akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I feel for a few who were saying they were griefed while testing... but I seriously think that is a good thing as it is just testing mechanic and by no means a representation of how the game will end up balancing out to be.
Early on in L2 beta there was similar, but after a few months, there were not so many of that type of player around. Thereafter once clans and alliances built, one had to take much greater care of their reputation in the world.. step out of line and bring trouble to your guild or even alliance.. someone steps out of line with you, then perhaps they end up with a world of pain from your guild and/or alliance. Then that sorts players out pretty fast.. solo players who grief find it hardest.. and guild members who step out of line are quickly finding a new guild. Key is community building.. once that starts to establish, the rule of acceptable game play start to define. and every server will have different boundaries and I imagine, even nodes may end up with variance.
So for those concerned, I think reserve judgement.. your community will create the civilization through which a pecking order will establish.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Those people are in the Target Audience.
The devs expect such people to figure out they are OK with the gameplay once they actually play.
You think the people who dislike core systems of the game are in the "Target Audience"...
Please explain this more.
Again, here you are contemplating a different question than who is the target audience.
But, in this case...
Most people who play MMORPGs play on separate PvE servers.
The devs know this. Those players are still their target audience.
They hope to be able to show them that Ashes will still be fun for them to play due to Corruption greatly deterring ganking.
Same for the hardcore PvP players who complain that Corruption is too harsh.
The devs hope to capture those people as well, by showing that Ashes will still have lots of fun PvP - despite the Corruption mechanic.
Specifically, Leth clarifies the intent to wait to see if Corruption will deter ganking to their satisfaction.
Who is the target audience is different than who will actually play.
And we won't really know who will actually play until we get to Beta 2 and see how well the designs are implemented.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I fail to see how pointing out the hazards of gathering to someone else is 'victimizing myself'.
If you fight back against a ganker and lose, you lose less than if you don't fight back.
It's a negative penalty to try and encourage pvp. (And I am not arguing for or against it.)
It amounts to "playing the victim". It's a biased negative spin.
The neutral explanation is that non-combatants who die in PvP combat receive the normal death penalty.
It's the same "punishment" they receive for dying to a mob.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty if they die in PvP combat.
That is positive incentive to flag as combatant.
Non-combatants are not punished for not flagging as a combatant.
Those people are in the Target Audience.
The devs expect such people to figure out they are OK with the gameplay once they actually play.
You think the people who dislike core systems of the game are in the "Target Audience"...
Please explain this more.
Again, here you are contemplating a different question than who is the target audience.
But, in this case...
Most people who play MMORPGs play on separate PvE servers.
The devs know this. Those players are still their target audience.
They hope to be able to show them that Ashes will still be fun for them to play due to Corruption greatly deterring ganking.
Same for the hardcore PvP players who complain that Corruption is too harsh.
The devs hope to capture those people as well, by showing that Ashes will still have lots of fun PvP - despite the Corruption mechanic.
The target audience is different than who will actually play.
And we won't really know who will actually play until we get to Beta 2 and see how well the designs are implemented.
The question was who is the target audience and you are answering with, "Anyone might end up playing the game because of a feature they like despite the features they dislike."
Just because someone plays the game for x does not mean they were a target audience. They are going to make feature for crafting and fishing, but does that mean that the game is targeting players who only play crafting sims and fishing sims?
The multiple features of the game add up and refine the targeted player base. In Ashes of Creation's case you will need to at least be able to deal with the open world pvp, corruption system, open world dungeons, the node system, the class combination system, the races, and the death penalty system.
These I believe are the biggest contributors to figuring out if a player is within the targeted audience. If A player finds a majority of these as "good" then I believe that is enough to say they were the target audience.
Ok I'm done here, I said target audience way too many times.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No. I am answering that the devs have pretty much all MMORPG players as their target audience.
And that all playstyles will have to compromise.
"If you want to be a Crafter and you are really into crafting goods for other people and selling them on the market place, you can do that. You don't have to participate in any of the other systems if you don't want to. There's a role for almost every style of player."
