Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is defined by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is definite by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point... So me wanting to fight other players in the open world isn't meaningful? That is your opinion. Just because you find no meaning in an action does not mean others feel the same. If you really want a meaning for it, here goes. Try not to disregard what I say.
1. When my guild sees a competing guild gathering resources in an area that we deem our "territory" we go and remove them from it. Just because Intrepid didn't stamp that area with "battleground" does not mean fighting over it is meaningless.
2. Roaming around randomly my group could find said competing guild attempting a boss or jump puzzle. It is meaningful to us to run over and knock them off or take it for ourselves purely because it sets back an "enemy" guild.
These are the 2 main things that will happen in the open world purely from players walking around together. Whether they actively look for it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you create your own goals and meaning when playing video games, and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over.
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is definite by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point... So me wanting to fight other players in the open world isn't meaningful? That is your opinion. Just because you find no meaning in an action does not mean others feel the same. If you really want a meaning for it, here goes. Try not to disregard what I say.
1. When my guild sees a competing guild gathering resources in an area that we deem our "territory" we go and remove them from it. Just because Intrepid didn't stamp that area with "battleground" does not mean fighting over it is meaningless.
2. Roaming around randomly my group could find said competing guild attempting a boss or jump puzzle. It is meaningful to us to run over and knock them off or take it for ourselves purely because it sets back an "enemy" guild.
These are the 2 main things that will happen in the open world purely from players walking around together. Whether they actively look for it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you create your own goals and meaning when playing video games, and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over.
None of this has to do with the corruption system, again. You seem to be confused, either because you aren't informed or haven't taken time the to read.
Intrepid is AGAINST, and I repeat AGAINST non consensual PvP.
Non consensual PvP doesn't mean you can avoid it, it just means that if a green player is farming and is attacked by you, you turn purple, a combatant, if said players CHOOSES to not retaliate and you keep hitting him until he dies, then, you become corrupt.
Why? Well, because that player didn't want to fight back and it was YOU who stood there and kept hitting him.
Now... do you gain something from it? Yes, corruption, but you also gain more loot from such player.
It's perfectly balanced, and has nothing to do with all the things you keep saying. All of those are allowed by the game.
The only thing the game doesn't want to encourage if a freaking murder box where you kill everything without consequencues.
You seem to forget that travel times matter, and you can't just teleport, so not everyone is going to be 24/7 ready to go help a someone 5 kilometers from a node.
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is definite by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point... So me wanting to fight other players in the open world isn't meaningful? That is your opinion. Just because you find no meaning in an action does not mean others feel the same. If you really want a meaning for it, here goes. Try not to disregard what I say.
1. When my guild sees a competing guild gathering resources in an area that we deem our "territory" we go and remove them from it. Just because Intrepid didn't stamp that area with "battleground" does not mean fighting over it is meaningless.
2. Roaming around randomly my group could find said competing guild attempting a boss or jump puzzle. It is meaningful to us to run over and knock them off or take it for ourselves purely because it sets back an "enemy" guild.
These are the 2 main things that will happen in the open world purely from players walking around together. Whether they actively look for it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you create your own goals and meaning when playing video games, and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over.
None of this has to do with the corruption system, again. You seem to be confused, either because you aren't informed or haven't taken time the to read.
Intrepid is AGAINST, and I repeat AGAINST non consensual PvP.
Non consensual PvP doesn't mean you can avoid it, it just means that if a green player is farming and is attacked by you, you turn purple, a combatant, if said players CHOOSES to not retaliate and you keep hitting him until he dies, then, you become corrupt.
Why? Well, because that player didn't want to fight back and it was YOU who stood there and kept hitting him.
Now... do you gain something from it? Yes, corruption, but you also gain more loot from such player.
It's perfectly balanced, and has nothing to do with all the things you keep saying. All of those are allowed by the game.
The only thing the game doesn't want to encourage if a freaking murder box where you kill everything without consequencues.
You seem to forget that travel times matter, and you can't just teleport, so not everyone is going to be 24/7 ready to go help a someone 5 kilometers from a node.
So I set out to explain why open world pvp has what you would call "meaningful pvp" and advocated a system by which players could participate in this via CONSENT, and you start blabbering on about non-consent?
