Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Alpha 2 Feedback - Open World PvP

TyrfingTyrfing Member, Alpha Two
edited November 8 in General Discussion
Overview:

The PvP Flagging System in its current iteration disproportionate benefits to the Attacker. In this post I will outline the issues and the need for refinements to the flagging system to balance the benefits of the Defender / Player being attacked.

About the Author:

I am a Kickstarter backer of the project and an avid watcher of the development progress. I did not discover the project early enough to get Alpha 1 Access so have been relegated to comparing the game systems to those in other games based only on what I see and read. I have been reluctant to post any feedback or concerns until I have had the chance to play and interact with these systems directly. In my opinion, providing feedback with only half the perspective is often counterproductive. I just hope that Alpha 2 is not too late in the process to call for change.

My wife and I have been gaming together for over twenty-five years. We hope to do so for twenty more and are looking for Ashes to be a significant part of that.

Introduction:

This is a long post that highlights the imbalance in the PvP Flagging System and the need for Change. Please see the length is an indication of how much I believe in the feedback being provided. I will relay the situation that essentially “proved” what I have been worried about since the announcement of the flagging system for Non-Consensual PvP.

Much of what I will discuss here is the Options available to the player, on both sides of Non-Consensual PvP. Unfortunately, they are never as simple as fight or flight, it is, as all things in life, more complicated than that.

The Situation:

I will relay a situation that occurred on the second weekend of Alpha 2 and use it as the example for much of this post.
My wife and I were in the Ruins of Aela, right beside the starting area. We were progressing one of the quests to kill the skeletons there. For those that have not played, the ruins where the skeletons spawn still hold some of their initial structure, walls but no roof as such. The result of this is that different groups and individuals progressing the quests are often pressed into confined spaces. As such, escape from or avoiding aggressive players is not as easy as it would be in the open world.

In one of these rooms, at least two groups were present, a group of four players from the same guild, my wife and I in a group of our own and two other players. When the quest target spawned all three groups would rush to try and kill it. The fact that there is not a 100% drop chance for a Skeletons skull is… strange, but a different topic, however, the low drop chance meant that this process of everyone going for the quest target repeated several times.

My wife and I were watching the local chat and keeping an eye on the other players and saw the two players not in the guild appear to give up and run off. A moment later the guild group went Purple (Turned on their PvP Flags) and attacked.
This was Four (4) on Two (2) where the four were all higher level than us, in a confined space. We (my wife and I) had almost completed the quest chains in the area and as a result had more glint on us than we would normally have.

To be clear, I have No Issues Whatsoever with the decision or action to attack us, none whatsoever! They pushed out competition for a quest target so they could, hopefully get the quest item. It is a PvP game and this is part of that type of world. They saw an opportunity and took it, well played.

What’s the Problem?

The issue I have is the decision I / the defender was and is forced to make. This is compounded by the fact that no matter what the Defender does, they are disadvantaged, this is in my opinion, imbalance.
Before we unpack the different aspects of what happened and the options available to both sides let us look at the current situation in game.

Consensual PvP is where all parties willingly participate in PvP. This is normally done by all players “Flagging” / Turning On their PvP Toggle and their nameplates turn Purple. This post is almost entirely concerned with Non-Consensual PvP.

Open World Automatic Flagging Process Today:

1. Green is NOT able to Attack Green, so no PvP possible
2. Purple Attacking Green - Stays Purple (Fight is Non-Consensual)
3. Purple Attacking Purple - Stays Purple (Fight is Consensual)
4. Green Attacking Purple - Turns Purple (Changes Fight to be Consensual)

Easy Right? No… not really. The Loot Dynamics change with the PvP Consent Flag. Flagged players drop Half* (*Subject to Change) the Loot when Killed in PvP compared to Unflagged players. Loot in this case refers to Glint, Resources, Commodities and the like, Not Equipment Items. We must also consider what happens after the instigation of the Attack.

Impact of Player Killing and Flagging:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green - See Above
2. Purple Kills Green - Gains Corruption (Corruption can Lead to the PvP Flag Changing to Red)
3. Purple Kills Purple - No Impact, Stays Purple
4. Purple Kills Red - No Impact, Stays Purple
5. Green Cannot Kill Red as Attacking a Red is the same as Attacking a Purple. The Green will change to Purple.