--- Jeffrey
"With Ashes of Creation, we've diversified the progression paths so there are many different ways forward. You don't just have to commit to an Adventuring class. You can have the advancement in the Artisan tree, that's about gathering, processing and crafting. You can build a Freehold with many different agencies of infrastructure in order to process those goods. You can advance in the economy, being able to take stock in Guilds and see their performance on a world boss level or in dungeons. You can become a citizen and build out the cities, advancing in the Religious system, advancing in the societies like the Thieve's Guild or Scholar's Academy. You can actually rise through the ranks of city government and dictate which buildings get built in theses nodes, which offer unique services to the players. It's really all about giving players the ability to focus on what direction interests them the most and making sure that direction always contributes in some way to the development of the world."
--- Steven
"One of the really exciting parts of it is, players are all different, communities are all different...
Each server is going to have a different feel to it. You're going to be able to look and check out what happened on that server when you're making a decision about which server to go to. And you can see what the character (of that server) is, what kinds of players are playing on that server, what things they've done, what things they've unlocked and make those decisions based on that. What communities do I fit best?"
--- Jeffrey
MMORPG players who love fishing are in the target audience for Ashes.
And the devs expect that people who only love fishing should be able to have fun in Ashes.
I will concede that I mean the target audience is all MMORPG players - and people who only like to play FIFA soccer are not in the target audience, sure.
I fail to see how pointing out the hazards of gathering to someone else is 'victimizing myself'.
If you fight back against a ganker and lose, you lose less than if you don't fight back.
It's a negative penalty to try and encourage pvp. (And I am not arguing for or against it.)
It amounts to "playing the victim". It's a biased negative spin.
The neutral explanation is that non-combatants who die in PvP combat receive the normal death penalty.
It's the same "punishment" they receive for dying to a mob.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty if they die in PvP combat.
That is positive incentive to flag as combatant.
Non-combatants are not punished for not flagging as a combatant.
I fail to see how pointing out the hazards of gathering to someone else is 'victimizing myself'.
If you fight back against a ganker and lose, you lose less than if you don't fight back.
It's a negative penalty to try and encourage pvp. (And I am not arguing for or against it.)
It amounts to "playing the victim". It's a biased negative spin.
The neutral explanation is that non-combatants who die in PvP combat receive the normal death penalty.
It's the same "punishment" they receive for dying to a mob.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty if they die in PvP combat.
That is positive incentive to flag as combatant.
Non-combatants are not punished for not flagging as a combatant.
I think you all are getting a false impression of what I am saying when it's more so we are speaking a different language. Apologies for the confusion as I tend to forget that people who are not behavioral scientists may have a different understanding of the word punishment and negative.
"Negative reinforcement encourages specific behaviors by removing or avoiding negative consequences or stimuli." (Having a lower resource loss on death.)
"Negative Punishment is when something is removed to decrease the likelihood of a behavior." (Losing resources in general is a 'negative punishment.')
"Positive reinforcement is when something is added to increase the likelihood of a behavior." (Getting resources by killing another player or mob.)
"Positive Punishment is when something is added to decrease the likelihood of a behavior." (Corruption penalty)
Whether you all want to dispute the emotional meaning. The fact is you have more negative punishment if you do not engage in pvp than if you did. You are negatively renforced to play pvp. This is because for whatever reason Intrepid doesn't.t think the positive renforcement of getting your opponents stuff is enough. For some reason... But in either case it is factually correct to say you are punished more for not commiting to pvp than if you did.
If you die to a mob it's 100 percent on you. You shouldn't have been around the higher level mob. You wouldn't have pulled so many. Etc. You can learn to recalibrate your behavior. Losing the most rewards for a death in a situation you have control over makes sense.
You have way less control over who you encounter in open world pvp. They are not equivalent situations because in the mob case I chose to fight the mob or be in the mobs presence. Since you like the word so much. Mob deaths are consensual. Why do I lose the same amount of materials when I have less agency in 'avoiding the pvp'? It's because Intrepid wants to encourage pvp.
