
And this choice can be made at any point in the game instead of only at login or in town.
Balanced fair open world pvp in a mature and non-toxic community enviroment is the goal for a healthy PvX MMO.
It's real funny to me that you keep saying "mature and adult design", while suggesting utter coddling of poor pvers who cannot be touched by any means, or they'll get upset and leave. Really doesn't sound all that mature to me.
I don't need a Big Brother to defend me from spooky attackers. I need a choice to be able to do it on my own or to punish my attacker in a bigger way.
There's also now fairness or maturity in a toggleable/server pvp system, because zergs will always abuse those systems to their own benefit. They'll be slaughtering anyone who's not with them, all the while not suffering a single penalty for doing so. They'll dominate a region (if not a server) and no one will ever even try toggling on pvp.
Such systems are the exact reason why all the wow-like players are scared shitless of pvp. Because the only design they're used to is them being assblasted by way stronger foes, while those foes not only do not get punished but even get rewarded and celebrated for having genocided their enemies.
That is neither good nor a mature design. It's a "big bully in a sandbox" design. They can stomp your sandcastle all the want and you can't do shit about it, except leave (as all the wow players did by either switching to the bigger faction on the server or by going to a pve server completely).
Don't even try. It's hopeless and pointless. These people just want another copy-paste casual PvE carebear game. Funnily enough, there is plenty of those, but instead of playing them, they choose to complain on a forum of a PvX game. Huge part of modern MMO audience is soft as baby's bottom. I swear, whoever launches a service of online therapy for modern MMO gamers will become a trillionaire in a fortnight.
And yeah, btw, sorry if I sound somewhat harsh. I mean no offence.
I would actually be interested to talk to you about this, but not on the forum as these long messages take a lot of time. If you wanna discuss it in VC on discord, drop me a line, it would be an interesting conversation
I would rather suggest to stop at this point.
Form "all playertypes" intrepid wants to attract, we are just completely different. I'm fine with that, really.
I'm (who the fuck is Chaliux ) dont want and can to change anything. But I dislike it absolutely, it's a bad design philosophy for a healthy, mature and non-toxic game and community - and that's what I like, having non-toxic funny gameplay with or against (by intention/choice) others in a fair and balanced way.
- I like the art style/graphics of Ashes.
- I like the races and the classes and the class system.
- I like the available weapons and the weapon skill tress (was already cool in New World).
- I like having some skills in my action bar (not only 5 or so), because acting/reacting with suitable shortcuts is fun gameplay and challenging.
- I like, in general, 3rd person RPGs with high-fantasy setting.
- I like the combat design so far (dodgeing, dashing, action-combat, but also targeting).
- I like mechanics like buffs, debuffs and all this stuff needed in a challenging MMO.
- I like challenging pve content. I like holy trinity as concept for pve content (like dungeons).
- I really appreciate fair and mature pvp (open world, instanced - both). I've played this for decades. I've played this on high rankings in WoW arena and rated battlegrounds as well as in structured PvP (sPvP) in Guild Wars.
- I like systems in which I can do pvp by intention and my choice (sieges, caravans for instance).
- I like good PvE content.
- I like gathering and crafting.
- I like the professions.
- I (quite) like the economy design aroung auction houses and player stalls
- I guess I like the gearing (also things like set bonuses) (future will show, depends on reward/loot and time needed for crafting good gear)
- I like having mounts.
- I like doing group content in pve and pvp.
- I like doing solo-content if rewarding and valuable (if available, because I will not always be in a group or due to only haveing time for 1-2 hours group-play isnt the best decision, it's more something for the weekends due to real life obligations for me).
- I dont care about housing/freeholds at all. Never did in any MMO. Thats probably the only content I will just skip (freeholds will anyway not be reachable for me as PvX-time-casual).
- I'm not quite convinced about rewards in terms of solo-content -> we will see in the future.
- I dislike the non-combatant nonsense.
So, in total, I see Ashes as suitable game for me. Still. All the above things were promised, all of those things attracted me years ago to watch the game (just my registration is late, not my interest - I'm in MMO bracket since 20y+, as mentioned)
My main concern and dislike is that a non-combatant can be attacked and killed and that I cannot control this by my own but other players get control over this and thus me. This I dislike and always will.
That's why I will provide all my feedback and experience all over to that, because you are right and I told you several times the same, this system will never change here, but then I want to have the hardest possible punishment for trolls. And as so many things in Ashes are cool so I will never surrender to fight for this against all other users, players and Stevens of this world, because I'm convinced that this entire decision is bad and will cause lots of unnecessary trouble. So even during playing the game I will still remain to my opinion, that this is a bad design I dislike and I personally will never attack harmless other players but I will do pvp, a lot of pvp, and for my that is no contradiction at all.
Last question:
Would you say I'm watching the wrong game with my points mentioned above? Really?
Only because I dont like to be ganked/griefed/harassed by some troll childs? This should stop me from playing this cool game? Because of childisch cowards?
In general, I absolutely don't mind having a meaningful, well-mannered and intelligent discussion, but not when I have to repeat same things 10 times, deal with messages containing more logical fallacies than words, and deal with people who think that something is wrong because it doesn't fit their personal preferences.
My main concern and dislike is that a non-combatant can be attacked and killed and that I cannot control this by my own but other players get control over this and thus me. This I dislike and always will.
I'm sure there is a segment of player base who share the same opinion. I think that it is much easier to work on your own perception of other people's actions and behavior. There are many toxic and genuinely evil people on the internet; you don't stop using internet though - you prefer to avoid them. There are many toxic people IRL and we normally do the same thing - avoid them. But we don't lock ourselves at home because of that or relocate and live in the middle of nowhere in Siberian forest where there are no people. What stops you from doing so in game? Avoid such players or find a way to deal with them. And if you get PKed by someone at some point, just click "Respawn" and keep enjoying the game. It's interesting that people would spend like 95+% playing the game, yet scream on top of their lungs about those relatively rare cases when they encounter such behavior.
Your last message is an example of a message I'd love to see more often on this forum. Honest, straightforward, no emotional arguments, no word twisting, no manipulation attempts.
0
Ayeveegaming1Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Oh man. I feel like maybe a flow chart would work to show each other what you are talking about. As someone who leaves the forums for a bit and comes back to try to figure out what the hell you guys are talking about, it's not an easy read. White board this stuff and make a flow chart, then you can see the exact issue you guys are debating about instead of 8 pages of wall text/quotes/theories.....
Last question:
Would you say I'm watching the wrong game with my points mentioned above? Really?
Only because I dont like to be ganked/griefed/harassed by some troll childs? This should stop me from playing this cool game? Because of childisch cowards?
Let's put it this way. Say, you dislike rain. Like, reaaaaly dislike it. And at some point you wanna move to some nice place. You find an amazing place to move to, with all the things you like, all the conveniences you'd want, all the entertainment, etc etc etc.
But this place gets heavy rains DAILY. Everywhere is fucking raining. You simply cannot avoid rain. It's the law of the land.
Would you move to that place or simply pick another one that might have fewer things that you like, but doesn't have the rain?
Comments
Good night.
All the best, good night.
As a thought - and I am asking you specifically because your experience probably provides a perspective that mine does not - what about changing kill count to "green attack" count?
So, you can attack a green with no immediate penalty, but you don't want to make that a standard part of your gameplay, otherwise you will gain a massive amount of corruption at what ever point you do eventually kill a green.
The original system in Lineage 2 (in which health bars were not visible, at least in the most popular patches) provided a relatively optimal amount of risk and reward for both sides. In vast majority of cases it achieved it's goal of preventing random PKing and griefing (not by modern definition of griefing, where gatekeeping or contesting certain areas/resources/POIs is counted as such, but by the old-school definition, let's put it that way), despite having certain leaks that allowed to somewhat exploit it in some cases.