The Loot impact for Corrupt / Red Flagged players changes a little. They drop more resources than even Green players, but also have a chance to drop Equipment Items.

The Defenders Disadvantage and Disincentive:

As we have just seen above, if a Green Player is attacked, they must make a Choice. This choice is what I have issue with as it represents No Good Options.

1. The Option that is almost reflex is to Defend themselves:
- Automatically Flags Purple
- Chooses to reduce the loss of carried Commodities (available to the Attacker)
- Removes any penalty on the Attacker for Starting the Fight
2. The Defender tries to run / escape:
- Defender Stays Green
- Chooses to Risk 50% more Loot for the Attacker if they are Killed
- Chooses to ensure the Attacker receives a corruption penalty.

To be clear, I am suggesting that the option is ONLY to defend and die or try to run. Why? Because when have you ever seen a player instigate PvP that they do not think they can win? Yep, that is a one in a hundred situation. If you are going to try and PvP, you stack the deck or you avoid the fight. In the situation at the quest target, we were outnumbered two to one, almost perfect odds for the attackers. I speak from PvP experience in many, many games over the years. If you see good odds, you take them and when you do not see good odds, you live to fight another time.

As the choices above show, the defender / green player must decide to give the attackers More Loot and Corruption or, try and protect their loot by fighting back but enable the attacker to immediately attack them again and again. Yes, in the case of the attack at the quest target, if we chose to fight back, we are choosing to drop less glint etc. but, offer only an incentive to attack us again and again.

Now let’s look at the options from the attacker’s perspective. Again, assumption here is that victory is assured as described above.

1. Defender Fights Back and Dies
- “Free” Loot
- Absolutely Zero Disincentive here, able to Rinse and Repeat as necessary
2. Defender Does Not Fight back and Dies
- More Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
3. Attacker can Stop attacking at ANY time without penalty.
- If the Attacker stops and the Defender escapes, there is no penalty to the attacker, they can do that again and again.

These are pretty good choices and no bad options. In fact, I would suggest that in the current state, the attacker is incentivised to kill any and all competing players.

Coming back to the situation at the quest target, my wife and I do not have an issue with the attack, well done, opportunity taken, well played! The issue is the lack of viable options for us. If we choose to run and don’t escape, then we are gambling 50% more of our glint etc. on the off chance that another higher level and/or larger group take revenge for us. Fighting back, which in my opinion, should be what we are incentivised to do, is actually a bad choice here as if we come back, we will just be killed again because it is beneficial for the attacker to do so.

Never Present a Problem without Offering a Solution:

As a Technology leader for many years, I do not permit my team to escalate issues they have not attempted to solve themselves. I do not care if they bring the “correct” or best answer, the issue is that they have tried to find a resolution and in doing so have gained a better perspective, ultimately becoming a better technology practitioner.

To be clear, the Problem I am looking to resolve here is to provide the Defender some better options and hopefully incentives them to defend themselves, which should be, in my opinion the goal of the system.

It is my opinion that we are missing a Flag. A Criminal Act Flag. If we go back to the days of Ultima Online and forward, we see that an Instigator of non-consensual PvP is and “always” has been flagged as a criminal. Yes, always is overstating here but I am also generalising. The most common Flag used for a Criminal is Grey. How would this Criminal / Grey Flag addition alter the dynamics?