I want some stat mitigation. Why? because if you have none then your asking for big griefing parties. That being said you can get guild members/node members who have similar mindsets to simply be nearby that you trust to pk you and remove corruption. Thus you may need a party to do it regular but perpetual pk is possible. and your own group can probably revive you. No in order to punish individuals i actually endorse a prison system. Have them teleported to their nearest node and be in a stockade that you can throw tomatoes at and have the time scale based on their crimes with a hour being the max penalty. Enough to punish not enough to discourage long term possibly. But this is a pvp game... there will be people who only enjoy griefing and causing toxicity. And theres nothing wrong with that... its a way to play the game. IF you want a carebear game go play a singleplayer game. Band together. Fight together let your guild and node rise!
in summary i think the stat reduction is fine but may need adjustment based on player feedback. And i would like a jail system down the road.
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is definite by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point... So me wanting to fight other players in the open world isn't meaningful? That is your opinion. Just because you find no meaning in an action does not mean others feel the same. If you really want a meaning for it, here goes. Try not to disregard what I say.
1. When my guild sees a competing guild gathering resources in an area that we deem our "territory" we go and remove them from it. Just because Intrepid didn't stamp that area with "battleground" does not mean fighting over it is meaningless.
2. Roaming around randomly my group could find said competing guild attempting a boss or jump puzzle. It is meaningful to us to run over and knock them off or take it for ourselves purely because it sets back an "enemy" guild.
These are the 2 main things that will happen in the open world purely from players walking around together. Whether they actively look for it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you create your own goals and meaning when playing video games, and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over.
It’s Intrepid’s opinion actually. They have decided to encourage objective-based PvP, make no judgement on consensual non-objective based PvP, and discourage non-consensual non-objective-based PvP.
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
It’s Intrepid’s opinion actually. They have decided to encourage objective-based PvP, make no judgement on consensual non-objective based PvP, and discourage non-consensual non-objective-based PvP.
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
Its not meaningful to YOU.
My point is that Intrepid is wrong if they believe you require specific play pens for pvp to be meaningful. That's called rail-roading in table-top games and themeparking in mmos.
It’s Intrepid’s opinion actually. They have decided to encourage objective-based PvP, make no judgement on consensual non-objective based PvP, and discourage non-consensual non-objective-based PvP.
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
Its not meaningful to YOU.
My point is that Intrepid is wrong if they believe you require specific play pens for pvp to be meaningful. That's called rail-roading in table-top games and themeparking in mmos.
Ok, if you continue to take these arguments personally we can’t have a discussion.
“Meaningful” as Intrepid have established it, is not a matter of opinion. It is very simple, if you are attacking others to gain an objective benefit for yourself, it is considered meaningful. Otherwise, it is not meaningful.
At literally no point did I say PvP should be in play pens, and to be honest I’m not sure where you pulled that out from. If you kill someone for encroaching on an area you want to resources from, that is open-world, objective-based PvP, part of what Intrepid considers meaningful PvP. Players will generally fight back in these encounters because they also have something to gain or lose.
Meaningless PvP is generally random PK’ing, or attacks based on getting an emotional response either in yourself or from the player you’re attacking. It’s any PvP started without the intent of seeking a tangible gain, but instead for emotional reasons.
In short, meaningful PvP invites conflict and rewards being combative, so corruption will often not inhibit these encounters at all. Whereas meaningless PvP, combat where the one being attacked gains nothing of value by fighting back even if they win, corruption will inhibit these encounters.
Typical reaction from someone with a severely limited scope/vision of past MMOs and their communities. Just because I haven't played the one game you have played means I can't have possibly experienced anything similar in the many MMOs i've played over the years.
It's not about the game, it's about your unwillingness to believe that it can happen.
And that's what I'm saying. You haven't. Not that you couldn't have, but you haven't. And it becomes obvious when you dismiss my point as some sort of dream. Just because you experience something doesn't mean my experiences didn't happen.
If someone comes to your aid, at least from where I come from, you remember them, thank them, and you might even become friends. Community building is a very real side effect of PvP.
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Untrue. Just because a fight has significance between two people doesn't mean it's meaningless. If I know someone is out there killing my friends and my allies, and I know their name, what build they're likely in etc, that fight is of MAJOR significance for me. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Bounty Hunters don't matter.
Thread about no penalty stat on corruption. This needs to be clear.
There is, there will be. It won't change.
Someone also came in and clarified that my original question had an answer on the wiki and that I didn't look hard enough. I then thanked them and the discussion continued.
It’s Intrepid’s opinion actually. They have decided to encourage objective-based PvP, make no judgement on consensual non-objective based PvP, and discourage non-consensual non-objective-based PvP.