Intrepid literally builds systems around encouraging PvP, they have done very little to encourage people who 'don't want to get ganked'. They only promise the murder hobos and occasional gankers will be positively punished. It's a start, but it is also well known information. If a PvE focused person is requesting a server it is probably a sign they don't think it is enough.
Given Intrepid has not done anything further to address the anti-ganking paradigm than is already known, it's foolish to go to someone requesting a server 'it wont't be that bad' when the developer clearly biases systems towards pvp.
I didn't realize it was controversial to say that.
Idk if you are aware of this, but Intrepid did not really "design" the corruption system to be any specific way. They took the proven system from Lineage 2 and tweaked it to be slightly more forgiving.
I want to stress that the number one reason we have the corruption system is because Steven loves Lineage 2. His years living with the system and understanding what is good about it is why we have the system. It is also why there is good reason to believe it will work.
I only bring this up because your post reads like you think the corruption system is some new untested concept like the node system. If you already understand this than disregard my post.
Idk if you are aware of this, but Intrepid did not really "design" the corruption system to be any specific way. They took the proven system from Lineage 2 and tweaked it to be slightly more forgiving.
I want to stress that the number one reason we have the corruption system is because Steven loves Lineage 2. His years living with the system and understanding what is good about it is why we have the system. It is also why there is good reason to believe it will work.
I only bring this up because your post reads like you think the corruption system is some new untested concept like the node system. If you already understand this than disregard my post.
I am aware of the L2 connect. When a game designer takes systems from another game if they are /good/ they examine every aspect of the thing they are taking relative to their own game systems. I assume Intrepid are good game designers at the moment so my analysis comes from the place of 'assuming they did a full analysis of the model and its positive and negative renforcements and punishments relative to player psychology.' Probably not Steven himself but the people he hired and then threw the best model at them to chew on.
I will repeat I am not arguing for or against corruptions current design. It doesn't /bother/ me. But you and I are much more the target audience than someone requesting PvE servers.
Idk if you are aware of this, but Intrepid did not really "design" the corruption system to be any specific way. They took the proven system from Lineage 2 and tweaked it to be slightly more forgiving.
I want to stress that the number one reason we have the corruption system is because Steven loves Lineage 2. His years living with the system and understanding what is good about it is why we have the system. It is also why there is good reason to believe it will work.
I only bring this up because your post reads like you think the corruption system is some new untested concept like the node system. If you already understand this than disregard my post.
I am aware of the L2 connect. When a game designer takes systems from another game if they are /good/ they examine every aspect of the thing they are taking relative to their own game systems. I assume Intrepid are good game designers at the moment so my analysis comes from the place of 'assuming they did a full analysis of the model and its positive and negative renforcements and punishments relative to player psychology.' Probably not Steven himself but the people he hired and then threw the best model at them to chew on.
I will repeat I am not arguing for or against corruptions current design. It doesn't /bother/ me. But you and I are much more the target audience than someone requesting PvE servers.
Yeah,
I would say that of someone wants a PvE server in any form. That "may" be a good litmus test to see if they are in the target audience.
I think you can only get so upset getting killed by crocodiles while swimming with crocodiles.
Intrepid doesn't need to address it right now. We know in general what's going to be in the game. They've been telling us for years. The general framework is on the wiki. The systems haven't been tested yet, they're not even in the game. When they are, they'll be tweaked and tuned to get the desired results of the devs, which is what I talk about. Because that's all we have.
People that come to the forums and try to portray the game as a 24/7 murder fest where you cant even chop a tree, that's a bit of hysteria. Because we know that's not what Steven wants. We also know there will be no pve servers.
It will all be tested in an NDA free series of alphas and betas. Everyone will be able to see.
It's a spectrum. I dislike the idea of litmus tests at that stage of the conversation. If you want a PvE server you are definitely way further out on the spectrum than most people. But hey maybe 'this one thing' (whether that be mount breeding, exploration, etc) might still be a meaningful reward to that persons risk.
I'm more interested in asking people requesting PvE servers 'what about corruption would need to be modified to make you willing to take the risk anyway?' If they THEN go 'PvE server or bust I dont care about corruption'. Then I would say yes, you are not the target audience because you don't THINK in terms of risk v reward when prompted in any way.