Proposed Open World Automatic Flagging process:

1. Green is NOT able to Attack Green, so no PvP possible [No Change]
2. Purple Attacking Green - Turns Grey (Fight is Non-Consensual)
3. Purple Attacking Purple - Stays Purple (Fight is Consensual) [No Change]
4. Green Attacking Purple - Turns Purple (Changes Fight to be Consensual) [No Change]
5. Green Attacking Grey - Stays Green
6. Green Attacking Red - Stays Green

Proposed Impact of Player Killing and Flagging:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green - See Above [No Change]
2. Purple Kills Green - Gains Corruption (Corruption can Lead to the PvP Flag Changing to Red) [No Change]
3. Purple Kills Purple - No Impact, Stays Purple [No Change]
4. Purple Kills Red - No Impact, Stays Purple [No Change]
5. Green Can Not Kill Purple. The Green will change to Purple. [No Change]
6. Green Kills Grey - No Change, Stays Green
7. Green Kills Red - No Change, Stays Green

Proposed Loot Drop Chances and Corruption Acquisition:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green [No Change]
2. Green Kills Grey - Grey Loot Drop is the Same as Green, No Purple “Protection”
3. Green Kills Red - Red Loot Drop and Corruption Loss [No Change]
4. Grey Kills Green - Green Drops Loot and Grey Gains Corruption as well as Criminal Timer (Limited Change)
5. Grey Kills Red - Same as Purple Killing Red [Existing State]
6. Purple Kills Purple - [No Change]
7. Purple Can Not Kill Green - See Above
8. Red Kills Green - [No Change]
9. Red Kills Purple - [No Change]
10. Red Kills Red - [No Change]

The point here is Not to make it more complicated, it is to Change Player Choices. So now let us consider the available options this should create.

Attacker:

1. If the Defender is Green then the Criminal Flag and Timer are an Accepted Cost of instigating the fight.
2. Defender Fights Back and Dies
- Normal PvP Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
3. Defender Does Not Fight back and Dies
- More Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
4. Attacker is able to stop the attack but has committed to the Criminal Timer.

Defender:

1. Fight Back
- Reduce Loot Lost to the Attacker
- Attacker Gains Corruption
2. Run / Escape
- Increase Loot Lost to the Attacker
- No Increase in Corruption gained by Attacker
3. See the other Group Flag before Attacking you, but Flag for PvP yourself and Attack First
- Reduce Loot Lost to the Attacker
- No Corruption gained by anyone

Now if we go back to how the situation at the quest target could have unfolded in this situation. The attacking group now have a disincentive to attack, not only benefits for controlling the question objective. They need to decide if the 5 (or whatever) minute Criminal timer and potential corruption is worth it. My wife and I have only incentives to stand our ground and defend ourselves, you never know, we might get lucky and take one or more of them.

Is this not a more healthy environment? The players who are not looking for PvP are far less likely to get “Farmed” by higher tier groups without needing to “pay” for the privilege of giving their attackers corruption by staying green and dropping more loot.

Do I think the situation would have been avoided? I hope not. I believe the push to control the quest objective was, and is, justified. I am only suggesting that the choice to do so should carry more weight than it does now.

Again, I personally cannot see how there is balance in the defender effectively paying the attacker for corruption through increased loot drop rates. For Criminal and Corrupt players, forcing Attackers against them to flag Purple is imbalance. The player performed an anti-social action and there must be consequence. By not flagging as Purple when you attack a Corrupt or Criminal player, the attacker is effectively holding them in their state, either Grey or Red by increasing the respective timer or value. If the Criminal or Corrupt player wants to avoid this, then the consequences of their action is the need to avoid confrontation and wait out their timer. I believe this makes for a healthier environment where “Ganking” has a real penalty.

What Happens If Nothing Changes?

Speculation is always dangerous, however, in any game where PvP and / or Ganking is commonplace, many of the Gatherers that feed the crafters simply don’t go out because it is not worth the “Gank Tax”. These players need to feel that even after getting killed by other players and having stuff they were getting stolen, there was still a benefit for them and the Gankers didn’t have it all their own way. If they don’t go out and gather, they stop feeding the crafters and the economy comes under pressure. Gathering in particular is a very real issue here, because it is not really a group activity. Who, in any game, has ever see “LFG Need 7 More for Ore Gathering”. Yeah, I thought not. Keep these players in the game and we have a healthy ecosystem, lose them and… well, let’s just say I think that is bad.

Not Just in the Open World:

If a Criminal Flag is implemented, it would / could also resolve the issue where flagged players can run through the node hitting / disrupting Green Players at random. I have lost count of the number of times I have been struck by random swings when standing at a crafting station. I find it strange that the Guards will come from far and wide for a monster, but not some player randomly hitting people in town. In fact, I fail to see any parallel to any world where random acts of aggression in town / around guards fail to create issues for the aggressor.

