I'll be devil's advocate and say, why should Corrupted Players have a safe haven? No-one else will have a safe haven. Not greens, not purples, not citizens and not raiders. Of course, you can't be harmed when at your market stall or in your freehold but your freehold can be destroyed for a period after a siege. There are exceptions to the rules which I stated, but, the rules are to prevent murder rampages.
My apologies.
I'm looking at a literal translation of the text, so I may have come across as more offensive than what you all intended.
At least I don't see the need for RED people to have such a system.
But the fact that people here don't raise the idea eliminates even the "possibility" of having a positive effect.
Often, what we need is something seemingly useless.
Instead of arguing about whether something is meaningful or meaningless, think about whether it would be fun to have it, and you will understand
If you only think about necessity, games are not necessarily necessary in life.
There will be no fast travel (Except family TP and Scientific Node). All of the corrupted players would be congregated around a safe haven. It wouldn't remain secret for very long. All Bounty Hunters would gravitate to one region and know where the safe haven is.
Corrupted Players already get reduced Corrupted State Timers for being part of a Military Node. I do not think they need to switch from a Military Node to a Secret Node.
I do my best, but, my knowledge may not be current. Changes happen and I don't watch all interviews. Furthermore, what I do understand and relate remains subject to change.
I might be wrong, but I don't think there will be towns outside of the developable nodes anyways? If there are I feel like that's going to take away from the whole node system a bit, which is a huge part of ashes, considering people could just go to these random towns instead of the player established nodes.
I think it's fair to say that the node system is here to stay (Huzzah!) and any talk of nodes outside the 103 node system (except the 3 nodes per castle) is not coming from Intrepid.
What they are offering is the idea of having a town where corrupted players can buy, sell and craft things and bank without being attacked by guards, but with guards who would would attack anyone not corrupted.
Black Desert and ArcheAge, both had this. ESO sort of did too, but ESO was pve crime and a different style. I remember this being a thing in other games too, though I can’t remember which.
In most cases the towns were in remote, not super desirable locations. The system of having an “outlaw” town or area worked really well in those games by adding to the game content and play options in a meaningful way.
What they are offering is the idea of having a town where corrupted players can buy, sell and craft things and bank without being attacked by guards, but with guards who would would attack anyone not corrupted.
It's not that we don't understand the suggestion, it's just that it's already been shot down plenty times, and wouldn't really work with the whole purpose of the Corruption system.
Instead of arguing about whether something is meaningful or meaningless, think about whether it would be fun to have it, and you will understand
If you only think about necessity, games are not necessarily necessary in life.
Will it be more fun for the PK'ers? Yes.
Will it be more fun for the people that are then subject to higher levels of PK activity because of this? No.
The point to PvP in Ashes is for it to happen in caravans, sieges, guild or node wars, and the arena. PvP where corruption is involved is not the focus, which is why it is the only PvP that has a penalty associated with it.
It has that penalty because it is not fun for everyone involved, and by its nature, is not opt in for all involved. All other forms of PvP - the ones that dont have corruption as a potential outcome - are ipt in for both sides.
This is why corruption has no upside, and wont have an upside.
Even if you look at it from a pure *fun* perspective, the most fun for everyone (which is what matters, not what is fun for one) is for PvP in these opt in situations to be encouraged, and corruption based PvP to be discouraged.
Oh!
I'm genuinely afraid of PKers because I want to work on my crafting, aside from when the game is first released.
However, when I saw this thread, I thought to myself,"Oh, so that's one way to have fun".
At that time, I was thinking as if I were a PKer, but in other words, I forgot my original feeling of fearing it.
If you think about it, as long as harming non-combatants is not encouraged in terms of current game design, it might not be a good idea to have a wealth of content available for it and make it seem appealing.
Thank you!
As someone who often thinks too sensibly, this has given me another level of deep thought about this discussion
3
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yes, I believe there should be some safe havens to a certain degree
If not a town then perhaps the odd cave, or under a bridge whereby they are just off the radar while inside only.
Yes, I believe there should be some safe havens to a certain degree
If not a town then perhaps the odd cave, or under a bridge whereby they are just off the radar while inside only.
There shouldn't be a safe haven, as it makes no sense that only corrupt players have a safe haven.
As to being taken off the radar, all you need to do that is kill a few mobs until you lose all your corruption. I don't think anything more than that is needed.