(As a side note thanks for dealing with the person in question in the other thread. That was a good approach.)
I think you can only get so upset getting killed by crocodiles while swimming with crocodiles.
Intrepid doesn't need to address it right now. We know in general what's going to be in the game. They've been telling us for years. The general framework is on the wiki. The systems haven't been tested yet, they're not even in the game. When they are, they'll be tweaked and tuned to get the desired results of the devs, which is what I talk about. Because that's all we have.
People that come to the forums and try to portray the game as a 24/7 murder fest where you cant even chop a tree, that's a bit of hysteria. Because we know that's not what Steven wants. We also know there will be no pve servers.
It will all be tested in an NDA free series of alphas and betas. Everyone will be able to see.
When did I say it was all the game would be? I said IF it is that way then I have no interest in playing. Also to claim that what it will be now, regardless of any feedback that they get, is not actually a positive trait IMO.
The WIKI itself says that the exact specifics are up in the air so to claim it will be exactly as it is now is pretty disingenuous. Could easily decide to have pvp free zones.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
L2`s corruption was harsher than what AoC currently proposes and even much harsher at launch for quite some time, yet the vast majority of players did not participate in pvp much and were able to harmoniously play without fighting.. In own case, I think I did not commence pvp`ing for the first year or two into the game.. and it was not until getting closer to end game that I pvp`ed alot. PvE was easy, Pvp was frightfully hard to improve upon as it could be over so frightfully quickly when you were inexperienced.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Whether you all want to dispute the emotional meaning. The fact is you have more negative punishment if you do not engage in pvp than if you did. You are negatively reinforced to play pvp. This is because for whatever reason Intrepid doesn't.t think the positive renforcement of getting your opponents stuff is enough. For some reason... But in either case it is factually correct to say you are punished more for not commiting to pvp than if you did.
Whether you like it or not, that is patently false.
You get the normal death penalty for refusing to become a combatant and for punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
You get rewarded with half the normal death penalty for flagging as a combatant and not punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
That is a positive incentive for a "fair" PvP battle. "Fair" meaning two combatants as opposed to the PvPer being punished with Corruption.
Players are positively reinforced combatant PvP combat.
Getting your opponents' stuff is not positive reinforcement - especially not for PvEers who just want to be left alone. If someone ganks me, I couldn't care less about their stuff. But, if another player is going to mess with my character progression when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I can at least get some satisfaction by turning them red, thereby making their character progression more difficult than my own.
What should be said is that if you die in PvP while a non-combatant you get the normal death penalty and if you dies in PvP as a combatant you get half the normal death penalty.
Spinning it any other way is biased and misleading... and irresponsible.
If you die to a mob it's 100 percent on you. You shouldn't have been around the higher level mob. You wouldn't have pulled so many. Etc. You can learn to recalibrate your behavior. Losing the most rewards for a death in a situation you have control over makes sense.
If I die as a non-combatant, that is still 100% on me. I can flag as a combatant and get half the normal death penalty if I want to. But, if I want to punish my attacker with Corruption, I will have to settle for the normal death penalty.
That is 100% my choice.
You have way less control over who you encounter in open world pvp. They are not equivalent situations because in the mob case I chose to fight the mob or be in the mobs presence. Since you like the word so much. Mob deaths are consensual. Why do I lose the same amount of materials when I have less agency in 'avoiding the pvp'? It's because Intrepid wants to encourage pvp.
If Corruption works as intended... my choice to have my attacker contemplate the risk flagging red should be a significant enough of a deterrent that I rarely encounter players willing to become red.
Intrepid literally builds systems around encouraging PvP, they have done very little to encourage people who 'don't want to get ganked'. They only promise the murder hobos and occasional gankers will be positively punished. It's a start, but it is also well known information. If a PvE focused person is requesting a server it is probably a sign they don't think it is enough.
There is no adequate measure for "very little". The Corruption mechanic is expected to be sufficient - because it worked sufficiently in Lineage 2 and the Ashes version of Corruption is harsher on PKers than the Lineage 2 version.