Conclusion:

I have attempted to articulate through a real example of non-consensual PvP how the current game environment provides all benefits to the Attacker and only disincentives to the Defender. I have also attempted to articulate a solution that is commonplace in the MMORPG ecosystem that should bring some balance to game play.

I do understand that there is a bounty system coming and a Bounty Hunter “Profession” coming in the future. I do not believe that the suggested Flagging changes would negatively impact that system, but I say that with Zero (0) knowledge of what @Stephen has planned there.

I do know that this is a PvP game and I am not trying to change that. My feedback is that the current systems lacks balance.
I would love to hear from Intrepid around how they believe the current system provides balance, but I am just a single tester providing feedback.

To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.
The point here is not what might have been done, but what we do now.

Comments

  • TyrfingTyrfing Member, Alpha Two
    [Reserved]
    The point here is not what might have been done, but what we do now.
  • GetClappedGetClapped Member, Alpha Two
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.
  • OneillOneill Member, Alpha Two
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    The main focus of the post is Open World PVP and the flagging system as a whole, which definitely includes PKing...

    I like the idea to incentivize the ganked player to fight back while still having a sufficient penalty to the PKer. I think it will increase random open world PVP for those that enjoy it while somewhat protecting those that don't.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    yes it is. Griefing isnt PvP. PKing isnt griefing. Only excessive PKing (camping) is griefing
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 8
    And OP, the entire point of ambushing someone is to have an advantage. That being said, until you fight back, you are (meant to be) immune to CC, allowing you to close gaps or open with your own CC. Theres your advantage of being a defender
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • mainedutchmainedutch Member, Alpha Two
    edited November 8
    Tyrfing wrote: »
    To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.

    AI summary cause nobody is reading all that:

    Tyrfing argues that, under the current system, defenders face unfavorable choices: either they defend themselves, which flags them for PvP and diminishes penalties for the attacker, or they try to escape, risking the loss of more loot. They propose adding a "Criminal Flag" for attackers in non-consensual PvP, inspired by similar systems in other MMORPGs like Ultima Online. This new flag would label attackers as criminals, creating consequences for instigating PvP without the defender's consent and providing a more balanced risk-reward dynamic. The author suggests that this could reduce instances of "ganking" (repeatedly killing lower-level players), which could otherwise deter non-PvP-oriented players, such as gatherers, from participating in the game's economy.

    I don't think more layers should be added to PvP flagging, but I think they should adjust corruption to accommodate what you're asking for. It sounds like you're asking for something different when they should really just fix what they have (corruption).

    And if anyone says to remove corruption, you're just dead wrong and are probably a griefer. This isn't a gank box. It's an MMO. Actions need consequences. That's what gives choices meaning. You chose to kill the innocent old man cutting down the tree you wanted or the guy wandering the world minding his own business. That means you're corrupt, and you deserve what's coming to you. There are plenty of combatants out there who would gladly fight over a resource or roadway.

    That said, corruption def needs some adjustment right now (like AOE flagging). Luckily we're in alpha.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    mainedutch wrote: »
    Tyrfing wrote: »
    To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.

    AI summary cause nobody is reading all that:

    Tyrfing argues that, under the current system, defenders face unfavorable choices: either they defend themselves, which flags them for PvP and diminishes penalties for the attacker, or they try to escape, risking the loss of more loot. They propose adding a "Criminal Flag" for attackers in non-consensual PvP, inspired by similar systems in other MMORPGs like Ultima Online. This new flag would label attackers as criminals, creating consequences for instigating PvP without the defender's consent and providing a more balanced risk-reward dynamic. The author suggests that this could reduce instances of "ganking" (repeatedly killing lower-level players), which could otherwise deter non-PvP-oriented players, such as gatherers, from participating in the game's economy.

    I don't think more layers should be added to PvP flagging, but I think they should adjust corruption to accommodate what you're asking for. It sounds like you're asking for something different when they should really just fix what they have (corruption).