Intrepid did a decent job by addressing those leaks, thanks to Steven's L2 experience. If Ashes didn't have visible health bars, I'd bet it would be perfectly fine or very close to that state. However, the original conditions are not the same for Ashes and Lineage 2, because in one of them you can see the health bar and in the other one - you can't. Visible health bars significantly reduce the risk for the attacking side and the whole balance of both sides may end up collapsing. The system itself would still achieve it's goal and work in majority of cases, but in all other cases you will be able to hear people screaming even from Mars. So basically:
Lineage 2 system:
Attacker - had certain ways to circumvent the system (mostly hardcore players)
Victim - had certain tricks to provoke the attacker go corrupt and face the consequences of that
Overall - worked well in majority of cases, but there were issues. Risk vs Reward balance was relatively fine
Ashes of Creation system under the same conditions (hidden HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious
Victim - feels much better as there are less potential ways to circumvent the system
Overall - more risks to the attacker, less risks for victim, no room for already known ways to exploit the system. Risk vs Reward balance is either perfect or favors the defender a little bit due to more serious punishments for the attacker. In general, potentially a 10/10 outcome.
Ashes of Creation system at it's current state (visible HP bars for non-combatants):
Attacker - the issues of Lineage 2 system are neutralized and punishment is more serious, but who cares when you can safely harass players with little to no risk of going corrupt
Victim - still feels very happy about eliminating flaws of L2 system. Feels extremely unhappy, because even those flaws were not that serious as being harassed with no risk by attacker
Overall - the balance shifts significantly in favor of attacker as they take little to no risk, unless they make a serious mistake. Even more serious consequences of going corrupt do not compensate that.
Hope this comparison provides a better explanation. Once again, please keep in mind that Lineage 2 players (at least from what I see) are on YOUR side and we want YOU to have a pleasant gameplay experience. Because the majority of us wouldn't care about the outcome of this discussion as we are mostly used to tougher conditions, unfair fights and all kinds of dirty tricks used against us (such as PK alts; fighting for a spot/boss for many hours; having certain parts of gameplay gatekept by other players; straightforward griefing; losing valuable gear due to PK etc.). The average modern MMO player is apparently not. Not trying to sound arrogant, but I assume that you understand very well what I'm talking about.
If the suggestion above is set in place, so that attacking a green increases what is currently your PK score, that means people won't attack greens as a means of harassment.
If you do, and you gain a large amount of what is currently a PK score, and since this score acts as a multiplier to corruption gain, a single kill of a green player could incapacitate your character to the point where it may not even be worth trying to play any longer.
Since there is always a risk of corruption, most people will not be willing to then attack a green just to harass them - which is what the goal of any system around this should be.
At that point, health bars are irrelevent.
Again, keep in mind that Archeage had visible health bars showing perfect information and didn't have the issues you are talking about - so the issues you are talking about are not an inherent result of showing health information. It is possible and proven that you can show perfect health information of rival players and still not have this kind of behavior.
It is worth pointing out that since Archeage was a faction game, you could see the health of people you were able to attack without any penalty at all, and still there wasn't any of this issue.
The problem that we are trying to solve here is not "preventing players from attacking other green players". That's a part of the gameplay. The goal is to reduce the chance of griefing. Attacking another person is not necessarily griefing and not always griefing. Here is a simple example: we meet somewhere in Verra and agree to have a friendly PvP fight. We both must hit each other first in order to flag and then fight. Why should you or me be punished for hitting the other one first? Obviously, you can make the system more complicated, take several factors into account, put a band-aid on a band-aid on a band-aid, but what's the point? There isn't much sense to solve a problem in 10 steps when you can solve it brilliantly in 1 step and potentially save the work hours of the devs who are supposed to be focused on more important things. I don't know about you, but I hope to play Ashes before I celebrated my 79th birthday.
I don't get it, what's the problem that you have with a suggestions that HP bars are not visible for non-compabatants, but visible for purple and red players?
So, as long as "non-combatants" (greens) can be attacked, which is the root cause of all following issues but also the supposedly "core" of the design, we start to get the main issue of harassment as long as this non-combatant is not killed but "only" attacked.
In my opinion a solution with health bars being invisible will not solve this issue at all, because this risk will survive.
As stated somewhere and time before, I also like the idea, IF this core-design (non-combatant can be attacked and this remains in the game - and it will) that the harassing guy starts to fill up a quota, a "pk score" as Noaani mentioned. This will not solve the issue if this troublemaker sowhow can deal with not killing greens all over the time, because he will collect "pk score" for weeks but nothing will happen. So we need the next solution: Once pk-score is full he get's corrupted and he will get it twice or triple as high as normal (so algorithm / multiplier needed here for more punishment).
Also it's good that you, Flanker, talk about this in a meaning that Ashes wants to make a better game-player for greens with all this systems in place. I guess, everybody understands this. All these systems are not in place to advantage the harassing troublemaker, but the harmless non-combatant.
But back to two topics:
1.) Just as imagination: What happens, if non-combatants cannot be attacked. I'm not saying it will ever change (we don't need to discuss this), but I'm interested in your fear why the game will not work if this would be implemented in a different way. It's about playing pvp against each other - on a fair basis. What everybody wants to achieve all the time is exactly this, otherwise we would not talk about "invislble health bars", "pk score" or whatever. Fair pvp means, both sides by intention and choice WANT to fight and play pvp. For me personally this condition is being a combatant. So, what happens to the game if a non-combatant cannot be attacked? Which fear does a L2 player have here? Is it the world events (fighting for loot?), gathering materials (ore farm spots, or whatever), ...? All this topics can work and be solved also in an open world where only players can be attacked that wants to get attacked. You can flag all people as "combantant" (by the system) in a certain (large) radius aournd the world boss, you can change the location of ore veins popping up (this is already in place) so pk-ing someone at the same place makes no sense because the ore vein will show up anywhere else. What's the real, I mean real, issue, which would not be able to be solved, if there is no possibility available to attack a non-combatant? Asking this because I know there are MMOs out there where this was completely fine and not an issue at all, because if you want to set systems in place that encourage real fair pvp, you just have to leave this design and think about something better. Open world pvp still exists on a much more fair basis if only players that WANT to fight each other CAN fight each other. I think in this scenario its most important that all L2 players here think outside the box for a constructive discussion. So please, try it this experiment without only "it's core design, will not change" answers (we all know that - but provide us reasons and thinks about a game not having this in place - which issues are really existing then?)
2.) If health bars are fully invislbe, we reduced that (already?) to the proposal: Only hp bars from non-combatants (because the several solutions only need to be done because of this root cause all the time) should be invisible, to safe them bit more and disadvantage the potential harassing attacker.
Would you please provide me some situations, where this is an real advantage for the non-combatant?
Why I'm asking this: Because I have a hypothesis, an assumption: Harassing attackers are watching their victims before they attack. I want especially (to get the message clear) adress a class like a rogue at this stage of the discussion. A rogue, in Ashes, will have true stealth. There are several MMOs out there where this is not the case, but some (like WoW...) where this is the case. So you truly will not see him at all (but there will be conter-skill from outher classes that work agaings this "issue"). Whatever, but he will be watching the non-combatant - that' his entire class design. So, if you are talking about a situation like that the non-combatant is fighting against npcs/mobs in the open world (because of farming or whatever), than the rogue obviously knows, that the health bar of this non-combatant it not 100%, because he is fighting an Ashes will be challenging in PvE content also during farming. If the non-combatant attacks 2-3 mobs and wins this fight, he will have lower hp. The rogue knows this reduced risk already, it makes no difference whether he sees it or not. So he probably will attack, if he wants to harass and pk.