The whole idea of these societies is that they are a mechanism for progression that do not have to rely on your level progression. These are different progression paths that players can participate in. If you don't want to leave a node in your gameplay experience and you want to find as much as you can do within that city, these offer those things. Now, some quests might take you outside of the city to you know hunt and pursue things, but you could also perfectly be a person that is a merchant and purchases them from other travelers instead of having to go do it yourself. We want to offer players a diverse method of progression; and these systems house those benefits.
– Steven Sharif
Given Intrepid has not done anything further to address the anti-ganking paradigm than is already known, it's foolish to go to someone requesting a server 'it won't be that bad' when the developer clearly biases systems towards pvp.
It's not foolish at all.
The responsible thing to do is fairly and neutrally explain the Corruption system and suggest the person concerned check to see if Corruption, as implemented, is satisfactory.
If it turns out to not be a sufficient deterrent, the people who find it insufficient simply won't play.
But, people who typically play on separate PvE-Only servers are still the target audience for the Ashes devs - very much so.
Whether you all want to dispute the emotional meaning. The fact is you have more negative punishment if you do not engage in pvp than if you did. You are negatively reinforced to play pvp. This is because for whatever reason Intrepid doesn't.t think the positive renforcement of getting your opponents stuff is enough. For some reason... But in either case it is factually correct to say you are punished more for not commiting to pvp than if you did.
Whether you like it or not, that is patently false.
You get the normal death penalty for refusing to become a combatant and for punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
You get rewarded with half the normal death penalty for flagging as a combatant and not punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
That is a positive incentive for a "fair" PvP battle. "Fair" meaning two combatants as opposed to the PvPer being punished with Corruption.
Players are positively reinforced combatant PvP combat.
Getting your opponents' stuff is not positive reinforcement - especially not for PvEers who just want to be left alone. If someone ganks me, I couldn't care less about their stuff. But, if another player is going to mess with my character progression when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I can at least get some satisfaction by turning them red, thereby making their character progression more difficult than my own.
What should be said is that if you die in PvP while a non-combatant you get the normal death penalty and if you dies in PvP as a combatant you get half the normal death penalty.
Spinning it any other way is biased and misleading... and irresponsible.
I take it you ignored or got confused by the whole 'how I define punishment renforcement positive and negative' segment. Your being fairly emotional so it's understandable you missed what I explained. I gave a fairly neutral unbiased explanation of the differences in psychological incentive in each corruption system mechanic.
'You get the same penalty as 'normal'' which is a higher negative punishment than if you fought in pvp. It's negative renforcement.
You will also have to explain to me how getting an opponents resources fails my definition of positive renforcement. Your current explanation is fairly emotionally biased so it's hard to understand from a clinical point of view.
If you want I am happy to use your emotionally driven definitions of renforce, punish, positive, and negative, but you will have to write them down for me, as I clearly wrote down and clarified my own terminology for you, since I have no idea what yours are.
In either case I fail to see how it is irresponsible for me to point out the different psychological tools. By doing so it is clear there is clear differences in each system because the designers intend to encourage pvp.
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited August 2021
I neither ignored nor got confused by how you define "how you define punishment reinforcement positive and negative". I patently rejected your flawed perspective.
I'm not being emotional at all.
If someone forces me to engage in an activity that I'm in no mood to engage in, getting their stuff has no positive reinforcement at all. I'm not interested in their stuff. I just want to do whatever activity it is that I prefer to do at that moment. Their stuff is completely irrelevant.
If they are going to force me to engage in an activity I am not in the mood for, I can punish them with Corruption... that gives at least a small bit of satisfaction and helps deter future instances of me being forced into an activity I'm not in the mood for.
If you think I didn't write down my definitions, I guess you ignored them or were confused by them - but that would be due to your bias. What I wrote isn't rocket science. It's just a neutral explanation of the game design.
It is irresponsible to present a flawed, negative spin on the death penalty rather than the neutral explanation.