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
And Intrepid wants to know what we, the community, want in the game. So we're talking about it. There you go again saying what's meaningful or not to people. You don't decide that the player decides that. Stickin' my dwarves BOOT up yer arse is starting to sound pretty meaningful tae ME!
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Don't for get the devs want "meaningful" PvP and not just a murder box
But then we get to the question, how defines what is meaningful pvp?
I personally like the direction ashes is taking pvp, but I also know a lot of people that find joy in walking the lands and fight anyone they meet.
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is definite by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point...
IS is intentionally creating what they call meaningful PvP in their game. For clarity, IS has defined meaningful PvP as it is being created in their game.
Activities that reward daring adventurers and foster meaningful conflict.
World PvP, Caravans, Guild wars
Node sieges, Castle sieges
Player corruption, Bounty hunters
Achievements, Leader boards, Trophy park
Exploration, Treasure hunting
Stock exchange (sharemarket)
...and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
Fortunately, as long as you don't heavily abuse the ability to murder lowbies and non-consenting PvPers, the corruption and stat dampening should cause little interference with you doing whatever you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over
I'm pretty sure that a guild is completely able to do everything you described in the guild war system. Guild wars are outside the corruption system. All the members can attack one another at will and beating an enemy guild into submission is entirely possible if you can do it. If successful, you could break an enemy guild by driving its members to abandon the guild or to open negotiations to get you to stop. Which is pretty much what your asking for. However, there will be ways to officially win the guild war through the objectives that you don't want.
Also, I would think that the guild with war declared against them does not get to accept the war declaration though. It seems like they are at war because they are attacked.
A war declaration period.[6]
Objective based components.[6] Victory and surrender conditions.[7]
Guilds may war multiple guilds/alliances at a time.[7] Guild wars operate outside the PvP flagging system.[7]
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
And Intrepid wants to know what we, the community, want in the game. So we're talking about it. There you go again saying what's meaningful or not to people. You don't decide that the player decides that. Stickin' my dwarves BOOT up yer arse is starting to sound pretty meaningful tae ME!
Caeryl is simply describing what IS is creating rather than sourcing what IS has defined as I did at the top of this post. Caeryl's description was that of treasure hunting that IS has specified as being built into Ashes to foster meaningful PvP.
Also, I would just like to point something out. You said that this conversation is to let IS know what players want in the game. Just to be clear, the random PvP fights that you seem to be describing are already fully acceptable and supported in Ashes provided that such PvP is consensual as there are no negative consequence inflicted by the game. However, such PvP encounters are not labeled meaningful PvP by IS for the purpose of identifying the systems being built to stimulate meaningful PvP.
@Adaegus Wintermight
As long as stat dampening is clear, I don't mind what you or someone else defines as meaninful PvP.
Requesting removal of stat dampening is like asking to expand the Bounty Hunter system to have more quests for bandits, it's something that goes against core ideas of the game.
For me it's a futile excercise to define meaninful, because people gonna speak from individual perspectives.
The word "meaningful" is a subjective word that can never have an objective definition. So giving "meaningful pvp" a definition will only be true for a certain number of people.
Some people want pvp to influence the world, while some just want the satisfaction of killing other players, and one is not better than the other since it's subjective.
Yes players that camp a lower player should get punished, which they are via the corruption system and the stat dampening. I only hope, which from what I have heard is true, that the stat dampening only applies to that specific target that the pker is killing.
I also want to say that, a discussion is based on personal feelings and past experience, especially when it comes to games xD
Ps. When you respond to the OP dont do it by trying to quote the developers, because what they have said before may change in the future, and what is interesting is what YOU think about the OP. Always go in with an open mind and try to understand were one comes from. You may not agree but understanding leads to clarity. Clarity leads to answers. Answers leads to solutions (xD).
I only hope, which from what I have heard is true, that the stat dampening only applies to that specific target that the pker is killing.
No, it applies to every player, every green can attack a corrupted player without turning purple/combatant themselves.
The only time the corrupted player doesn't suffer stat penalties is when fighting a bounty hunter.
I only hope, which from what I have heard is true, that the stat dampening only applies to that specific target that the pker is killing.
No, it applies to every player, every green can attack a corrupted player without turning purple/combatant themselves.
The only time the corrupted player doesn't suffer stat penalties is when fighting a bounty hunter.