3
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Corruption is a deterrent. Adding any kind of reward system (including belonging to a group that joins together) is the opposite of a deterrent and will result in more corrupted players rather than less.
2
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My understanding is that the karma mechanics do not have any detail to measure the impact at the moment.
What I can say from the L2 mechanics was that it could take upwards of 30-90min of intense pve mob killing to burn off the karma from a pk and exponentially longer if you did multiple pks.
If you chose some of the best pve xp places to burn off your karma you had to be on high alert and it would be burned off quickly.
Whereas, if you chose a lesser known place to burn off the karma, then could relax a little more and the same amount would take considerably longer to do given the xp return but there was the added risk in exposure getting there.
For the fortunate clan`s that owned a clan hall, there was fast travel that provided instant return, so risk was somewhat lower.
Further, L2 had a powerful sword of Zakari (not sure of spelling or name after all this time), when it fell on the map, at random intervals weeks apart, there was a sever wide announcement and everyone with an ounce of desire to exponentially gain xp for the time they could hold onto the sword would flock to get it.. people would pk to get it and whoever held the sword was a marked person on the map until dropped. Being killed by another player or mob would drop the sword and there was a good chance the person that did the kill could take over the sword but also a chance it would disappear again and not be about for a week or three.
Whilst in possession of the sword you could kill 3-4x more powerfully that usual and power level, individual or small teams would come in waves trying to take you out. This is how I expect being marked on the map might be for those that decide to pk.
So without fast travel, then I see a real need to provide some kind of intermittent refuge or equivalent or few will engage or pk`ing.
Hmmm ......
Maybe I'm misunderstanding because I'm reading a translated version of the text.
Is anyone else under the misconception that the person who created this thread is expressing an opinion specific to a "system for RED players to survive"?
To me, I think he's saying that it would be interesting if the game system had the scope of roleplaying that RED organizes, assuming you're willing to accept risks such as "being targeted by bounty hunters" ......
Of course, this is a proposal for a specification that is not currently envisioned, so I can understand your confusion, but I don't think it's something you should reject to that extent.
Am I simply mistaken?
You're on point. That is mainly what I am trying to point out with my post. You will have those that go rd, and at the same time have just about everything against them. This is a game, as one person has said to have fun, so why not add more layers to the PKer system. You will have players that will always stay green, and you will have players that want to say red. It's what I found out while playing UO that had a system like this.
There the reds ran with greys, and blues scouted the roads ahead of them. If a PKer hunting party was close, they would warn the reds, and they popped away. With no way of using magic to escape, I figured why not have the temp outlaw camps. Sure we will have the node system, but the idea of the outlaw camp would be outside of the node system and used as a temp place to hold up. If found out, then it would be open to being attacked and taken out. Again this is just an idea, not one to reward PKers, just to add to the system of the corrupted.
Yes, I believe there should be some safe havens to a certain degree
If not a town then perhaps the odd cave, or under a bridge whereby they are just off the radar while inside only.
There shouldn't be a safe haven, as it makes no sense that only corrupt players have a safe haven.
As to being taken off the radar, all you need to do that is kill a few mobs until you lose all your corruption. I don't think anything more than that is needed.
You're missing the point. Safe haven as in a place they can buy and sell, and craft. But as in they can't be attacked by other players that hunt them down.
No way mate. Corrupted should not be allowed to buy and sell. The reason is because you can't get Gold from PvP Kills and everyone will go corrupted, gank the resources, gank the hunting certificates and gank the greens to become very wealthy. You want to buy and sell then attack Caravans.
You're missing the point. Safe haven as in a place they can buy and sell, and craft. But as in they can't be attacked by other players that hunt them down.
You're missing the point, corrupt players shouldn't be able to participate in the economy until they have worked off their corruption.
Again, in order to gain corruption, you have to kill a player that doesn't fight back. Gaining corruption is 100% optional, even if you are all about the PK lifestyle. If you simply stop attacking players that don't fight back, you will never gain corruption.
2
Options
VolgaireMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I felt like being corrupted was supposed to put you on edge, if you like the thrill of killing players then be prepared to be severly punished and isolated for it, corrupted players are not allies so giving them a location to form a community would incentivize becoming a corrupted player.
They can't sell, buy or do any of the community stuff precisely because they are killers, they made the choice to ruin someones day (probably) and now they have to pay up for it by being isolated from the entire community.