You are the one who first mentioned "irresponsible". It is perfectly fine to share the perspective that Corruption means not having a separate PvE-Only server will not be as bad as someone new to the forums fears.
That is not irresponsible at all. Regardless of what you may or may not see.
Ashes is a PvX game so of course they encourage PvP combat.
The devs also discourage ganking and murder hobos. Even moreso than Lineage 2.
They also have systems, like Social Orgs and Religions for people who wish to minimize their involvement with PvP combat.
I neither ignored nor got confused by how you define "how you define punishment reinforcement positive and negative". I patently rejected your flawed perspective.
I'm not being emotional at all.
This disagreement seems to be for the academics then.
When did I say it was all the game would be? I said IF it is that way then I have no interest in playing. Also to claim that what it will be now, regardless of any feedback that they get, is not actually a positive trait IMO.
The WIKI itself says that the exact specifics are up in the air so to claim it will be exactly as it is now is pretty disingenuous. Could easily decide to have pvp free zones.
I didn't say that you said that's all the game would be.
Exact specifics are unknown right now. How many kills does it take before you have a chance to drop loot as a corrupted? How exact will corrupted players positions be marked on the map for bounty hunters? How fast will skill dampening affect corrupted players and make them combat ineffective?
We don't know. What we do know according to the wiki is that the only safe zones will be player stalls and player housing/freeholds. Not even towns/cities will be 100% safe. There will be guards that aggro attacking players, but players can still attack you. That and more is all currently in the design. Of course everything is subject to change, but certain design principles have a pretty low chance of being changed unless its found they just don't work.
The design is laid out as is. Steven thinks the corruption system will be enough of a deterrent to keep the cities from becoming ffa pvp gank zones. If for some reason it doesn't work out that way, you'd probably see that design change dramatically.
But its not in the game yet. It hasn't been tested and tweaked. No one can give feedback on it because it's not available to give feedback on.
I neither ignored nor got confused by how you define "how you define punishment reinforcement positive and negative". I patently rejected your flawed perspective.
I'm not being emotional at all.
His definition is literally textbook.
Unless you are more qualified than B.F. Skinner you have no place to reject it.
Verily, I have always pondered what the great philosophers, poets and psychologists think about my mmo pvp. Whither are we headed without heeding their sage advice. I believe it was the likes of Aristotle and Socrates who inspired WoW and FF14. Woe and unrelenting shame be upon us, lest we not acquire the same greatness.
All of which is perfectly fine and at no point does it conflict with what I said.
We will see how it goes. I don’t care if it is technically possible. As long as enough things make it realistically improbable then I am good.
For example: if cities have lots of guards, no loot drops, with close respawns. someone could technically kill me, but the situation makes it so that almost no one will bother.
However if town guards only protect you if you are in the controlling guild and players in that guild can kill you with impunity? Then I am not interested in.
As I said, I am waiting and seeing, might be a moot point since I might not have time.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Steven thinks the corruption system will be enough of a deterrent to keep the cities from becoming ffa pvp gank zones. If for some reason it doesn't work out that way, you'd probably see that design change dramatically.
But its not in the game yet. It hasn't been tested and tweaked. No one can give feedback on it because it's not available to give feedback on.
Steven thinks that Corruption will be enough of a deterrent that the entire gameworld will not have gank zones, that's not just limited to cities.
Corruption inherently makes it not FFA.
Lots of people are wait and see on several features.
As an example, if someone on my server rambled even half of the rubbish you do, I (and many others I'm sure) would kill them every time I saw them - corruption be damned.
Yeah I know Dygz, I wasn't about to list it all across every possible scenario, I meant the city example more as a parallel to every in game situation. Obviously some locations being more dangerous and ganky than others, but in general not a pvp gankbox. It actually says that in the wiki.
Agreed. This comes down to 'can't' v. 'won't.' I CAN run down the freeway naked waving a giant Mets banner and daring people to hit me. But I WON'T do that.
Obviously some locations being more dangerous and ganky than others, but in general not a pvp gankbox. It actually says that in the wiki.
Indeed.