I know that green player can attack corrupted players without turning purple, my comments was only on the stat dampening.
If stat dampening is applied to the corrupted player at all times but not when fighting a bounty hunter, then that's is some what fine. I would prefer that the dampening is only applied when fighting a target that the corrupted player have been camping.
The problem I have with stat dampening in general is,
If for example a corrupted player kill 10-15 green players and have a massive stat dampening, and a bounty hunter tries and kill that corrupted player (since it's his/hers job). While the bounty hunter tries and kill the corrupted player, a random green player comes and one-shot the corrupted player (because of stat dampening) before the bounty hunter could kill it. The bounty hunter have now wasted his/hers time but looking for the corrupted player and traveled to that player and lost his/hers target to a random green player.
So answers me this, why do we need bounty hunters if stat dampening will just handle the corrupted player for us?
If stat dampening is applied to the corrupted player at all times but not when fighting a bounty hunter, then that's is some what fine. I would prefer that the dampening is only applied when fighting a target that the corrupted player have been camping.
The problem I have with stat dampening in general is,
If for example a corrupted player kill 10-15 green players and have a massive stat dampening, and a bounty hunter tries and kill that corrupted player (since it's his/hers job). While the bounty hunter tries and kill the corrupted player, a random green player comes and one-shot the corrupted player (because of stat dampening) before the bounty hunter could kill it. The bounty hunter have now wasted his/hers time but looking for the corrupted player and traveled to that player and lost his/hers target to a random green player.
So answers me this, why do we need bounty hunters if stat dampening will just handle the corrupted player for us?
When you die, you don't respawn on the same place, respawn is random.
Green players can't see you on the map, so unless you don't move, the same player can't track you again that easily.
When you die, you don't respawn on the same place, respawn is random.
Green players can't see you on the map, so unless you don't move, the same player can't track you again that easily.
I didn't know how the respawning worked, and if what you said is true then that's pretty cool.
But the green player do not have to be the same player the corrupted player killed. If stat dampening is applied towards all players (except bounty hunters), then just a random green player kill the corrupted player before the bounty hunter.
Red players respawn randomly near where they died. This makes it completely plausible for players to camp a corrupted player until they run out of corruption.
Red players respawn randomly near where they died. This makes it completely plausible for players to camp a corrupted player until they run out of corruption.
That would depend on the specifics of "near".
If they are talking "near" in terms of the entire game map, not necessarily.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ps. When you respond to the OP dont do it by trying to quote the developers, because what they have said before may change in the future, and what is interesting is what YOU think about the OP.
What is apparently interesting to you is only what the writer thinks about the OP.
Also, if we can't use the information given by the developers, how can we have a conversation about anything that will actually be built into the game? You would apparently just throw out all known information about the game because of the possibility that something might change. Are you just trolling?
So answers me this, why do we need bounty hunters if stat dampening will just handle the corrupted player for us?
The systems are somewhat redundant. However, that means the corrupted player is being taken down in more than one way. It is increasing the pressure not to build a high level of corruption. The bounty hunter system may stop a corrupted player early. Or it may not. It is up to the bounty hunters in the area. The stat dampening will increase as the corrupted keeps killing non combatants. If the bounty hunter system doesn't stop the corrupted player before the corrupted player kills a lot of non combatants, then the stat dampening appears to be intended to cause a hard stop.
Isn't this why we have certain server types? PvE, PvP, RP and such? Playing on an open PVP server being PK'd as opposite faction/node is bound to happen. Now I agree that Max level camping lowbies is just lame, but if were even level, why should those of us who love to PVP be punished? Players who can't handle being killed/ganked out in the world should play on a "Normal PVE" server where all PVP is instanced. So I gain Max Corruption and now I'm easy bait for Bounty Hunters and other Players to kill? I've done my fair share of ganking in MMO's but it's not to the extreme like corpse camping for no legit reason, hanging out in lowbie areas to impede character progress and such. I agree for penalties if there is X difference in levels, but not when we're on equal footing.
Isn't this why we have certain server types? PvE, PvP, RP and such? Playing on an open PVP server being PK'd as opposite faction/node is bound to happen. Now I agree that Max level camping lowbies is just lame, but if were even level, why should those of us who love to PVP be punished? Players who can't handle being killed/ganked out in the world should play on a "Normal PVE" server where all PVP is instanced. So I gain Max Corruption and now I'm easy bait for Bounty Hunters and other Players to kill? I've done my fair share of ganking in MMO's but it's not to the extreme like corpse camping for no legit reason, hanging out in lowbie areas to impede character progress and such. I agree for penalties if there is X difference in levels, but not when we're on equal footing.