I say this but the idea of being on the run is really appealing and I really want to try it at some point.
I felt like being corrupted was supposed to put you on edge, if you like the thrill of killing players then be prepared to be severly punished and isolated for it, corrupted players are not allies so giving them a location to form a community would incentivize becoming a corrupted player.
They can't sell, buy or do any of the community stuff precisely because they are killers, they made the choice to ruin someones day (probably) and now they have to pay up for it by being isolated from the entire community.
I say this but the idea of being on the run is really appealing and I really want to try it at some point.
Which is exactly why it's discouraged, but allowed!
I don't think it would work in practice. No one wants to gimp their own character just so they can live with others who might kill them and drop their items. Maybe some people would do it for RP purposes, but it makes no practical sense.
The corruption system, as some of you are describing it, is terrible. The point of games is to have fun. The corruption system “punishes” players by putting highly aggressive players into a very high risk-reward situation. That doesn’t mean that being “corrupt” shouldn’t also be fun. Games shouldn’t have systems that make players not want to play the game at all.
Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior.
I understand that some people here are terrified of getting randomly pk’d, but quite frankly there are always those players who enjoy being so toxic in an MMO that those players deserve to have a train other people pk them on site, and I’m glad this game mechanic exists where players can handle the worst people of the community interactively through “aggressive negotiations”.
Okay, if you want to be insulting to the community with offensive speech I’ll reply in kind. You are clearly ignorant about this game. Go read a wiki or something. You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about or what this game is about.
Finally I’d like to point out that some of the posters here act like disagreeing with “what Steven said” is some sort of sin. This is a discussion forum, and I’m pretty sure he wants to hear our opinions...especially when they don’t agree with his own.
Oh we frequently call out Steven when we disagree. Family teleportation is stupid, it contradicts some of the core values that make this game stand out from other MMOs. We generally think calling a class “tank” is also dumb. We disagree a lot. It’s clear this game isn’t for you since you want consequence-free PKing. I’m sorry that there aren’t many games like that for you to play, because they generally fail pretty quickly. I’m sure that’s not a coincidence.
Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior.
PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason.
I think the idea is unwarranted, unfair, and at it's core a farce of an idea. One it's against the game developers vision for their to be a "safe" place for anyone. Everyone is bound by the rules of the world. A "smugglers coves" and towns don't exist in the system because it's organized crime. Like others have said feel free to grow and benefit from that kind of area, but I think you'll find it more trouble than it's worth and a lot of work. 2. If you ask for a safe haven from the law why can't other players ask for safe haven from pkers?
3. Pk refers to player killers. That's pvpers, people after resources, and people ganking. PVP'ers like fair consenual combat meaning both players are flagging up and on equal ground. People who kill for resources kill for risk vs reward. Gankers kill because they can take advantage of another players circumstances. The corruption system doesn't punish pvpers. Somewhat punishes those who kill over stuff...but really punishes the "toxic" gankers. What your suggesting allows gankers to escape punishment. Lowering their risk for the possible reward. If you want to pvp there will be pvp times, places, and people who want to pvp. If you are a ganker trying to take advantage of someone else who isn't as geared, ready, or has a moral compass the law punishes gankers. It helps create a more positive community for newer players and a safer environment for those who aren't as assertive or are just bad pvpers, which will hopefully increase the longevity of the community. In WoW there was a plague that infested the community that the game was unprepared for. Players made camps and colonies that didn't exist. If that's what you want. Create it, but do not expect the community or game developers to get behind a significant design shift, considering the consequences. In this game, to fight back you have to flag up. If you attack someone who is not flagged you are the bad guy and they are the victim. By this games definition if you kill someone who doesn't flag then you are toxic in the eyes of the other player, because they do not wish to participate in pvp. You might retort, well it's part of the game and they should except it. By staying in the game they are...now you need to accept the corruption.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Toxic gameplay, which PKing is, will make people not want to play the game. So corruption discourages that behavior.
PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason.
As a way to play a game, it's toxic. If you do it now and then (as AoC's corruption system will probably restrict how often you can get away with it) it is fine. If you play a game just to attack people who aren't interested in PvP or have no chance in a fight, you are a toxic player. Anyone who wants to play a game who removes that restriction is someone who wants to engage in toxic play, and it's no surprise those kinds of games don't last.