There are going to be more scenarios in which corruption is turned off (my assumption is around raid encounters), and so these areas will be more dangerous.
However, it will also be dangerous to be in an area in which a would-be attacker feels like they can kill you and work off that corruption before it becomes an issue.
If I can work off corruption from one kill in 7 or 8 minutes, there will be large parts of the world where I feel comfortable killing the occasional person as I would be able to work off that corruption before I get the real penalty from corruption.
Yeah that's the risk vs reward. Sometimes you'll get away with it, and sometimes someone will happen along and you'll pay for it, in concept. The numbers are unknown though, it could take 2 minutes to work off a kill, 7 or 8, or more like 30 minutes, or even far longer. That's what has to be tested and tweaked to make it not a gank box.
Comments
Early on in L2 beta there was similar, but after a few months, there were not so many of that type of player around. Thereafter once clans and alliances built, one had to take much greater care of their reputation in the world.. step out of line and bring trouble to your guild or even alliance.. someone steps out of line with you, then perhaps they end up with a world of pain from your guild and/or alliance. Then that sorts players out pretty fast.. solo players who grief find it hardest.. and guild members who step out of line are quickly finding a new guild. Key is community building.. once that starts to establish, the rule of acceptable game play start to define. and every server will have different boundaries and I imagine, even nodes may end up with variance.
So for those concerned, I think reserve judgement.. your community will create the civilization through which a pecking order will establish.
But, in this case...
Most people who play MMORPGs play on separate PvE servers.
The devs know this. Those players are still their target audience.
They hope to be able to show them that Ashes will still be fun for them to play due to Corruption greatly deterring ganking.
Same for the hardcore PvP players who complain that Corruption is too harsh.
The devs hope to capture those people as well, by showing that Ashes will still have lots of fun PvP - despite the Corruption mechanic.
Specifically, Leth clarifies the intent to wait to see if Corruption will deter ganking to their satisfaction.
Who is the target audience is different than who will actually play.
And we won't really know who will actually play until we get to Beta 2 and see how well the designs are implemented.
The neutral explanation is that non-combatants who die in PvP combat receive the normal death penalty.
It's the same "punishment" they receive for dying to a mob.
Combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty if they die in PvP combat.
That is positive incentive to flag as combatant.
Non-combatants are not punished for not flagging as a combatant.
The question was who is the target audience and you are answering with, "Anyone might end up playing the game because of a feature they like despite the features they dislike."
Just because someone plays the game for x does not mean they were a target audience. They are going to make feature for crafting and fishing, but does that mean that the game is targeting players who only play crafting sims and fishing sims?
The multiple features of the game add up and refine the targeted player base. In Ashes of Creation's case you will need to at least be able to deal with the open world pvp, corruption system, open world dungeons, the node system, the class combination system, the races, and the death penalty system.
These I believe are the biggest contributors to figuring out if a player is within the targeted audience. If A player finds a majority of these as "good" then I believe that is enough to say they were the target audience.
Ok I'm done here, I said target audience way too many times.
Target audience.
And that all playstyles will have to compromise.
"If you want to be a Crafter and you are really into crafting goods for other people and selling them on the market place, you can do that. You don't have to participate in any of the other systems if you don't want to. There's a role for almost every style of player."
--- Jeffrey
"With Ashes of Creation, we've diversified the progression paths so there are many different ways forward. You don't just have to commit to an Adventuring class. You can have the advancement in the Artisan tree, that's about gathering, processing and crafting. You can build a Freehold with many different agencies of infrastructure in order to process those goods. You can advance in the economy, being able to take stock in Guilds and see their performance on a world boss level or in dungeons. You can become a citizen and build out the cities, advancing in the Religious system, advancing in the societies like the Thieve's Guild or Scholar's Academy. You can actually rise through the ranks of city government and dictate which buildings get built in theses nodes, which offer unique services to the players. It's really all about giving players the ability to focus on what direction interests them the most and making sure that direction always contributes in some way to the development of the world."
--- Steven
"One of the really exciting parts of it is, players are all different, communities are all different...