That's (as one example) for me invisible health bars will solve nothing and "collecting pk-score" also during attacks, not only getting corruption at kills, seems to make more sense at all.
The first one I'm just interested (as it will not change), the second one is more topic related here ofc.
Same here (knowing Archege but not L2, and some other MMOs with pvp in opern worlds).
Seems to be a particular problem of the community that played L2, because health bars are not solving anything. If I want to attack (my example of the stealthy rogue), I will attack - and I will do it with or without healthbars by intention because I'm of course watching my vicitim and I WANT to attack (or kill) my opponent. I will do it because I assume he is on lower health and I will do it because i know he is on lower health - the risk difference is minor to not existing. The problem is in front of the screen: Toxic harassing troublemaker. And if we DONT want this players in Ashes, and we dont want them!, then a completely other solution must be in place - we are really not talking about health bars then, but about making non-combatants real safe or punish troublemakers up from their attacks not only up from their kills - thats more than logically and more than needed. Punishment, punishment, punishment. It will decrease the "entertainment" of toxic players - and thats the entire and major goal.
SInce health information is proven to not be the root cause of the issue you are talking about (as per Archeage), I see no reason to do anything other than display it.
My suggestion wouldn't prevent players attacking others - it would prevent players attacking without the intent to follow through. While you can argue that this is part of gameplay - that means the specific action you are trying to stop via not displaying health bars would have to be considered a part of gameplay (that action can specifically be defined as attacking a player without the intent to follow through).
So, you and I are indeed looking at trying to prevent the same behavior. The difference is, you are looking at it in a way that isn't going to stop it. Again, it happened in L2 with no health information, it didn't happen in Archeage with perfect health information, thus health information is of no importance at all as to whether this happens in a given game or not.
Perfect, so you want to make a duel? That's a simple game feature. Start a duel for a fair pvp fight - directly in the open world. Both are by intention combatants then. No issues here. Don't think only about L2, but about other solutions/games, please.
You are not, make a feature called "duel", because you want to do fair pvp without pk-score or corruption. That's fine, that's normal, thats not toxic. Its the most easy solution available since 20y in MMOs and open world MMOs. You fear an artificial issue.
Health bars are not the topic, attacking greens is the issue and the consequences (or better: no consequences) out of it. But there MUST be consequences, because non-combatant dont wants to fight, otherwise he would be combatant and would stay combatant by fighting and attacking all the time. That's his decision.
We really dont need to define griefing, That's already done since decades. And no individual re-defining is needed and wanted.
We dont want to have griefers in the game at all. That is the MAJOR goal. This can only be achieved if there is no possibility for those toxic players to fullfill their wet dreams. So stop providing systems to them and feeding those trolls. IF L2 didnt count about that, its an issue in L2 which was not solved correctly or with the community playing it and abusing it. If you want griefers in the game, stop all those mechanics, all of them. Invest the effort in something better.
Excursus: WoW pvp servers had those trouble makers. Really, believe me. But there was support from the developer with Gamemasters and ticket-systems were you just published the cause and those players were punished if griefing was to bad. On the other side. On this servers you are a permanent "combatant", so by intention you want to play pvp all the time. No mechancis needes, nothing in place to safe you (beside real human support from humans working for blizzard helping you if your game experience really was disturbed too hard. Helping means in "real time" of course. The stepped into the game and the PKer just is removed or thats done via console command and the player is logged out or his account is just banned - nobody needs them, nobody wants them).
Guys, I appreciate long comments, but writing long detailed replies across multiple threads to several people takes a lot of time for me, as English is only my third language.
I said what I wanted to say, shared my opinion and suggestions, as well as the reasons for that opinion and suggestions to exist.
If you agree with - fine. If you disagree, so be it, it's your right after all.
As I said, I don't care much whether it will or will not change. If people need those health bars so desperately - fine, but I want them to be ready to accept the potential consequences of such choice and not complain about it afterwards.
In fact, when Alpha 2 begins, I might consider making a video with me torturing a random player in a way I described just to show how it all works. Not with the intention to actually grief them, as I'm not interested in that. Obviously, I will let that player know in the end the reason behind my actions and I hope his suffering will help other people to take this issue more seriously. We will sacrifice him for the overall good. I say "we" because you will have a degree of responsibility for that as well
Cool, and I'll use that to point out why something akin to giving you corruption if that player is killed by mobs within 8 seconds of you attacking them (and then not fighting back) is a valid fix to this situation.
If someone then says "not showing health information is a valid fix", I'll just point to L2 and say "nope".
My posting was not only adressed to you, I just took your good summary. Don't feel stressed. If you want to reply, do so, I'm really interested in all those answers.
This, Flanker, is a problem of the community and not the game. This problem can be solved be removing those players. And that will always be the only and sustainable soltuion for it. Done in other MMOs as well. Must be done fast, directly and without compassion. Intrepid should be consequent and not nice and friendly here. They can safe a lot of their (or your) money during development not designing hundrets of workaounds because of toxic, griefing players. Not you, but in general.
Your test ist the best example. If you were just not in a position to do this, you will not test it - we will not need a solution for it. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. What if you are only allowed to attack players that really want to do pvp (so only combatants/pvp-flagged ones)? Which solution do you need then? Or: What do you miss then? You miss harassing other people or what's the real issue?
1. Those players exist in any game, not necessarily PvP-related
2. This is a game with Risk vs Reward AS A CORE PILLAR. If you remove all the risks, it ends up being another copy-paste MMO clone for carebears. If you can't take any risks, this is not a game for you, just like Steven said.
3. Once again, there are a huge difference between competition and griefing.
4. Root cause problem -> Non-Combatants can be attacked. - it's not a problem in a game when it is an element of gameplay and PvP system. Every time you leave safe areas, there are risks that may come from hostile environment or hostile players. As I said, if you are not ready to take those risks, this game is not for you. If non-combatants can't be attack - the whole PvP/PK system servers no purpose and collapses, along with other systems that are tied to it, such as Bounty Hunters, for example.
5. What if you are only allowed to attack players that really want to do pvp (so only combatants/pvp-flagged ones)? - because that's basically a duel mechanic, not a true open world PvP.
6. Which solution do you need then? Or: What do you miss then? You miss harassing other people or what's the real issue? - No, I would miss a lack of choice in this case. I want to be able to PK a player, if I have strong reason to do so. I don't want to see people camping spots/resources with PvP toggled off in a game with open-world PvP and Risk vs Reward. I want to be able to actually fight for contested spots and areas.
In New World with toggleable PvP, a pretty casual game where you didn't lose ANYTHING upon death (apart from a little gold to repair your gear, but that's negligible) - even in those soft circumstances you could barely see anyone flagged, unless it's a chest run.
Which still doesnt change the fact, that they are a main source of the problem. So removing this source leads to better games for the other players.
The risk is only on the side of the player that doesnt want to be attacked but can be attacked.
As long as a non-combatant can be attacked without his will and those attacks have no consequence for the attacker there is no risk for this troublemaker, so that's completely unbalanced.
Moreover: It's risk and reward. Don't take this "slogan" just with one of both arguements just that it suits your hypocritical arguments, that's no base for a meaningful discussion.
What's the reward for the non-combatant player being attacked and killed? Tell me.
You know why he is non-combatant, right? Because of no attacks and pvp fights - he just dont want to play pvp. Otherwise he is a combatant by his decision. The game should encourage this by allowing players to actively pvp-flag themselves.
Competion takes place only between two combatants - both have a goald, one will win, one will lose. That's the definition of competion.
