Lincoln Hawk wrote: » Caravans are consensual, you dont have to take part at all, I also think alot of you guys are overestimating just how many players are going to be ganking everyone they see, the risk of losing your gear will far outweigh the benefit of ganking for no reason. Its a big choice to make to become a pk, and ppl who take it lightly are more than likely going to regret that choice as there will be other people on the opposite end of the spectrum who want to protect and be the good guys, it all adds to the game/choices which is only a good thing.
yokai wrote: » Just feedback from someone who backed you early. I never signed up for non-consensual PvP griefing. I never signed up for "caravan PvP". How on Earth could you be repeating these fundamental mistakes from earlier MMOs? The caravan PvP system in ArcheAge, for example, drove thousands of us away (or kept us away in the first place). And the various karma/corruption/etc. systems to somehow limit non-consensual open world griefing? It NEVER works. It is ALWAYS gamed by certain players. It RUINS the experience of PvE players. No thanks. It's your game, you can do what you want, but I'm out. And you are setting yourself up to fail in the marketplace.
Niraada wrote: » I think that for people opposed to any level of PVP, this game is just fundamentally not suited to the experience you're looking for. Every level of progression in this game, starting from the nodes, to the economy, PVP has been integrated with it by design, and its fundamental to the dynamic nature and story of the game. This isn't new information; Steven and Intrepid have been extremely clear that AoC and Verra are an evolving story driven by player interaction and player conflict. If that isn't something that you're excited about, then there are a number of MMO's on the market that will completely separate you from anything like PVP and let you enjoy the full extent of their content. I played WoW for more than 10 years, enjoying progression and story and never taking part in PVP outside of battlegrounds or the occasional city raid. With Ashes though, I can honestly say that I'm excited to experience PVP in a way that feels meaningful. That changes something for me as a player, and is connected to my experience of the world instead of being compartmentalised and limited. If the thought of having new experiences, outside of what you explicitly intended isn't an exciting prospect to you... If you're not looking at these systems and thinking to yourself, "Wow, I'm going to have a great time fighting off bandits and pirates in something other than a scripted event that's designed to let me win!", then really, I think you're in the wrong game. If all you want is a carefully curated PVE game, that's great. I love PVE experiences too. But that's not what this is billed as. Risk and reward is what Ashes is about. I've never really been big on PVP myself, but even as a primarily PVE focused player, I'm excited about caravans. I'm excited about node and castle sieges. I'm excited about being able to take out griefers or botters when I see them. I'm excited to hop on a ship with my guildmates and hit the seas looking for a fight. I've never had a reason to care about PVP in my past MMO experiences. I do now. tl;dr OP, I really don't think your complaint is valid. What you're asking for is fundamentally a different game.
Aardvark wrote: » akabear wrote: » yokai wrote: » I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it. I hear what you are saying. The system being proposed is similar to the Lineage 2 model. This largely worked. There were occasionally players that abused the system, as there will be in an game. Those players ran large risks and some fell very hard when karma came around. Having "villans" in the game sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes an annoyance. But there were times that the system was useful, even for the most passive pve groups. Take for example, you take 20-30min to assemble your party, you then take 20-30min to venture deep into a dungeon with the plan to XP for a few hours. Then 10min in, another group starts playing in the same spot. Do you keep playing together at half the potential the space will benefit. Do you suspend your playing until the group goes away, waiting 2-3hrs by which time most of your own party wants to log off. Do you engage in endless dialogue to no avail. Or do you decide as a team, after all else has failed, to kill them so you can keep playing? How about the raid on a signifincant boss. Your groups have been fight for close to an hour and the boss is about to die and another group come in to take the kill and potentially all the loot. How about the player that for what ever reason just come along to annoy you, killing every mob just as you were about to for the sport of the irate chat conversation they might elicit. These are where I see the corruption system benefits even the most die hard PVE`er. Just a thought Or do you make high end dungeons an instance so that won’t be an issue at all
akabear wrote: » yokai wrote: » I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it. I hear what you are saying. The system being proposed is similar to the Lineage 2 model. This largely worked. There were occasionally players that abused the system, as there will be in an game. Those players ran large risks and some fell very hard when karma came around. Having "villans" in the game sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes an annoyance. But there were times that the system was useful, even for the most passive pve groups. Take for example, you take 20-30min to assemble your party, you then take 20-30min to venture deep into a dungeon with the plan to XP for a few hours. Then 10min in, another group starts playing in the same spot. Do you keep playing together at half the potential the space will benefit. Do you suspend your playing until the group goes away, waiting 2-3hrs by which time most of your own party wants to log off. Do you engage in endless dialogue to no avail. Or do you decide as a team, after all else has failed, to kill them so you can keep playing? How about the raid on a signifincant boss. Your groups have been fight for close to an hour and the boss is about to die and another group come in to take the kill and potentially all the loot. How about the player that for what ever reason just come along to annoy you, killing every mob just as you were about to for the sport of the irate chat conversation they might elicit. These are where I see the corruption system benefits even the most die hard PVE`er. Just a thought
yokai wrote: » I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it.