Isn't this why we have certain server types? PvE, PvP, RP and such? Playing on an open PVP server being PK'd as opposite faction/node is bound to happen. Now I agree that Max level camping lowbies is just lame, but if were even level, why should those of us who love to PVP be punished? Players who can't handle being killed/ganked out in the world should play on a "Normal PVE" server where all PVP is instanced. So I gain Max Corruption and now I'm easy bait for Bounty Hunters and other Players to kill? I've done my fair share of ganking in MMO's but it's not to the extreme like corpse camping for no legit reason, hanging out in lowbie areas to impede character progress and such. I agree for penalties if there is X difference in levels, but not when we're on equal footing.
No. They have not planned for pve and pvp servers. It is a PVX game.
Also, if we can't use the information given by the developers, how can we have a conversation about anything that will actually be built into the game? You would apparently just throw out all known information about the game because of the possibility that something might change. Are you just trolling?
What I'm saying is that the game still have a few years before a full release and that's why we, the forum users, should focus on discussing our subjective views and old experience with other games.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use facts that the developers have given us, you should use it if there is a miss interpretation or someone missed something. But using that information to "dismiss" an opinion about a system in the game just feels weird and won't start a healthy discussion between two parties. Saying "well the developers don't see that as meaningful, and so that's why." Isn't a argument, no matter how much you show evidence of them saying it. And that's because it's a subjective view that some may not agree with. And you have to use your own subjective view to try and get them to understand why you agree with the developers.
The systems are somewhat redundant. However, that means the corrupted player is being taken down in more than one way. It is increasing the pressure not to build a high level of corruption. The bounty hunter system may stop a corrupted player early. Or it may not. It is up to the bounty hunters in the area. The stat dampening will increase as the corrupted keeps killing non combatants. If the bounty hunter system doesn't stop the corrupted player before the corrupted player kills a lot of non combatants, then the stat dampening appears to be intended to cause a hard stop.
Well that to me just means that there won't be a lot of bounty hunters. They won't be able to kill corrupted players before a random player, and there for no rewards, which means no reason to be a bounty hunter.
I think that the bounty hunter system seems really cool and interesting, I just want it to be meaningful and rewarding to do as job in the game.
1
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It has been defined by Steven to explain what he means when he says that he is creating systems that foster meaningful conflict.
And that's his definition, which I personally agree with. But the word "meaningful" is subject and may change depending on the person.
Changing meaning by person doesn't matter in this context. Steven is adding systems to the game to create what he has chosen to call meaningful PvP. He's created a label. If people disagree with the label, that is fine. However, the group of systems that stimulate meaningful conflict are still being put into Ashes under that name.
Also, if we can't use the information given by the developers, how can we have a conversation about anything that will actually be built into the game? You would apparently just throw out all known information about the game because of the possibility that something might change. Are you just trolling?
What I'm saying is that the game still have a few years before a full release and that's why we, the forum users, should focus on discussing our subjective views and old experience with other games.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use facts that the developers have given us, you should use it if there is a miss interpretation or someone missed something. But using that information to "dismiss" an opinion about a system in the game just feels weird and won't start a healthy discussion between two parties. Saying "well the developers don't see that as meaningful, and so that's why." Isn't a argument, no matter how much you show evidence of them saying it. And that's because it's a subjective view that some may not agree with. And you have to use your own subjective view to try and get them to understand why you agree with the developers.
You did say not to quote developers though. It was: "When you respond to the OP dont do it by trying to quote the developers". Quoting the developers is useful for talking about what is actually being created and solutions or getting people on track with where the game is rather than every random thing that someone can dream up.
However, it does look like your arguing about something else having to do with promoting healthy discussions and dealing with dismissive comments. All I tried to do was point out that meaningful PvP does refer to a specific group of systems being placed in the game to stimulate meaningful conflict.
The systems are somewhat redundant. However, that means the corrupted player is being taken down in more than one way. It is increasing the pressure not to build a high level of corruption. The bounty hunter system may stop a corrupted player early. Or it may not. It is up to the bounty hunters in the area. The stat dampening will increase as the corrupted keeps killing non combatants. If the bounty hunter system doesn't stop the corrupted player before the corrupted player kills a lot of non combatants, then the stat dampening appears to be intended to cause a hard stop.