Everything else is no competion, because only one side wants to be competetive. And this is the special scenario and situation we are talking about all the time. Nobody is talking about two players attacking and fighting each other by intention - that's fine, that's ok, that's fair and real pvp. Everything else is inbalanced and unfair pvp were only one side, the harassing attacker or murder, is entertained.
Example, happing thousend times in open worlds:
Jason, the highsword, is gathering fish at a lake. Doing non-combatant, casual stuff for his node. So the really really bad things in virtual life, hm? He is talking to his friends in Discord and is doing fishing.
Suddenly Kevin, the rogue assassin, is showing up. Sneaking around Jason waiting for his moment. Bam, dagger-strike in the back. Fishing is interrupted for Jason, because he got attacked. Looking around seeing Kevin, jumping around with his space key and doing funny emotes to Jason. Jason turns around and starts fishing again, still non-combatant. Kevin is meanwhile a combatant and ready to strike again. Stealthmode, second attack. Rinse and repeat.
So, you are Kevin here. I'm Jason. What's my reward? Whats the meaningful "pvp" here? Whats a serious, professional, mature, balanced and reasonable pvp skrimish here?
YOU define open world pvp as ganking and griefing other players that dont want to be attacked. This is the poorest definition of a good, solid and fair pvp "design" and gameplay I've ever heard. And that has nothing to do with "it's nothing for you then", because it's nothing for everybody not being 14 years young anymore. But it's a fact, that this game provides much more and therefore this is the minor part of it and those toxic approaches must be killed from the developers - scotched from intrepid directly
And as here are only two problems available (Kevin and the allowance that he can attack Jason at fishing), exactly those two problems must be solved. THEN Jason gets his reward - a fish. A small reward, but that was his goal from the beginning, nothing more. Contribution for his node (town board questing), his guild, his MMO he likes to play and invest his (small) time - because this game is with casual and pve content. It's designed like that, there are several systems around it.
If you don't understand this, for me you are wrong in a solid, mature and good pvp MMO, not me.
Because you can pvp me, my friend. But under same conditions. And then we will see what will happen.
But it's not wanted that this happens, otherwise why should there even be corruption? The root cause leads to follow up workaround because the real issue is neither wanted from developers nor from the players. Both parties agree, that this situation is no fun. Moreover we still lack the part "being attacked has NO consequence", but only killing. And this increases the toxic gameplay for clowns and trolls, because they can do it without being punished. And thats just bad game design, you can repeat "its element of game design" all day long, because it will not make it better. Again: I know, that this will not change, but I'll not change my opinion here, that the design is nonsense. Instead of solving the root cause, there are doubtful workarounds that somehow the damage done by the first decision is reduced afterwards. That's very very poor.
No, an entire PvX (by definition) MMO that wants to have all playertypes (casuals, crafters, traders, pvp-ers) and system is not collapsing because of this, it ist just fair and focussed on the choice of the players, that can play both, pvp and/or pvp.
And follow-up workarounds and features can still be in place for special situations like corpse ganking or whatever, because even for combatants that can potentially be an issue, if a combatant permanently gets ganked at his corpse (due to respawning at closest respawn point and that will be known/found out soon from toxic players).
No, if players can activley decide to flag themselv pvp, then they run out into the wildernes and the are pvp-flagged all the time. Like thousands of others, because it's a pvp game and there will be A LOT of them. All those players can do open pvp 24/7. You are just wrong, that's no duel mechanic.
So, it's again and ONLY the players that want to kill other players which don't want to have it. You call it "design", I call it nonsense and unfair pvp gameplay, where one side only wants to have advantages and rewards by attacking, killing, griefing, ganking, harassing other players that dont have this choice.
YOU should have a choice but the other player not? Why? Thats egoistic and childish. But we want to play a mature game. If you want to fight me, fight me under same conditions, dont be a coward.
Again, that's your personal issue here. Go to another place, be there before. It's not "your place" just because you show up. Be non-combatant and gather your ressources with the other player. If all of them are combatant already, step in the fight and do fair pvp, no coward pvp.
Casual is nothing bad!
Steven wants and needs casuals. It's a clear promise and clear statement that those players are attracted and the game needs them to survive and that systems are running.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Playstyles
To sum it up:
You want to attack and kill other players up to YOUR choice only independent from the will and choice of the other player. And you call this "game design", I call it nonsense. Balanced fair open world pvp in a mature and non-toxic community enviroment is the goal for a healthy PvX MMO. The one and only goal we all want to achieve that this game survives for years/decades. Because nobody wants those troublemakers, the major goal is to avoid those players and to remove them as fast as possible (there is Fortnite, LoL & other stuff out there, enough for those players), so that the overall health of the game is working and the game is fun and entertaining, not frustrating and full of regression and wast of time.
Player problem combined with root cause "non-combatant can be attacked". Still nothing changed here.
You want to play pvp? Get yourself pvp-flagged, combatant, and fight other combatants. Be a honest fighter, no coward. I'm still missing real arguments why a non-combatant should be allowed to be attacked or even killed. I can only read hiding behind doubtful game design decision that advantage trolls that want to attack harmless players instead of doing equal fights between active combatants (solo, groups, raids, sieges -> in all scenarios its working and perfectly fine).
I've brought this up so many times in the past discussions on Corruption, you have no idea. Nice to see someone sharing the same views and understanding what the actual problem is for once.
In a game with open world PvP it's impossible for non-combatants to not be attacked. Otherwise, it's not a game with open-world PvP.
Point out which one of my arguments are hypocritical and provide explanation, instead of making random broad accusations.
There is none and there shouldn't be any as that player didn't do anything to achieve a reward. Reward must require actions to be done. This is not a game with "participation trophy" mindset and existing in the world doesn't give any rewards.
If you come to a game with open world PvP and demand making it 100% safe for you, you've come to the wrong place. I don't even mention that majority of PvP content tied to opt-in events and systems.
How well did it work in New World lol? It didn't at all.
Here is the definition of open world PvP for you: Combat can occur between players in a non-instanced fashion anywhere in the game world where permitted by the server ruleset.
It's player's choice not to fight back IN A GAME WITH OPEN WORLD PVP. If you don't want to fight or use any other way to turn the situation in your favor (such as diplomacy; making an agreement; asking your friends/guild to help etc.), then accept the consequences of your actions.
Somehow you completely miss a point that "Kevin" turns red, now he can drop his gear, his stats are progressively dampening, any other player can kill him without any consequences and bounty hunters can see him on them. He risked going PK for whatever reason and now faces the consequences of suffering 4x death penalty, losing his gear and potentially ending up on someone KOS list or even the entire guild that "Jason" belongs to.
Jason's reward is still the fish he caught. Leaving safe area carries certain risks and it was an unlucky chain of events. Instead of whining and having a mental breakdown, Jason can go to another spot or wait till Kevin leaves or gets killed.
Never said such thing. And I provided a definition of open world PvP above. That's a straight lie, you are twisting my words. Ganking or griefing is like 1-2-3% of the overall playtime, yet people get so hurt mentally due to negativity bias (look it up).
quote="Chaliux;c-471544"]Those toxic approaches must be killed from the developers - scotched from intrepid directly[/quote]
According to whom? People who would, metaphorically, come to Rust PvP server and complain that they got killed or they base was raided? Good luck with that
What I understand is that most likely it's either your first PvX game or you had bad experience it the past or the anxiety this topic brings you is so serious, that you attempt to make Intrepid basically change one of the core elements of Risk vs Reward. Simple as that. If you want a game where you are safe - by all means, go for it. It's funny how you are so hyperfocused on this while having 0 problems with caravan system, for example, where ANYONE can kill you with no consequences and taking your loot. You want that to be removed from the game either, huh?
