False Prophet wrote: » Like someone already mentioned, PKing is only economically viable in zones with rare resources. I can't think of anything I could do to cheese the system but I can say that the bounty hunters don't really bother me. If corrupt players do drop equipment on death then i'll just wear a spare set I don't really need.
Dygz wrote: » In my experience, that's not really a viable solution from the PvEer perspective. PvPer's tend to think it's the perfect solution, though.
Gimlog wrote: » @Paranoyd "The other 9 simply stand guard, debuff, block retreats, etc " This sentence show that you didn't understand the system... If you have to block , it means that the victim fight back and you will be flagged purple and will not suffer any penalties for the kill. If you debuff the victim or buff your Allie , you are participating in the battle so you'll get corruption for the kill... And I hope that a group of 10 , murdering 10 others player , that each of them get as much corruption as if they did murder 10 player by them self ,to demotivate group murders.
ThexBlackxKnight wrote: » Dygz wrote: » In my experience, that's not really a viable solution from the PvEer perspective. PvPer's tend to think it's the perfect solution, though. Good thing since Ashes is a open world "pvp" game , its not too concern about the "pve'ers" perspective about wanting restrict pvp in the game. Plenty of other mmorpgs that cater to those players.
Dygz wrote: » ThexBlackxKnight wrote: » Dygz wrote: » In my experience, that's not really a viable solution from the PvEer perspective. PvPer's tend to think it's the perfect solution, though. Good thing since Ashes is a open world "pvp" game , its not too concern about the "pve'ers" perspective about wanting restrict pvp in the game. Plenty of other mmorpgs that cater to those players. Ashes is an open world PvX game. Corruption is intended to restrict non-consensual PvP quite a bit. And the battlegrounds PvP combat has PvE objectives. Ashes caters to both PvP and PvE. We aren't now quite as naive as we were when UO launched. But UO was a gank box. And the devs were OK with that.
Dygz wrote: » Grouping with others for protection is a PvPer thing. Just promotes more PvP. PvEers tend not to be into that and just won't play. Which is fine. PvEers will either like it or they won't. And, if they don't, then we see if there's a sufficient number of players to sustain the game for more than 3 years. It's not really that big of a deal.
Dygz wrote: » I don't have it wrong. You have it wrong. Neither of us know the numbers. The game they are making is a PvX game. They have said that the game is made for just crafters as well as for PvPers. There is a demand for a PvX game. That much is true. There is a huge demand for an open-world PvP-centric game - but there's never enough support for such game to last long...hence why New World became a PvX game rather than remaining a PvP-centric game.
Dygz wrote: » I really don't know. Some of that will be how many servers/worlds they have running. At this point it's how much Steven is able to support financially. No telling what that will be at launch. PvPers think this issue is about who wins and loses the battle. More PvP works great as a solution for them. PvEers really don't want there to be a PvP battle around them in the first place. Which is why they tend to prefer for there to be PvE servers.
Vhaeyne wrote: » I am hoping that Ashes teaches these PvE only players that PvX is something worth playing.
Azherae wrote: » I'm actually really interested in how that would happen. How does one convince a PvE player that PvX is worth playing? I come from fighting games, where the characters are (for the most part, recently) equal, and all that's needed is practice and knowledge. But those games have 'matchmaking'. People of similar skill (or at least winrates) get matched against each other so they can feel something other than 'crushing misery at constantly being stomped on'. MMOs don't offer this. The person most likely to PvP you in any given situation is almost always the equivalent of a much better player at the content type. If you don't spend 'enough time training to be good in PvP', you just always lose, or travel in a group. But do PvP players really lose a 3v1 against less skilled players and internally go "That was my fault, good fight you three guys, I'll train more and come try this 3v1 again sometime."? Cause people in fighting games don't do that more than 1% of the time and those games are 1v1 practically at all times. The salt is real. I'm not saying the game should make things easier for people who don't want to PvP, they can do that themselves, I'm only asking about what benefit it offers, as an experience, to someone who doesn't want their game time to be focused around training their PvP skills. If Player A trains for 100 hours and Player B can stand up to them after training for 10... isn't that moreso annoying for Player A?
Azherae wrote: » I play BDO. So um... you're right in a different sense. It's not half of your HP, it's all of it. "Don't get CC'ed."