Well that to me just means that there won't be a lot of bounty hunters. They won't be able to kill corrupted players before a random player, and there for no rewards, which means no reason to be a bounty hunter.
I think that the bounty hunter system seems really cool and interesting, I just want it to be meaningful and rewarding to do as job in the game.
It would be nice for the bounty hunters if there were plenty of targets. But it does look like the corruption system may keep the number of corrupted pretty low. On the other hand, I would bet that as the game ages a few years and beyond, the number of corrupted would grow quite a bit in spite of the system. If I am right, bounty hunting may become more fun as time goes on.
Changing meaning by person doesn't matter in this context. Steven is adding systems to the game to create what he has chosen to call meaningful PvP. He's created a label. If people disagree with the label, that is fine. However, the group of systems that stimulate meaningful conflict are still being put into Ashes under that name.
Yes that's true, but what I mean is that the game is not released yet and we are having a discussion about the game and our own views based on past experience. Just because Steven uses his definition of "meaningful pvp" to great the pvp system, doesn't mean that other peoples definition of "meaningful pvp" is invalid.
And all your other responses I have nothing to say about xD Totally agree
Comments
Those people are seeking meaningless PvP. All of its impact begins and ends with that singular fight. No, social feuds are not meaningful in and of themselves, though they can become fuel for meaningful PvP.
Meaningful PvP is defined by the objective changes it brings, such as resources obtained, territories secured, dungeons guarded, and pathways opened.
Meaningful pvp is such a catch phrase at this point... So me wanting to fight other players in the open world isn't meaningful? That is your opinion. Just because you find no meaning in an action does not mean others feel the same. If you really want a meaning for it, here goes. Try not to disregard what I say.
1. When my guild sees a competing guild gathering resources in an area that we deem our "territory" we go and remove them from it. Just because Intrepid didn't stamp that area with "battleground" does not mean fighting over it is meaningless.
2. Roaming around randomly my group could find said competing guild attempting a boss or jump puzzle. It is meaningful to us to run over and knock them off or take it for ourselves purely because it sets back an "enemy" guild.
These are the 2 main things that will happen in the open world purely from players walking around together. Whether they actively look for it or not is irrelevant. The point is that you create your own goals and meaning when playing video games, and sometimes the game just needs to get out of the way and let you do what you want.
In my case, I wish for the ability to declare war on another guild, and if they accept this declaration we will be permanently flagged against each other until one side concedes. This is the heart of how player made factions should work. With the flagging from this war status it pushes corruption off to the side and truely lets guilds have conflict with each other in a consensual pvp setting that does not require "official" areas or objectives to fight over.
None of this has to do with the corruption system, again. You seem to be confused, either because you aren't informed or haven't taken time the to read.
Intrepid is AGAINST, and I repeat AGAINST non consensual PvP.
Non consensual PvP doesn't mean you can avoid it, it just means that if a green player is farming and is attacked by you, you turn purple, a combatant, if said players CHOOSES to not retaliate and you keep hitting him until he dies, then, you become corrupt.
Why? Well, because that player didn't want to fight back and it was YOU who stood there and kept hitting him.
Now... do you gain something from it? Yes, corruption, but you also gain more loot from such player.
It's perfectly balanced, and has nothing to do with all the things you keep saying. All of those are allowed by the game.
The only thing the game doesn't want to encourage if a freaking murder box where you kill everything without consequencues.
You seem to forget that travel times matter, and you can't just teleport, so not everyone is going to be 24/7 ready to go help a someone 5 kilometers from a node.
So I set out to explain why open world pvp has what you would call "meaningful pvp" and advocated a system by which players could participate in this via CONSENT, and you start blabbering on about non-consent?
Did you miss this part?
There is, there will be. It won't change.
If you aren't going to address my points then don't quote me. The thread had progressed past the OP and I was responding to that change.
in summary i think the stat reduction is fine but may need adjustment based on player feedback. And i would like a jail system down the road.
It’s Intrepid’s opinion actually. They have decided to encourage objective-based PvP, make no judgement on consensual non-objective based PvP, and discourage non-consensual non-objective-based PvP.
1. Assuming you are protecting that area to reap some reward from it, that is meaningful PvP. If you’re fighting over an area for no other reason than to says it’s yours, that is meaningless PvP.