Because it is an element of Risk vs Reward concept that worked relatively well in another game.
Oh yeah, once again you forget to mention the consequences of going corrupt. How convenient.
I offered a solution to reduce the chance of griefing, an obvious one that will work 100%. Not you complain about open world PvP. If that's a deal-breaker, I wish you luck in finding a game that meets your preferences. This whole debate is basically you attemting to change the game the way it fits your preferences and desperately attempting to rationalize it somehow. Pretty obvious at this point
If you talk about toggleable PvP - once again, Ashes will no longer be an open world PvP game.
Oh, boy, looks we're getting emotional. Attacker has risks, attacker has reward.
Why? Why? Because sometimes games with competitive nature, scarcity of resources and open world PvP might be unfair. Even life is unfair, yet you continue living.
And your message is your personal issue. Yet it goes against Intrepid's core mechanics and I'm wondering what are you even doing here if that's such a big issue. If you want to play it safe, don't come to a game with Risk vs Reward. Simple as that.
Who said it was something bad? Let me also remind that Steven said about game's core pillars: they are non-negotiable. If you wanna complain about it, you do you. Doesn't makes much sense imo, you've made a mistake choosing the wrong game that doesn't fit your preferences.
If I ever decide to attack a non-combatant or kill him, I will be ready to accept the negative consequences of that. Same as anyone else who understand the concept of PvP/PK system
Your advice is important, but I prefer to make my own decisions when it comes to playing a videogame
P.S. Who or what game hurt you that bad that you are so afraid of being killed in a videogame? I swear, I don't understand. If I get jumped by 5 people who attack me for no reason and/or kill/harass me for no reason, I wouldn't care even for a single second. Damn, that would even sound like a challenge to overcome! Because I know that there is always a solution and always a way out, no matter what's going on and how bad it is. You should consider adopting this kind of mentality instead of whining, meaning no offence.
I would actually be interested to talk to you about this, but not on the forum as these long messages take a lot of time. If you wanna discuss it in VC on discord, drop me a line, it would be an interesting conversation
As I've said before the health bar was never the problem, thus there's no justification for having the fractional health bar. ZERO. It's a band aid over a wound that needs surgery. It doesn't even solve the issue it was created for. All the mentioned exploits are still possible no matter what you do with the health bar. If people want to be dicks, there's nothing stopping them from running through a zone dropping everyone to 25% HP stopping others from leveling or getting them killed. You could camp an area this way and attack anyone attempting to progress making it impossible. This substantially effects solo players or small groups more than others because they won't be able to do anything about it. What are they gonna do, go to another area and get griefed the same way by another group? I don't think you understand how truly game breaking that is. This could mean solo and small groups aren't even able to play the game because they get instantly griefed anytime they try to kill camps.
Taking away valueable information is not a solution and is as silly as removing all health bars allied and enemy. The current setup favors healers and support classes because they have 0 restrictions and get to see 100% accurate hp while DPS or more offensive roles are punished. So much for executes. Meanwhile healers will have no problem timing their life saving abilities. The answer has always been contribution based corruption whether people want to admit it or not. Based on damage, healing, buffs and debuffs. The meter builds the more you attack greens or help others doing so. Once it fills completely you go corrupt. If the green player dies the killer goes corrupt and everyone involved gets an additional burst on their meter. If they leave them alone and don't kill them, the meter goes down gradually on its own or from killing mobs/gaining xp. This solves the issue of players attacking others without the intention of killing them and only to weaken them for nefarious reasons. This should not be a thing to begin with, either commit to killing someone or don't attack them. That's all there is to it. It solves all the corruption related exploits with one addition to the existing system. Get rid of the fractional hp and no CC on greens.
No, all combatant/flagged pvp players play pvp in an open world MMO, there is no need to force other players and harmless players to do so. Flagging (so pvp-ing) is a consciously decsion.
Did that. The slogan is "risk AND reward". You point out "risk" whenever to want, but you leave out all the points around reward so far.
Excactly, there is NO rewards. So "risk and rewards" is untrue, it's marketing speech. The reward for the non-combatant player is achieving his goald he was working out UNTIL he got harassed by a troll. So he did
There were actions done, see my examples. Questing, gathering ressources, whatsoever. There is no reward out of it if another player is interrupting this actions. The risk is only available and much higher for the attacked non-combatant.
Not sure, see when it comes about player types, styles and offered PvX, so PvE and PvP, content. I'm not sure if it the correct place for players that just wants to harass and troll other players due to their own egoistic decision, because they are allowed to attack, but the defender cant avoid to be attacked. That design in imbalanced and wrong. If you want to pvp in a open world you do this with other pvp-flagged players - of course, because there is a consensus about this and thus its balanced and fair. And there are thousands of players in an open world pvp game so there is absolutely no fear that pvp will not take place.
There is only one simple fear: Toxic players cant harass and distrub other players, but they want to do this. But again, this wet dreams shouldnot be encouraged.
Why not? On our realm/server it worked perfectly fine.
Can. Not "must". And the permission of the ruleset is exactly the design critics I'm talking about. Combat can occur between players if they want. It MUST NOT occure. That's untrue and no definition out there is calling it like this. If you want to play pvp, do it with players that want to pvp with you. That's combatants in speech of Ashes.
[quoote]It's player's choice not to fight back IN A GAME WITH OPEN WORLD PVP. If you don't want to fight or use any other way to turn the situation in your favor (such as diplomacy; making an agreement; asking your friends/guild to help etc.), then accept the consequences of your actions.[/quote]
No that's no real choice. The choice is already done before, otherwise he would be combatant/pvp-flagged already. The open world does not change this in any way, it's a player decision - or should be. The attacking player, not the victim, has to take out the consequences. That's no victim blaming here, lol.
It's no competition, as I've said, if only one side wants to fight and is allowed to, but the other side dont want so do it and is not allowed to avoid it. That's not choice, that's a obligation by imbalanced game design.
That's fine, because it was his decision, he needs this punishment. Thare is no compassion. It's his fault entirely. He can run away, escape, even log out bit later and start the same on his alt/twink again and again. At Jason, or somebody else. Jason by contrast got disturbed, maybe killed as well. Loosing time, haveing no chance to avoid it, having regression and is disturbed in his gameplay entirely.
What about Jason? No fun gameplay for Jason, right?
Not saying something but meaning something makes no difference in the result, but only in the way of communication before. Having the attitude and toxic behavior to attack other harmless players where it is clear (green) that they dont want to pvp is answer and fact enough. I never did this in my 20y+ MMO career. Never. What I did is fighting against other players that WANT to play pvp against me. So again and still: Here the problem is infront of the screen.
From all, if a healthy, fair and mature community is wanted. From developers, from the players. Just from everybody. If there are clown and cowards running around that think different, to should leave, not the victims (-> no victim blaming).
Thats entirely wrong. I guess I've much more experience than you think (or you have), but only not from L2. The difference between us probably is the available quota of time. If I'm playing 2 hours in the evening (just giving you an example), and they games OFFERS that for me because of PvX (do not leave out the PvE part all the time), then I'm allowed by my choice to do PvE casual stuff for my guild, my node, for whatever - maybe myself. And it's not "my" problem (lol), but the problem of ALL this players (and you would know that if you would have the same experience), that they don't want to get their limited time disturbed from other clowns and troll that are toxic childs harassing me and my gameplay. Because if I want to pvp, I'm doing pvp. I did thousands of hours PvP up to highest pvp ranks in structured pvp scenarios/arena and battlegrounds or 1v1 duels or fights in the open world. You seriously don't need to explain even one single point out of it, but what you dont want to accept and tolerate is respecting the players time and their REAL choice. And a non-combatant hast no real choice not being attacked. And I dislike this design entirely and for me its absolutely bad design as it encourages griefers and gankers - excatcly what we dont want to have.