    And if anyone says to remove corruption, you're just dead wrong and are probably a griefer. This isn't a gank box. It's an MMO. Actions need consequences. That's what gives choices meaning. You chose to kill the innocent old man cutting down the tree you wanted or the guy wandering the world minding his own business. That means you're corrupt, and you deserve what's coming to you.

    Yea, corruption shouldnt be removed, but its focus should be soley to deter griefing as opposed to detering PvP. Nobody should be given an option to opt-out of PvP in a PvX game, otherwise you just have a convoluted PVE realm. That being said, corruption should be punishing enough to deter excessive PKing (which could be considered griefing) but lenient enough to make a PK here and there punished, but not a death sentence, allowing players to claim gathering areas, deal with PVE griefing, and kill bots.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • mainedutchmainedutch Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Yea, corruption shouldnt be removed, but its focus should be soley to deter griefing as opposed to detering PvP. Nobody should be given an option to opt-out of PvP in a PvX game, otherwise you just have a convoluted PVE realm.

    3307pjcuufr0.gif
  • GetClappedGetClapped Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    yes it is. Griefing isnt PvP. PKing isnt griefing. Only excessive PKing (camping) is griefing

    how convenient that you put this rule into the hands of the community, we have ALL seen people be mature and responsible with this in the past haven't we? /s

    So I can come to the forums and say someone is griefing me only to be met with "skill issue" "L2p" replies? no thanks.


    it's not pvp and you know it.

    If i'm being PK'd and i do NOT fight back then the P on the end of "PVP" is missing, it's Player vs nobody.

    Someone ganking and killing with an advantage especially. it's not pvp. period.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    yes it is. Griefing isnt PvP. PKing isnt griefing. Only excessive PKing (camping) is griefing

    how convenient that you put this rule into the hands of the community, we have ALL seen people be mature and responsible with this in the past haven't we? /s

    So I can come to the forums and say someone is griefing me only to be met with "skill issue" "L2p" replies? no thanks.


    it's not pvp and you know it.

    If i'm being PK'd and i do NOT fight back then the P on the end of "PVP" is missing, it's Player vs nobody.

    Someone ganking and killing with an advantage especially. it's not pvp. period.

    If you log into a PvP or PvX game. You are acknowledging you will be engaged by other players. A player attacking another player is PvP. Just because you dont want to participate, does not mean it is not a PvP action. Corruption is meant to deter griefing, including killing low level players and excessive PKing such as camping. It is not meant to encourage players to use it as a shield to not fight back at all, though with its current severity of punishments, I plan to utilize it as such very often, to farm 4x materials and gear for getting killed a single time. And I will resort to utilizing mob training onto players to kill them instead of good ol pvp unfortunately since its exponentially less punishing if not as effective or fun.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • OneillOneill Member, Alpha Two
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    yes it is. Griefing isnt PvP. PKing isnt griefing. Only excessive PKing (camping) is griefing

    how convenient that you put this rule into the hands of the community, we have ALL seen people be mature and responsible with this in the past haven't we? /s

    So I can come to the forums and say someone is griefing me only to be met with "skill issue" "L2p" replies? no thanks.


    it's not pvp and you know it.

    If i'm being PK'd and i do NOT fight back then the P on the end of "PVP" is missing, it's Player vs nobody.

    Someone ganking and killing with an advantage especially. it's not pvp. period.

    the "person" being pk'd or ganked is the "P" at the end of or beginning of PVP, they do not have to attack back to be defined as a player, I would even go so far to say they can still win the PVP engagement by surviving (at least that's how I usually win as someone that plays a healer).
  • Uncommon SenseUncommon Sense Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 8
    This is why the bounty system will exist.

    If you believe you were killed on unjust terms then you can put a price on the head of your attacker...

    This will invigorate Bounty Hunters who will gladly go out of their way to avenge you for some coin...