2. Your group taking action to prevent a competing guild from getting resources you want to take is meaningful PvP. Your group taking action to prevent them from making process because it bothers them, is not meaningful.
My point is that Intrepid is wrong if they believe you require specific play pens for pvp to be meaningful. That's called rail-roading in table-top games and themeparking in mmos.
Ok, if you continue to take these arguments personally we can’t have a discussion.
“Meaningful” as Intrepid have established it, is not a matter of opinion. It is very simple, if you are attacking others to gain an objective benefit for yourself, it is considered meaningful. Otherwise, it is not meaningful.
At literally no point did I say PvP should be in play pens, and to be honest I’m not sure where you pulled that out from. If you kill someone for encroaching on an area you want to resources from, that is open-world, objective-based PvP, part of what Intrepid considers meaningful PvP. Players will generally fight back in these encounters because they also have something to gain or lose.
Meaningless PvP is generally random PK’ing, or attacks based on getting an emotional response either in yourself or from the player you’re attacking. It’s any PvP started without the intent of seeking a tangible gain, but instead for emotional reasons.
In short, meaningful PvP invites conflict and rewards being combative, so corruption will often not inhibit these encounters at all. Whereas meaningless PvP, combat where the one being attacked gains nothing of value by fighting back even if they win, corruption will inhibit these encounters.
It's not about the game, it's about your unwillingness to believe that it can happen.
And that's what I'm saying. You haven't. Not that you couldn't have, but you haven't. And it becomes obvious when you dismiss my point as some sort of dream. Just because you experience something doesn't mean my experiences didn't happen.
If someone comes to your aid, at least from where I come from, you remember them, thank them, and you might even become friends. Community building is a very real side effect of PvP.
Untrue. Just because a fight has significance between two people doesn't mean it's meaningless. If I know someone is out there killing my friends and my allies, and I know their name, what build they're likely in etc, that fight is of MAJOR significance for me. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean Bounty Hunters don't matter.
Someone also came in and clarified that my original question had an answer on the wiki and that I didn't look hard enough. I then thanked them and the discussion continued.
And Intrepid wants to know what we, the community, want in the game. So we're talking about it. There you go again saying what's meaningful or not to people. You don't decide that the player decides that. Stickin' my dwarves BOOT up yer arse is starting to sound pretty meaningful tae ME!
IS is intentionally creating what they call meaningful PvP in their game. For clarity, IS has defined meaningful PvP as it is being created in their game.
Activities that reward daring adventurers and foster meaningful conflict.
World PvP, Caravans, Guild wars
Node sieges, Castle sieges
Player corruption, Bounty hunters
Achievements, Leader boards, Trophy park
Exploration, Treasure hunting
Stock exchange (sharemarket)
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Risk_vs_reward
I would summarize the intent of meaningful as PvP as PvP that generally has an impact such as loss or a change in the world as a result of the PvP.
Fortunately, as long as you don't heavily abuse the ability to murder lowbies and non-consenting PvPers, the corruption and stat dampening should cause little interference with you doing whatever you want.
I'm pretty sure that a guild is completely able to do everything you described in the guild war system. Guild wars are outside the corruption system. All the members can attack one another at will and beating an enemy guild into submission is entirely possible if you can do it. If successful, you could break an enemy guild by driving its members to abandon the guild or to open negotiations to get you to stop. Which is pretty much what your asking for. However, there will be ways to officially win the guild war through the objectives that you don't want.
Also, I would think that the guild with war declared against them does not get to accept the war declaration though. It seems like they are at war because they are attacked.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
Guild war mechanics include.[6]
A war declaration period.[6]
Objective based components.[6]
Victory and surrender conditions.[7]
Guilds may war multiple guilds/alliances at a time.[7]
Guild wars operate outside the PvP flagging system.[7]
Caeryl is simply describing what IS is creating rather than sourcing what IS has defined as I did at the top of this post. Caeryl's description was that of treasure hunting that IS has specified as being built into Ashes to foster meaningful PvP.
Also, I would just like to point something out. You said that this conversation is to let IS know what players want in the game. Just to be clear, the random PvP fights that you seem to be describing are already fully acceptable and supported in Ashes provided that such PvP is consensual as there are no negative consequence inflicted by the game. However, such PvP encounters are not labeled meaningful PvP by IS for the purpose of identifying the systems being built to stimulate meaningful PvP.
As long as stat dampening is clear, I don't mind what you or someone else defines as meaninful PvP.