Choices matter and should. That is why Corruption exists...you choose to PK , so you pay a penalty for doing so. I do not think there should be safe havens/towns for PKers. In a way that would negate Bounty hunters quite a bit.
No there should not be any official cities for Corrupted players. Corruption is a deterrent, and mitigating its consequences reduces its effectiveness as such.
Players can create their own outlaw towns using freeholds, and I would recommend doing so if you really want a safe area to retreat to.
Comments
I'm looking at a literal translation of the text, so I may have come across as more offensive than what you all intended.
At least I don't see the need for RED people to have such a system.
But the fact that people here don't raise the idea eliminates even the "possibility" of having a positive effect.
Often, what we need is something seemingly useless.
Instead of arguing about whether something is meaningful or meaningless, think about whether it would be fun to have it, and you will understand
If you only think about necessity, games are not necessarily necessary in life.
Corrupted Players already get reduced Corrupted State Timers for being part of a Military Node. I do not think they need to switch from a Military Node to a Secret Node.
That narrative sounds constructive, even through translation software!
Thanks for the response
Thanks for your input, all the best. Neu.
I think it's fair to say that the node system is here to stay (Huzzah!) and any talk of nodes outside the 103 node system (except the 3 nodes per castle) is not coming from Intrepid.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Nodes
https://ashes101.com/nodes
Black Desert and ArcheAge, both had this. ESO sort of did too, but ESO was pve crime and a different style. I remember this being a thing in other games too, though I can’t remember which.
In most cases the towns were in remote, not super desirable locations. The system of having an “outlaw” town or area worked really well in those games by adding to the game content and play options in a meaningful way.
It's not that we don't understand the suggestion, it's just that it's already been shot down plenty times, and wouldn't really work with the whole purpose of the Corruption system.
Will it be more fun for the people that are then subject to higher levels of PK activity because of this? No.
The point to PvP in Ashes is for it to happen in caravans, sieges, guild or node wars, and the arena. PvP where corruption is involved is not the focus, which is why it is the only PvP that has a penalty associated with it.
It has that penalty because it is not fun for everyone involved, and by its nature, is not opt in for all involved. All other forms of PvP - the ones that dont have corruption as a potential outcome - are ipt in for both sides.
This is why corruption has no upside, and wont have an upside.
Even if you look at it from a pure *fun* perspective, the most fun for everyone (which is what matters, not what is fun for one) is for PvP in these opt in situations to be encouraged, and corruption based PvP to be discouraged.
Oh!
I'm genuinely afraid of PKers because I want to work on my crafting, aside from when the game is first released.
However, when I saw this thread, I thought to myself,"Oh, so that's one way to have fun".
At that time, I was thinking as if I were a PKer, but in other words, I forgot my original feeling of fearing it.
If you think about it, as long as harming non-combatants is not encouraged in terms of current game design, it might not be a good idea to have a wealth of content available for it and make it seem appealing.
Thank you!
As someone who often thinks too sensibly, this has given me another level of deep thought about this discussion
Yes, I believe there should be some safe havens to a certain degree
If not a town then perhaps the odd cave, or under a bridge whereby they are just off the radar while inside only.
There shouldn't be a safe haven, as it makes no sense that only corrupt players have a safe haven.
As to being taken off the radar, all you need to do that is kill a few mobs until you lose all your corruption. I don't think anything more than that is needed.
What I can say from the L2 mechanics was that it could take upwards of 30-90min of intense pve mob killing to burn off the karma from a pk and exponentially longer if you did multiple pks.
If you chose some of the best pve xp places to burn off your karma you had to be on high alert and it would be burned off quickly.
Whereas, if you chose a lesser known place to burn off the karma, then could relax a little more and the same amount would take considerably longer to do given the xp return but there was the added risk in exposure getting there.
For the fortunate clan`s that owned a clan hall, there was fast travel that provided instant return, so risk was somewhat lower.
Further, L2 had a powerful sword of Zakari (not sure of spelling or name after all this time), when it fell on the map, at random intervals weeks apart, there was a sever wide announcement and everyone with an ounce of desire to exponentially gain xp for the time they could hold onto the sword would flock to get it.. people would pk to get it and whoever held the sword was a marked person on the map until dropped. Being killed by another player or mob would drop the sword and there was a good chance the person that did the kill could take over the sword but also a chance it would disappear again and not be about for a week or three.