You want to play pvp against me? Do it if we both agree. Dont do it, if only you agree. That's not even a fight then, lol. It's childisch whatsoever shit from a coward harassing other players.
Can you accept and tolerate my playing time and my way of playing a video game? If yes, what's your attidute and toxic behaviour then to attack me? Because you are an egoist and you, only you, want to have that ore vein? But what if that is my ore vein because I already started to mine it? It's my fault then, because you appear on the field and so I should run away? As I've said - wet dreams, nothing more.
If I'm at that spot and I'm mining as combatant THEN I'm taking the slogan "risk and reward", because combatant leads to the free call: Hey guys, attack me if you can and want, I'll be ready for you.
Everything else, Flanker, is just entirely bullshit and nonsene. Obviously you are that fixed on L2 or whatsoever that your imagination that there are much better ways to implement and design this are just not reaching you, together with your onw attidute that you WANT to gank and grief other players, because in your world it is ok to distrub other players and force them to the gameplay you want to do. It stays simple: The issue is in front of the screen, together with wrong design decision hereby.
No, that's a clear decision (like doing a siege): You cannot be in a caravan fight by accident, you do this because you WANT do do it. You are (quite sure) combatant then or very very soon, because that's all about it: You defend or attack other players, your enemies in this situation, and a pvp fight is going on at will of all participants.
Jason, the fisher, is somethinge completely different, because Kevin is just a ganking, childish troll.
Its funny that you talk about experience but you cannot differentiate between aboslotely differente scenarios and situations when it comes to fair pvp both parties want or not.
In one? Aha.. well so... It's nonsense, it's not needed, it's a follup up problem based on the first root cause/issue. It's not risk and reward, it's risk only - we already talked about that several times and it will not change.
No, but this will not help the attacked non-combatant at all, he already got his regression and waste in time. A clown can escape and log out, right? So he will play on his twink/alt then. If your are allowing it by system, then players will abuse it. You really only played 1-2 MMOs?
Don't allow absuing to happen, if you want a sustainable solution.
Why should clowns and trolls have a better situation and gameplay and all free choices but harmless players getting attacked not?
What's your sustainable solution that a non-combatant is not allowed to get attacked? Because that's the major issue were all starts, this remains valid all over.
THe rest: I dont want to change it, I'm telling you that this system is disliked (not only by me because I'm writing it in this forum, the cave of the lions) from a majority of MMO players, independent from the fact that they love PvP, PvE, PvX open world MMOs. That has nothing to do with this, but a broad majority of mature and non-toxic players of a community dont like trolls, griefers and gankers. So they like all systems that avoid this completely and all systems that this even cannot happen once single time, because it has no advantage for the game, the players and the community. It is just increasing toxic behaviour and imbalanced, unfair coward pvp fights.
Again: If you want to play serious pvp, search for guys that are at your height and level. If you are no coward you will understand, what I mean.
Wrong, stated that several times with all the explanations.
What about the attacked one? We are talking about the guy being attacked.
No emotions, that's real situations and facts, that abusing is happening and must be avoided. You dont want to avoid it, because you are a "pvp figther" with this attidue: For you this is pvp if you start attacking guys that dont want to pvp. That's funny and cowardly, but nothing more.
This is no competition if only one side wants to do it - we were on this point several times. You cant stop players thinking like this, especially because this players are the majority of the market and Ashes also attracts them to play this game. Believe in my words, those players will be in Ashes and they will also dislike this bad designs and they will say this and eventually leave, if the rest of the game is not good enough. And other than you are thinking: "Good thing that they are gone" you will very very soon realise, that the game will break down because those players are missing that the systems all together work smoothly. Just wait and remember my words.
Not at all. You are hiding behind a bad design and talking about it being nice, so that you can grief and gank other players which is what you want to do. I want to play a game were risk and rewards equals to MY choice and not to YOUR choice. That's why I dislike any concept that allows one side to do something (attack) but the other side nothing to avoid this. The attacked player has disturbance in gameplay, waste of time, regression and can be death moreover. The other player still can escape, logout, login at a twink/alt and play on.
Is corruptoin account-wide? That would be perfect. As this doubtful system stays that would be a meaningful proposals, because the action is done by a person (account), not only be a player-character.
Nobody, because it isn't. I justed stated it that nobody forgets. Because somethims it sounds like some players dont want to "see" casuals in "their" game. But I have to deliver bad news: This game attracts casuals by intention. I've posted several links proving this.
Having no possiblity to change it I've already stated several times. But disliking it today and all over in the future will remain. This design is nonsense and only encouraging trolls and toxic players, nobody else, otherwise they would agree and say: Yes, I'm no coward, I'm only fighthing against other pvp-flagged (purple) players, because this is visible and can be seen. So it's an intended decision to harass green players because the "system" allows it. And I cannot change this, but I dont have to like it. Because its a bad design, simple as that.
You should neither have the attidue and behaviour to do this nor the possiblity by system design to be allowed to do it. That's harassing, ganking, disturbing and trolling other players that only want to play the game.
Still disagree and in this particular point always will.
You decide to attack a combatant. That's your goal. That's what the system should encourage and wants the pvp players to do. But you don't understand that, unfortunately, for you it's important that you can also attack harmless players. That's a topic about behavior and having a mature mindset or not.
So you cannot says something against my arguemnts but only hide behind some doubtful designs and as long as YOU can decide by your own everything is fine but if OTHER players want to decide by their own they should bend to the bad systems and subdue to your decision, Flanker the brave and seriouis pvp player, fighting in competetive and fair pvp skirmishes.
I like to invest my time, the most valuable thing for me in life, in a game I like. MMOs can be a gaming homebase for years, decades. We both know this. This is happening, if the game makes fun. Just think about this word: Fun. I dont have fun, if I decide to play for 2h and, yes, sticking to my fishing example, want to gather ressources from an pve content offered from intrepid for me to contribute to the node (which is good vor pvp and pve fans in this game - that's why I like the node system, or other systems like this in Ashes). The most particular topic I'm disagreeing to 100% and always will, is the fact, that the "design" around non-combatants for me is bad. I'm convinced it would have been possible to implement it in better ways (see my proposals and sustainable solutions). And as potential "victim" I dont have to explain myself, because we dont do victim blaming, but I want to find out, why some minority of players think, that systems like this that are abused for ganking and griefing (because if you are allowed to attack, trolls WILL attack). If you just don't offer them, you dont' have this problem at all but STILL can play open wordl pvp, becuase in a healty MMO and full severs a lot of players will be pvp-flagged/combatants (because of more rewarding stuff, here "risk and reward" is valid, but its invalid for non-combatants!!) so there is absolutely no reason why you would have to fear that your pvp game will be worse. The only thing which will be missing is: You cannot harass, troll, gank and grief other harmless players. You are the problem, not players like me are the problem in PvX MMOs.
Wrong. It won't 100% resolve, but significantly reduce the chance of that happening with no consequences for the attacker.
Wrong. We are the ones who pointed it out. Another thread about this topic was created for me, FYI. We suggest adjusting the system, so that it functions properly. Some people here demand changing the core mechanic, so that it meets their own preferences.
The experience we had allows us to identify an issue in the existing system. Your message alone contains more whining about Lineage 2 that came from Lineage 2 players when they were playing their "beloved game".
Wrong. Emotional reply, not a logical one. We are those who explain how corruption system can be bypassed and how to prevent that.
They are a factor that contributes to the problem. If you can't compehend it, it is your problem.
