alexpetr2023 wrote: » I honestly enjoyed the New World 3 faction system. Nothing race locked or archetype locked, and they were essentially 3 religions always at war with each other. It seemed pretty balanced just build 3 fantasies that people enjoy playing. Religious zealots fighting the savages while also at war with the academia faction.
Gromlof wrote: » Other option is you keep this flagging system (just anable it at lvl 5 maybe ?) but you add faction pvp on top of that like if i declare this guilde as hostile then i can freely pvp with them without being punish for it. Or maybe this religion is hostile to this religion. Pvp can be motivated by a lot of things but in the end some player me included just want to pvp because they like it and faction base pvp accomplish that where criminal based system doesn't.
Gromlof wrote: » This one in particular really um... 'anti-resonates'? I don't understand what you where trying to say in your comment except maybe that you disagree right ? Try be more clear im not that fluant in english i wont understand all the jokes and stuff.
Azherae wrote: » Yes, I disagree really strongly, because Flagging for PvP and attacking someone has zero negative effects on your character until you kill them, and that only applies if they didn't fight back at any point. I don't know if you already know this or not, but if you didn't, maybe it will change your mind. If it doesn't, it means that we can assume your comment "I don't want to be punished for doing PvP in a PvP game" applies even if your opponent doesn't fight back at all. I think that players who want to kill targets who don't fight back should be treated as criminals, but just attacking to start PvP doesn't cause that.
Gromlof wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Yes, I disagree really strongly, because Flagging for PvP and attacking someone has zero negative effects on your character until you kill them, and that only applies if they didn't fight back at any point. I don't know if you already know this or not, but if you didn't, maybe it will change your mind. If it doesn't, it means that we can assume your comment "I don't want to be punished for doing PvP in a PvP game" applies even if your opponent doesn't fight back at all. I think that players who want to kill targets who don't fight back should be treated as criminals, but just attacking to start PvP doesn't cause that. Ok That is good and maybe it will do im just offering suggestions i want the game to be as good as possible. What about the huge alliances tho ?
Azherae wrote: » Ashes needs to adopt many of the good parts of how TL controls events and guild sizes.
Azherae wrote: » Gromlof wrote: » This one in particular really um... 'anti-resonates'? I don't understand what you where trying to say in your comment except maybe that you disagree right ? Try be more clear im not that fluant in english i wont understand all the jokes and stuff. Ah, sorry. Yes, I disagree really strongly, because Flagging for PvP and attacking someone has zero negative effects on your character until you kill them, and that only applies if they didn't fight back at any point. I don't know if you already know this or not, but if you didn't, maybe it will change your mind. If it doesn't, it means that we can assume your comment "I don't want to be punished for doing PvP in a PvP game" applies even if your opponent doesn't fight back at all. I think that players who want to kill targets who don't fight back should be treated as criminals, but just attacking to start PvP doesn't cause that.
Gromlof wrote: » I think that's a very pecimist view of AOC, in the current state none of thoses pvp systems are finish and if they ask for feed back it's to be able to fix it and make it good before the release ! Azherae wrote: » Ashes needs to adopt many of the good parts of how TL controls events and guild sizes. I don't Think AOC should adopt anything from TL it's a perfect exemple of things that i would like to avoid in AOC. The Size of the map and the absence of tp is a good point tho you are right on that, you wont have the possiblity for 100 players + to all tp on the spot for the battle and then tp again for the other one. I keep thinking implementing faction could atleast be put to the test 2 factions is the best for me (maybe a pirate one on top) AOC you have the PTR and the game is still far from release why not try it in a simple implementation like a very basic one that can be code in a afternoon.
Githal wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Gromlof wrote: » This one in particular really um... 'anti-resonates'? I don't understand what you where trying to say in your comment except maybe that you disagree right ? Try be more clear im not that fluant in english i wont understand all the jokes and stuff. Ah, sorry. Yes, I disagree really strongly, because Flagging for PvP and attacking someone has zero negative effects on your character until you kill them, and that only applies if they didn't fight back at any point. I don't know if you already know this or not, but if you didn't, maybe it will change your mind. If it doesn't, it means that we can assume your comment "I don't want to be punished for doing PvP in a PvP game" applies even if your opponent doesn't fight back at all. I think that players who want to kill targets who don't fight back should be treated as criminals, but just attacking to start PvP doesn't cause that. The Risk vs Reward for becoming corrupted DOES NOT MATCH. There is too big risk for killing green player, and the Reward is too small. And the way it should work is: With big risk comes big reward. The way the current system works is like: Imagine you walk in the streets, you see some merchant selling fruits. You steal 4 apples and 2 bananas. Then you get caught by the police and they CUT BOTH YOUR HANDS as penalty. It just doesnt match.
Azherae wrote: » Isn't this moreso the situation in which you killed the merchant and took everything even after they begged you to stop? I said "Flagging for PvP and attacking someone has zero negative effects on your character until you kill them". Do you mean that attacking green players is too risky because of the TTK problem and the ability to accidentally kill them instead of just chasing them off? I haven't experienced that yet.
Dygz wrote: » In Ashes, you also don't lose both your hands when you go red. You can still engage in combat, etc. The game will treat you like you're a monster while you're Corrupt. And you will get a few extra penalties when you die.
Githal wrote: » Dygz wrote: » In Ashes, you also don't lose both your hands when you go red. You can still engage in combat, etc. The game will treat you like you're a monster while you're Corrupt. And you will get a few extra penalties when you die. Losing 4 items is brutal enough. The point is that killing without griefing should not give any penalties at all, and you should not get corruption at all for it. Maybe the only penalty should be that you are Combatant for lets say the next 10 hours and cant become non combatant , But you are not with corruption.
Githal wrote: » Losing 4 items is brutal enough. The point is that killing without griefing should not give any penalties at all, and you should not get corruption at all for it.
Dygz wrote: » Githal wrote: » Losing 4 items is brutal enough. The point is that killing without griefing should not give any penalties at all, and you should not get corruption at all for it. LMFAO "Criminal activity should have no consequences..." Trolls gonna troll.