Lafi wrote: » Aardvark wrote: » akabear wrote: » yokai wrote: » I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it. I hear what you are saying. The system being proposed is similar to the Lineage 2 model. This largely worked. There were occasionally players that abused the system, as there will be in an game. Those players ran large risks and some fell very hard when karma came around. Having "villans" in the game sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes an annoyance. But there were times that the system was useful, even for the most passive pve groups. Take for example, you take 20-30min to assemble your party, you then take 20-30min to venture deep into a dungeon with the plan to XP for a few hours. Then 10min in, another group starts playing in the same spot. Do you keep playing together at half the potential the space will benefit. Do you suspend your playing until the group goes away, waiting 2-3hrs by which time most of your own party wants to log off. Do you engage in endless dialogue to no avail. Or do you decide as a team, after all else has failed, to kill them so you can keep playing? How about the raid on a signifincant boss. Your groups have been fight for close to an hour and the boss is about to die and another group come in to take the kill and potentially all the loot. How about the player that for what ever reason just come along to annoy you, killing every mob just as you were about to for the sport of the irate chat conversation they might elicit. These are where I see the corruption system benefits even the most die hard PVE`er. Just a thought Or do you make high end dungeons an instance so that won’t be an issue at all i always disagreed with adding instanced content with no other benefit than to let people dodge pvp. nty. pvp isnt griefing. fight back and die. even if all 8 of your team die, you killing 3-4 would stop the people that killed you from being able to effectively grind that location also. dont want to fight? then thats on you. its not up to the system to protect you cos you want to dodge.
Aardvark wrote: » Lafi wrote: » Aardvark wrote: » akabear wrote: » yokai wrote: » I heard the same glad-hand arguments in favor of PvPers in ArcheAge, in Black Desert, and in countless other MMOs by now. It just doesn't work. When you design a game with non-consensual PvP of any sort, griefing and exploits *always* happen. And there are a lot of potential players who want nothing to do with it. I hear what you are saying. The system being proposed is similar to the Lineage 2 model. This largely worked. There were occasionally players that abused the system, as there will be in an game. Those players ran large risks and some fell very hard when karma came around. Having "villans" in the game sometimes adds to the atmosphere, sometimes an annoyance. But there were times that the system was useful, even for the most passive pve groups. Take for example, you take 20-30min to assemble your party, you then take 20-30min to venture deep into a dungeon with the plan to XP for a few hours. Then 10min in, another group starts playing in the same spot. Do you keep playing together at half the potential the space will benefit. Do you suspend your playing until the group goes away, waiting 2-3hrs by which time most of your own party wants to log off. Do you engage in endless dialogue to no avail. Or do you decide as a team, after all else has failed, to kill them so you can keep playing? How about the raid on a signifincant boss. Your groups have been fight for close to an hour and the boss is about to die and another group come in to take the kill and potentially all the loot. How about the player that for what ever reason just come along to annoy you, killing every mob just as you were about to for the sport of the irate chat conversation they might elicit. These are where I see the corruption system benefits even the most die hard PVE`er. Just a thought Or do you make high end dungeons an instance so that won’t be an issue at all i always disagreed with adding instanced content with no other benefit than to let people dodge pvp. nty. pvp isnt griefing. fight back and die. even if all 8 of your team die, you killing 3-4 would stop the people that killed you from being able to effectively grind that location also. dont want to fight? then thats on you. its not up to the system to protect you cos you want to dodge. It not to let them dodge pvp as you can still guard the door...its to make actual pve completion possible without raiding at 3am
Ravel wrote: » I just wonder whether crafters will need to participate in caravans to be effective and competitive in their trade, or will not need to depend on it. In the latter case this whole discussion is perhaps not relevant.
U5urPator wrote: » I know, where the complaint is coming from. Idm the caravan PvP, but I see the risk with the flagging system, too. For me personally it was a huge down turner to get constantly killed by better geared players whilest trying to farm for better gear in BDO and the game had an anti grief system in place aswell. I don't like the fact that you have to compete over resources all the way. Would it just be bosses or gatherable resources or EXP or loot, okay. But all together is always a pain in the arse. Especially, for players who just reached max lvl or the soft cap, but can still get easily farmed by more experienced players without any more punishment.