  • BlankRegBlankReg Member, Alpha Two
    Admittedly I don't know the details to this debate especially since I as new player have not been involved with pvp yet. My first thoughts are that with everything else that's going on with tuning that maybe AoC doesn't want to deal with the finer issues of PvP at all...yet. I was in regions that didn't even have mana regen or I rubber banded across 5 minutes of distance I traveled by horse. I certain can see these problems are worthy but it's hard to imagine they are able to tune this PvP issue but obviously I could be wrong since I just started. Good luck with it though.

    Until I break free of my basic gameplay issues I will not be trying to PvP much even though that's my end goal like most people.
  • SlipreeSlipree Member, Alpha Two
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    false. this is an opinion, not a fact. player vs player can mean consensual, or otherwise.
  • SlipreeSlipree Member, Alpha Two
    mainedutch wrote: »
    Tyrfing wrote: »
    To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.

    AI summary cause nobody is reading all that:

    Tyrfing argues that, under the current system, defenders face unfavorable choices: either they defend themselves, which flags them for PvP and diminishes penalties for the attacker, or they try to escape, risking the loss of more loot. They propose adding a "Criminal Flag" for attackers in non-consensual PvP, inspired by similar systems in other MMORPGs like Ultima Online. This new flag would label attackers as criminals, creating consequences for instigating PvP without the defender's consent and providing a more balanced risk-reward dynamic. The author suggests that this could reduce instances of "ganking" (repeatedly killing lower-level players), which could otherwise deter non-PvP-oriented players, such as gatherers, from participating in the game's economy.

    I don't think more layers should be added to PvP flagging, but I think they should adjust corruption to accommodate what you're asking for. It sounds like you're asking for something different when they should really just fix what they have (corruption).

    And if anyone says to remove corruption, you're just dead wrong and are probably a griefer. This isn't a gank box. It's an MMO. Actions need consequences. That's what gives choices meaning. You chose to kill the innocent old man cutting down the tree you wanted or the guy wandering the world minding his own business. That means you're corrupt, and you deserve what's coming to you. There are plenty of combatants out there who would gladly fight over a resource or roadway.

    That said, corruption def needs some adjustment right now (like AOE flagging). Luckily we're in alpha.

    thank you. i personally stopped when i saw, "about the author"
  • SlipreeSlipree Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    mainedutch wrote: »
    Tyrfing wrote: »
    To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.

    AI summary cause nobody is reading all that:

    Tyrfing argues that, under the current system, defenders face unfavorable choices: either they defend themselves, which flags them for PvP and diminishes penalties for the attacker, or they try to escape, risking the loss of more loot. They propose adding a "Criminal Flag" for attackers in non-consensual PvP, inspired by similar systems in other MMORPGs like Ultima Online. This new flag would label attackers as criminals, creating consequences for instigating PvP without the defender's consent and providing a more balanced risk-reward dynamic. The author suggests that this could reduce instances of "ganking" (repeatedly killing lower-level players), which could otherwise deter non-PvP-oriented players, such as gatherers, from participating in the game's economy.

    I don't think more layers should be added to PvP flagging, but I think they should adjust corruption to accommodate what you're asking for. It sounds like you're asking for something different when they should really just fix what they have (corruption).

    And if anyone says to remove corruption, you're just dead wrong and are probably a griefer. This isn't a gank box. It's an MMO. Actions need consequences. That's what gives choices meaning. You chose to kill the innocent old man cutting down the tree you wanted or the guy wandering the world minding his own business. That means you're corrupt, and you deserve what's coming to you.

    Yea, corruption shouldnt be removed, but its focus should be soley to deter griefing as opposed to detering PvP. Nobody should be given an option to opt-out of PvP in a PvX game, otherwise you just have a convoluted PVE realm. That being said, corruption should be punishing enough to deter excessive PKing (which could be considered griefing) but lenient enough to make a PK here and there punished, but not a death sentence, allowing players to claim gathering areas, deal with PVE griefing, and kill bots.

    imo corruption system is not needed at all. let the players police themselves. at best you shouldnt gain corruption unless youve killed the same player more than once in a specific time span, if they arent fighting back. (like they are getting camped) Otherwise there should be no corruption. going out of cities SHOULD be flagging for pvp period. either you make a pvp game, or you make an abomination that pve and pvp players dont like. how many games have to fail before devs realize they cannot cater to both playstyles.
  • volvol Member, Alpha Two
    Your solution is to turn the game into a co-op pve experience with some scattered pvp events. That's not a solution, its a change the fundamentals of a pvp game.
  • WhiskyWhisky Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    GetClapped wrote: »
    Pking people is NOT PvP. your post says "open world PvP" but Pking is not PvP.