Whilst in possession of the sword you could kill 3-4x more powerfully that usual and power level, individual or small teams would come in waves trying to take you out. This is how I expect being marked on the map might be for those that decide to pk.
So without fast travel, then I see a real need to provide some kind of intermittent refuge or equivalent or few will engage or pk`ing.
In L2, there was a solid, specific reason to kill that one player in order to gain advantage, and every player on the game saw it on the map.
In Ashes, only bounty hunters will see it, and there is nothing specific or unique about any specific corrupt player.
You're on point. That is mainly what I am trying to point out with my post. You will have those that go rd, and at the same time have just about everything against them. This is a game, as one person has said to have fun, so why not add more layers to the PKer system. You will have players that will always stay green, and you will have players that want to say red. It's what I found out while playing UO that had a system like this.
There the reds ran with greys, and blues scouted the roads ahead of them. If a PKer hunting party was close, they would warn the reds, and they popped away. With no way of using magic to escape, I figured why not have the temp outlaw camps. Sure we will have the node system, but the idea of the outlaw camp would be outside of the node system and used as a temp place to hold up. If found out, then it would be open to being attacked and taken out. Again this is just an idea, not one to reward PKers, just to add to the system of the corrupted.
You're missing the point. Safe haven as in a place they can buy and sell, and craft. But as in they can't be attacked by other players that hunt them down.
Again, in order to gain corruption, you have to kill a player that doesn't fight back. Gaining corruption is 100% optional, even if you are all about the PK lifestyle. If you simply stop attacking players that don't fight back, you will never gain corruption.
They can't sell, buy or do any of the community stuff precisely because they are killers, they made the choice to ruin someones day (probably) and now they have to pay up for it by being isolated from the entire community.
I say this but the idea of being on the run is really appealing and I really want to try it at some point.
Which is exactly why it's discouraged, but allowed!
Okay, if you want to be insulting to the community with offensive speech I’ll reply in kind. You are clearly ignorant about this game. Go read a wiki or something. You don’t seem to know what you’re talking about or what this game is about.
Oh we frequently call out Steven when we disagree. Family teleportation is stupid, it contradicts some of the core values that make this game stand out from other MMOs. We generally think calling a class “tank” is also dumb. We disagree a lot. It’s clear this game isn’t for you since you want consequence-free PKing. I’m sorry that there aren’t many games like that for you to play, because they generally fail pretty quickly. I’m sure that’s not a coincidence.
Precisely!
PKing isn't toxic. It's repeatedly PKing for no reason other than to grief someone that is toxic. The corruption system is there to make us consider whether it's worth it to PK someone rather than just PKing everyone for no reason.
3. Pk refers to player killers. That's pvpers, people after resources, and people ganking. PVP'ers like fair consenual combat meaning both players are flagging up and on equal ground. People who kill for resources kill for risk vs reward. Gankers kill because they can take advantage of another players circumstances. The corruption system doesn't punish pvpers. Somewhat punishes those who kill over stuff...but really punishes the "toxic" gankers. What your suggesting allows gankers to escape punishment. Lowering their risk for the possible reward. If you want to pvp there will be pvp times, places, and people who want to pvp. If you are a ganker trying to take advantage of someone else who isn't as geared, ready, or has a moral compass the law punishes gankers. It helps create a more positive community for newer players and a safer environment for those who aren't as assertive or are just bad pvpers, which will hopefully increase the longevity of the community. In WoW there was a plague that infested the community that the game was unprepared for. Players made camps and colonies that didn't exist. If that's what you want. Create it, but do not expect the community or game developers to get behind a significant design shift, considering the consequences. In this game, to fight back you have to flag up. If you attack someone who is not flagged you are the bad guy and they are the victim. By this games definition if you kill someone who doesn't flag then you are toxic in the eyes of the other player, because they do not wish to participate in pvp. You might retort, well it's part of the game and they should except it. By staying in the game they are...now you need to accept the corruption.
As a way to play a game, it's toxic. If you do it now and then (as AoC's corruption system will probably restrict how often you can get away with it) it is fine. If you play a game just to attack people who aren't interested in PvP or have no chance in a fight, you are a toxic player. Anyone who wants to play a game who removes that restriction is someone who wants to engage in toxic play, and it's no surprise those kinds of games don't last.
Players can create their own outlaw towns using freeholds, and I would recommend doing so if you really want a safe area to retreat to.