Not a fan of fractional bar as well. I'd prefer seeing HP properly or not seeing it all. Doesn't really matter though if it remains the same.
Broad statement that missed the key details. Those exploits are possible, but it's gonna be much harder and risky.
Exactly. And that's the kind of behavior that people you shit on are trying to prevent.
Emotional overexaggeration. Such cases are not that widespread and you won't encounter them on a daily basis. Such generalization is a logical fallacy caused by a cognitive bias.
Oh, really, I don't? I played a game where this system didn't have the improvements Intrepid made. Never complained about it even a single time even during unfair encounters. Why would I worry about something unfortunate happening in the videogame?
Emotional overexaggeration. Griefers are more of an exception.
As I said, if people are too stubborn to realize the issue, I don't care. I don't mind at all if they are visible or not.
Got bored, so won't break down the other part of the message. I spend too much time trying to explain simple things to people who "know better". So be it.
As for the convoluted part, there's multiple questions about how exactly the GAC is calculated
- is it on each attack?
- is it within a time window?
- is it based on variating distance between players (i.e. attacker puts a ton of distance between them and the victim, at which point the game's system no longer sees this as a "single interaction" and creates a new count if an attack happens)?
- what about dmg done?
- what about dots (in case they're not seen as a debuff)?
And those are just the ones that came to my mind right now. I'm sure there's at least a few more to be answered and considered.You told Flanker that you don't want the 'green hp is invisible, others are visible" cause it's convoluted, but imo this system would be way more convoluted.
And if your answer to those questions is just "every single hit/ability used gives +1 count" (dots would be a single ability here) - then we come to the change of player behavior I mentioned.
This kind of design would obviously achieve your personal goal of "you only attack a green if you're going to PK them", but this flagging system is designed with a "throw a glove into their face" challenge in mind. Every person is in a "quantum" state of pvp. They can always be killed, but you only learn if they're a pvper once you start attacking, collapsing the function by doing so.
Gaining a corruption multiplier for each hit against a person would mean that you cannot collapse that function w/o making things way worse for you in the long run. This would then require softer balancing on corruption gain per kill and costs of the count reduction methods, cause otherwise you'd be removing the danger of being attacked in the open world.
And even then, if each hit gives you a GAC and the ttk takes several hits (let alone a situation where the victim can heal itself) - the multiplier would need to be something like x1.1 and going up by 1/10s per hit, otherwise you're reducing the amount of PKing ever further.
And any other design brings us back to convolution of the system, as opposed to the simplicity of "you got corrupted from a kill - that's 1 PKC".
I feel like you're oversimplifying the design differences here. You said that AA had enough content for people to not really contest it too much, right? This means that reasons to attack even just your enemy faction would already be fewer in number.
Iirc AA's "corruption" system only applied to within-faction attacks, right? So any potential player who COULD PK someone in the way we're discussing here, would need to find a location that was only filled with factionmates, not have enough content in that location for himself, AND not care enough about his rep within his faction (while PKing someone or trying to remove them from a location in L2 didn't really impact your rep with other players, cause it was seen as a normal part of the game). And from what I've understood of AA from your explanations, this kind of situation was well-nigh impossible.
In other words, both game design and social pressure made it so that the kind of actions we're discussing would've been insanely rare in AA, while they were fairly normal for the same reason (except with an abscence of social pressure of course).
Your suggestions in this paragraph have big consequences for other things in the game.
Creating a full pvp zone around a boss immediately means that zergs go unpunished.
Randomizing gatherables spawn locations means that the caravan/market system needs to get a rebalancing. And this also makes the life of gatherers way harder, because instead of knowing where to go and building your business around that knowledge, they'd have to wonder around aimlessly hoping to find something valuable. And with a limited amount of professions per character, it's not like you could just take all the gatherer professions and just pick up everything of value you see (and this doesn't even take into the account the bag system).
Other games use pvp toggles or different server types because they're completely separating their playerbases into 2 groups. Steven doesn't want to do that, because such a split is artificial.
And considering the fact that all those other games have to have a full system-protection for their pvers - I'd imagine that there's nothing "fair" about the pvp side of things. Otherwise those pvers wouldn't need such a strong protection. Ashes will also have a protection in the form of the corruption system, but it's a softer one, which allows people to decide on the spot whether they want to pvp at that moment or not. Because even pvpers want to chill sometimes, but they also don't want to lose their ability to defend their farm if someone comes to contest it.
You are still thinking about it in WoW pvp terms. The whole point of this discussion has been "people who attack others TRYING TO AVOID BECOMING A PKer". Yet you ask how does invisible hp help a non-combatant in the case where the attacker is completely fine becoming a PKer.
The advantage to the green player here is that the hidden rogue would NOT know how much hp the green player has. So if that rogue was trying to avoid becoming corrupted (and he's trying to avoid it cause corruption is bad for you, due to the penalties related to it) - invisible hp of a victim that's been in a fight means a much higher risk for the rogue to become Red.
And this higher risk for the attacker would then decrease the risk of being PKed for the green player. That is the advantage of the system.
As for building up a gauge of attacks on the greens, at the end of which you gain corruption - the result would be really similar to what I explained to Noaani above, so you can just refer to that. The behavior would change too much from what Intrepid is going for. And I know that you dislike what they're going for, but I've already spoken with you about that before.
Just to reiterate what I said above, the goal of arguing for invisible hp is to decrease the amount of green player PKings that go unpunished.
Your suggestion decreases the amount of attacks on green players.
Your suggestion would just umbrella our goal, but would also influence other interactions as well. So these two suggested mechanics do not achieve the exact same goal.
To you and some others, but not to everyone, nor is it a problem for Intrepid, cause, as I've said before, if it was a problem for Steven - he wouldn't have taken that part of the design from L2.
They arleady exist, and I'm sure some people will use them for this purpose.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Duels
But duels are not pvx. They're purely pvp. They also will do nothing to remove a player from the premises. If anything, when the weaker player loses - they'll stay in the same place on purpose and will never flag up, because they'd know they'll lose. So the stronger player would need to go corrupt.
But what happens when the stronger player was the one who was farming the location in the first place? Instead of having a full fight that would've removed the other player from the location, which would defend the farming spot - the stronger player now has to go corrupt to achieve the same thing. And I know that you dislike the notion of "competing over content", but that is what this game is about, so, no, they cannot just share with each other while dancing under a rainbow amidst the sunflowers.
And if you're fine with the duel fully killing a player - I dunno how many others would support your position there. I'd be personally more than fine with that, cause I'd never use a duel or accept one, but I really dunno about others.
You are still thinking in the binarity of WoW's pvp/pve servers or of toggleable pvp.
In this kind of system any green player can be a pvper whenever they want. That's their freedom of choice at any given moment, instead of only at the server choice or in town at an npc that flips the switch.
And those greens that DO want to pvp in that moment - will simply fight back. And not only that, but they'd now have the advantage of the first CC, because they themselves couldn't be CCed when they were green. And this is the fairness of this system. The initial attacker might've chunked your hp a bit, but you can now use a CC against him and turn the battle around.
Except attacking other players was not an issue in L2, nor was it griefing. It was a normal occurrence in a competition for limited content/reward.
And Steven kept this competition for Ashes, because he likes this design.
If anything, those of us who want invisible hp are the exact people trying to minimize the amount of griefers in the game. That's exactly WHY we're asking for invisible hp. Because we know that whatever the amount of griefers that L2 had - Ashes will have more due to visible hp.
And you should treat Ashes just as you would those WoW pvp servers, except here you have even more choice, because you choose the time when you want to pvp, instead of simply choosing a server and submitting yourself to constant attacks by the enemy w/o any rest.