    yes it is. Griefing isnt PvP. PKing isnt griefing. Only excessive PKing (camping) is griefing

    how convenient that you put this rule into the hands of the community, we have ALL seen people be mature and responsible with this in the past haven't we? /s

    So I can come to the forums and say someone is griefing me only to be met with "skill issue" "L2p" replies? no thanks.


    it's not pvp and you know it.

    If i'm being PK'd and i do NOT fight back then the P on the end of "PVP" is missing, it's Player vs nobody.

    Someone ganking and killing with an advantage especially. it's not pvp. period.

    If you log into a PvP or PvX game. You are acknowledging you will be engaged by other players. A player attacking another player is PvP. Just because you dont want to participate, does not mean it is not a PvP action. Corruption is meant to deter griefing, including killing low level players and excessive PKing such as camping. It is not meant to encourage players to use it as a shield to not fight back at all, though with its current severity of punishments, I plan to utilize it as such very often, to farm 4x materials and gear for getting killed a single time. And I will resort to utilizing mob training onto players to kill them instead of good ol pvp unfortunately since its exponentially less punishing if not as effective or fun.

    This^ you know what you signed up for.
  • pyrealpyreal Member, Warrior of Old, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    let the players police themselves.

    How old are you?
  • WhiskyWhisky Member, Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    mainedutch wrote: »
    Tyrfing wrote: »
    To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.

    AI summary cause nobody is reading all that:

    Tyrfing argues that, under the current system, defenders face unfavorable choices: either they defend themselves, which flags them for PvP and diminishes penalties for the attacker, or they try to escape, risking the loss of more loot. They propose adding a "Criminal Flag" for attackers in non-consensual PvP, inspired by similar systems in other MMORPGs like Ultima Online. This new flag would label attackers as criminals, creating consequences for instigating PvP without the defender's consent and providing a more balanced risk-reward dynamic. The author suggests that this could reduce instances of "ganking" (repeatedly killing lower-level players), which could otherwise deter non-PvP-oriented players, such as gatherers, from participating in the game's economy.

    I don't think more layers should be added to PvP flagging, but I think they should adjust corruption to accommodate what you're asking for. It sounds like you're asking for something different when they should really just fix what they have (corruption).

    And if anyone says to remove corruption, you're just dead wrong and are probably a griefer. This isn't a gank box. It's an MMO. Actions need consequences. That's what gives choices meaning. You chose to kill the innocent old man cutting down the tree you wanted or the guy wandering the world minding his own business. That means you're corrupt, and you deserve what's coming to you.

    Yea, corruption shouldnt be removed, but its focus should be soley to deter griefing as opposed to detering PvP. Nobody should be given an option to opt-out of PvP in a PvX game, otherwise you just have a convoluted PVE realm. That being said, corruption should be punishing enough to deter excessive PKing (which could be considered griefing) but lenient enough to make a PK here and there punished, but not a death sentence, allowing players to claim gathering areas, deal with PVE griefing, and kill bots.

    imo corruption system is not needed at all. let the players police themselves. at best you shouldnt gain corruption unless youve killed the same player more than once in a specific time span, if they arent fighting back. (like they are getting camped) Otherwise there should be no corruption. going out of cities SHOULD be flagging for pvp period. either you make a pvp game, or you make an abomination that pve and pvp players dont like. how many games have to fail before devs realize they cannot cater to both playstyles.

    this has been tried in many games and all it ever does is kill the game. Not a good idea. As a matter of fact, someone else said it and I like the idea, there should be bigger penalties depending on level difference.

    There won't be any policing, there will just be people camping the starter area griefing people until they quit. This will still happen, but at least when it does others can punish the griefers. No, there needs to be penalties for this behavior and incentives for pvp.
Sign In or Register to comment.