Requesting removal of stat dampening is like asking to expand the Bounty Hunter system to have more quests for bandits, it's something that goes against core ideas of the game.
For me it's a futile excercise to define meaninful, because people gonna speak from individual perspectives.
Some people want pvp to influence the world, while some just want the satisfaction of killing other players, and one is not better than the other since it's subjective.
Yes players that camp a lower player should get punished, which they are via the corruption system and the stat dampening. I only hope, which from what I have heard is true, that the stat dampening only applies to that specific target that the pker is killing.
I also want to say that, a discussion is based on personal feelings and past experience, especially when it comes to games xD
Ps. When you respond to the OP dont do it by trying to quote the developers, because what they have said before may change in the future, and what is interesting is what YOU think about the OP. Always go in with an open mind and try to understand were one comes from. You may not agree but understanding leads to clarity. Clarity leads to answers. Answers leads to solutions (xD).
No, it applies to every player, every green can attack a corrupted player without turning purple/combatant themselves.
The only time the corrupted player doesn't suffer stat penalties is when fighting a bounty hunter.
I know that green player can attack corrupted players without turning purple, my comments was only on the stat dampening.
The problem I have with stat dampening in general is,
If for example a corrupted player kill 10-15 green players and have a massive stat dampening, and a bounty hunter tries and kill that corrupted player (since it's his/hers job). While the bounty hunter tries and kill the corrupted player, a random green player comes and one-shot the corrupted player (because of stat dampening) before the bounty hunter could kill it. The bounty hunter have now wasted his/hers time but looking for the corrupted player and traveled to that player and lost his/hers target to a random green player.
So answers me this, why do we need bounty hunters if stat dampening will just handle the corrupted player for us?
When you die, you don't respawn on the same place, respawn is random.
Green players can't see you on the map, so unless you don't move, the same player can't track you again that easily.
I didn't know how the respawning worked, and if what you said is true then that's pretty cool.
But the green player do not have to be the same player the corrupted player killed. If stat dampening is applied towards all players (except bounty hunters), then just a random green player kill the corrupted player before the bounty hunter.
That would depend on the specifics of "near".
If they are talking "near" in terms of the entire game map, not necessarily.
Also, if we can't use the information given by the developers, how can we have a conversation about anything that will actually be built into the game? You would apparently just throw out all known information about the game because of the possibility that something might change. Are you just trolling? The systems are somewhat redundant. However, that means the corrupted player is being taken down in more than one way. It is increasing the pressure not to build a high level of corruption. The bounty hunter system may stop a corrupted player early. Or it may not. It is up to the bounty hunters in the area. The stat dampening will increase as the corrupted keeps killing non combatants. If the bounty hunter system doesn't stop the corrupted player before the corrupted player kills a lot of non combatants, then the stat dampening appears to be intended to cause a hard stop.
There are no server types for this game.
No. They have not planned for pve and pvp servers. It is a PVX game.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't use facts that the developers have given us, you should use it if there is a miss interpretation or someone missed something. But using that information to "dismiss" an opinion about a system in the game just feels weird and won't start a healthy discussion between two parties. Saying "well the developers don't see that as meaningful, and so that's why." Isn't a argument, no matter how much you show evidence of them saying it. And that's because it's a subjective view that some may not agree with. And you have to use your own subjective view to try and get them to understand why you agree with the developers. Well that to me just means that there won't be a lot of bounty hunters. They won't be able to kill corrupted players before a random player, and there for no rewards, which means no reason to be a bounty hunter.
I think that the bounty hunter system seems really cool and interesting, I just want it to be meaningful and rewarding to do as job in the game.
You did say not to quote developers though. It was: "When you respond to the OP dont do it by trying to quote the developers". Quoting the developers is useful for talking about what is actually being created and solutions or getting people on track with where the game is rather than every random thing that someone can dream up.
However, it does look like your arguing about something else having to do with promoting healthy discussions and dealing with dismissive comments. All I tried to do was point out that meaningful PvP does refer to a specific group of systems being placed in the game to stimulate meaningful conflict.
It would be nice for the bounty hunters if there were plenty of targets. But it does look like the corruption system may keep the number of corrupted pretty low. On the other hand, I would bet that as the game ages a few years and beyond, the number of corrupted would grow quite a bit in spite of the system. If I am right, bounty hunting may become more fun as time goes on.
And all your other responses I have nothing to say about xD Totally agree