The reward for any green player is the content of the game. The risk for that player is the ability of others to kill him for said content.
The green player has a lower risk, because the corruption system limits the amount of people willing to kill the green player. A purple (and let alone a red) player will have way more risk because anyone else is free to kill him w/o penalties (though killing a purple does raise the risk of the killer as well).
That is the risk/reward equation of this system.
But the situation you described here will exist within the flagging system of Ashes. Someone will flag up on another player, because they want to compete for the content, and that other player will just fight back and they'll both have a fair pvp.
And both of these players will have made a conscious choice to participate in pvp right at that moment.
But where you're wrong is saying that nothing else is competition. The entire game is competitive, because it'll have limited resources, limited open world content and waaay more players trying to get those resources and participate in that content. There's an inherent competition imbedded into the design.
So far, the only non-competitive thing is the instanced story content, because Steven wants everyone to experience it. Everything else will be fought over in one way or the other.
The example you gave is not an example of meaningful pvp. I do believe all L2 players would agree with that.
A meaningful PK there would be if Kevin killed you because he wanted to fish in that location. And that PK would've become a meaningful pvp if Jason fought back, because he neither wanted to lose the fish he had already caught, nor the spot itself, because the fish was highly valuable and he wanted to fish there for longer.
And our suggestion of invisible hp would help punish Kevin for being a dick and just attacking a random person for no real reason. Maybe Jason was only wearing the fisherman gear and had super low defense and hp. Kevin would hit him once and do half hp dmg, but wouldn't know that. Then he'd hit Jason again and kill him, making himself Red.
Now Kevin is hunted by BHs and/or by other people in the vicinity cause Jason shouted in chat "there's a PKer by the pond named Kevin". Kevin gets killed, suffers high corruption death penalties and potentially loses some gear. Now he'll think twice before mindlessly attacking others.
If he does decide to repeat this bs, Jason can just shout in chat about him again, and any pvper in the area would gladly come there and have a fun time killing Kevin-the-dick. If Kevin doesn't stop with his bs even after that - he gains bad rep with guilds and node communities. And he might even become a KOS target for Jason's guild, if Jason is in one (this is also the reason why I kept pushing for people to join guilds in our other discussion).
Imo, this is how a social mmo with deeper player interactions works. This is how L2 worked and it was great. People would always come to each other's help against dicks like Kevin.
Ah, funny how pvp-toggle/server games also need workarounds for their pvp designs. Seems that systems like that are also in no way perfect.
This is exactly why I'd rather have a system like the current one. Yes, it will need the workarounds too, but it'll have a broader spectrum of player interactions than just "pvers can't be touched, while pvpers can be slaughtered with no penalties".
The other player does have a choice. He can fight back and potentially win, or he can put high penalties on his attacker, which will punish said attacker for killing this player.
And this choice can be made at any point in the game instead of only at login or in town.
It's real funny to me that you keep saying "mature and adult design", while suggesting utter coddling of poor pvers who cannot be touched by any means, or they'll get upset and leave. Really doesn't sound all that mature to me.
I don't need a Big Brother to defend me from spooky attackers. I need a choice to be able to do it on my own or to punish my attacker in a bigger way.
There's also now fairness or maturity in a toggleable/server pvp system, because zergs will always abuse those systems to their own benefit. They'll be slaughtering anyone who's not with them, all the while not suffering a single penalty for doing so. They'll dominate a region (if not a server) and no one will ever even try toggling on pvp.
Such systems are the exact reason why all the wow-like players are scared shitless of pvp. Because the only design they're used to is them being assblasted by way stronger foes, while those foes not only do not get punished but even get rewarded and celebrated for having genocided their enemies.
That is neither good nor a mature design. It's a "big bully in a sandbox" design. They can stomp your sandcastle all the want and you can't do shit about it, except leave (as all the wow players did by either switching to the bigger faction on the server or by going to a pve server completely).
Form "all playertypes" intrepid wants to attract, we are just completely different. I'm fine with that, really.
I'm (who the fuck is Chaliux
- I like the art style/graphics of Ashes.
- I like the races and the classes and the class system.
- I like the available weapons and the weapon skill tress (was already cool in New World).
- I like having some skills in my action bar (not only 5 or so), because acting/reacting with suitable shortcuts is fun gameplay and challenging.
- I like, in general, 3rd person RPGs with high-fantasy setting.
- I like the combat design so far (dodgeing, dashing, action-combat, but also targeting).
- I like mechanics like buffs, debuffs and all this stuff needed in a challenging MMO.
- I like challenging pve content. I like holy trinity as concept for pve content (like dungeons).
- I really appreciate fair and mature pvp (open world, instanced - both). I've played this for decades. I've played this on high rankings in WoW arena and rated battlegrounds as well as in structured PvP (sPvP) in Guild Wars.
- I like systems in which I can do pvp by intention and my choice (sieges, caravans for instance).
- I like good PvE content.
- I like gathering and crafting.
- I like the professions.
- I (quite) like the economy design aroung auction houses and player stalls
- I guess I like the gearing (also things like set bonuses) (future will show, depends on reward/loot and time needed for crafting good gear)
- I like having mounts.
- I like doing group content in pve and pvp.
- I like doing solo-content if rewarding and valuable (if available, because I will not always be in a group or due to only haveing time for 1-2 hours group-play isnt the best decision, it's more something for the weekends due to real life obligations for me).
- I dont care about housing/freeholds at all. Never did in any MMO. Thats probably the only content I will just skip (freeholds will anyway not be reachable for me as PvX-time-casual).
- I'm not quite convinced about rewards in terms of solo-content -> we will see in the future.
- I dislike the non-combatant nonsense.
So, in total, I see Ashes as suitable game for me. Still. All the above things were promised, all of those things attracted me years ago to watch the game (just my registration is late, not my interest - I'm in MMO bracket since 20y+, as mentioned)
My main concern and dislike is that a non-combatant can be attacked and killed and that I cannot control this by my own but other players get control over this and thus me. This I dislike and always will.
That's why I will provide all my feedback and experience all over to that, because you are right and I told you several times the same, this system will never change here, but then I want to have the hardest possible punishment for trolls. And as so many things in Ashes are cool so I will never surrender to fight for this against all other users, players and Stevens of this world, because I'm convinced that this entire decision is bad and will cause lots of unnecessary trouble. So even during playing the game I will still remain to my opinion, that this is a bad design I dislike and I personally will never attack harmless other players but I will do pvp, a lot of pvp, and for my that is no contradiction at all.
Last question:
Would you say I'm watching the wrong game with my points mentioned above? Really?
Only because I dont like to be ganked/griefed/harassed by some troll childs? This should stop me from playing this cool game? Because of childisch cowards?
I'm sure there is a segment of player base who share the same opinion. I think that it is much easier to work on your own perception of other people's actions and behavior. There are many toxic and genuinely evil people on the internet; you don't stop using internet though - you prefer to avoid them. There are many toxic people IRL and we normally do the same thing - avoid them. But we don't lock ourselves at home because of that or relocate and live in the middle of nowhere in Siberian forest where there are no people. What stops you from doing so in game? Avoid such players or find a way to deal with them. And if you get PKed by someone at some point, just click "Respawn" and keep enjoying the game. It's interesting that people would spend like 95+% playing the game, yet scream on top of their lungs about those relatively rare cases when they encounter such behavior.
Your last message is an example of a message I'd love to see more often on this forum. Honest, straightforward, no emotional arguments, no word twisting, no manipulation attempts.
But this place gets heavy rains DAILY. Everywhere is fucking raining. You simply cannot avoid rain. It's the law of the land.
Would you move to that place or simply pick another one that might have fewer things that you like, but doesn't have the rain?