Each server is going to have a different feel to it. You're going to be able to look and check out what happened on that server when you're making a decision about which server to go to. And you can see what the character (of that server) is, what kinds of players are playing on that server, what things they've done, what things they've unlocked and make those decisions based on that. What communities do I fit best?"
--- Jeffrey
MMORPG players who love fishing are in the target audience for Ashes.
And the devs expect that people who only love fishing should be able to have fun in Ashes.
I will concede that I mean the target audience is all MMORPG players - and people who only like to play FIFA soccer are not in the target audience, sure.
Yeah, Sathrago sums it up pretty well.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Clap clap clap
I think you all are getting a false impression of what I am saying when it's more so we are speaking a different language. Apologies for the confusion as I tend to forget that people who are not behavioral scientists may have a different understanding of the word punishment and negative.
"Negative reinforcement encourages specific behaviors by removing or avoiding negative consequences or stimuli." (Having a lower resource loss on death.)
"Negative Punishment is when something is removed to decrease the likelihood of a behavior." (Losing resources in general is a 'negative punishment.')
"Positive reinforcement is when something is added to increase the likelihood of a behavior." (Getting resources by killing another player or mob.)
"Positive Punishment is when something is added to decrease the likelihood of a behavior." (Corruption penalty)
-https://courses.lumenlearning.com/waymaker-psychology/chapter/operant-conditioning/
Whether you all want to dispute the emotional meaning. The fact is you have more negative punishment if you do not engage in pvp than if you did. You are negatively renforced to play pvp. This is because for whatever reason Intrepid doesn't.t think the positive renforcement of getting your opponents stuff is enough. For some reason... But in either case it is factually correct to say you are punished more for not commiting to pvp than if you did.
If you die to a mob it's 100 percent on you. You shouldn't have been around the higher level mob. You wouldn't have pulled so many. Etc. You can learn to recalibrate your behavior. Losing the most rewards for a death in a situation you have control over makes sense.
You have way less control over who you encounter in open world pvp. They are not equivalent situations because in the mob case I chose to fight the mob or be in the mobs presence. Since you like the word so much. Mob deaths are consensual. Why do I lose the same amount of materials when I have less agency in 'avoiding the pvp'? It's because Intrepid wants to encourage pvp.
Intrepid literally builds systems around encouraging PvP, they have done very little to encourage people who 'don't want to get ganked'. They only promise the murder hobos and occasional gankers will be positively punished. It's a start, but it is also well known information. If a PvE focused person is requesting a server it is probably a sign they don't think it is enough.
Given Intrepid has not done anything further to address the anti-ganking paradigm than is already known, it's foolish to go to someone requesting a server 'it wont't be that bad' when the developer clearly biases systems towards pvp.
I didn't realize it was controversial to say that.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Idk if you are aware of this, but Intrepid did not really "design" the corruption system to be any specific way. They took the proven system from Lineage 2 and tweaked it to be slightly more forgiving.
I want to stress that the number one reason we have the corruption system is because Steven loves Lineage 2. His years living with the system and understanding what is good about it is why we have the system. It is also why there is good reason to believe it will work.
I only bring this up because your post reads like you think the corruption system is some new untested concept like the node system. If you already understand this than disregard my post.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I am aware of the L2 connect. When a game designer takes systems from another game if they are /good/ they examine every aspect of the thing they are taking relative to their own game systems. I assume Intrepid are good game designers at the moment so my analysis comes from the place of 'assuming they did a full analysis of the model and its positive and negative renforcements and punishments relative to player psychology.' Probably not Steven himself but the people he hired and then threw the best model at them to chew on.
I will repeat I am not arguing for or against corruptions current design. It doesn't /bother/ me. But you and I are much more the target audience than someone requesting PvE servers.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
Yeah,
I would say that of someone wants a PvE server in any form. That "may" be a good litmus test to see if they are in the target audience.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Intrepid doesn't need to address it right now. We know in general what's going to be in the game. They've been telling us for years. The general framework is on the wiki. The systems haven't been tested yet, they're not even in the game. When they are, they'll be tweaked and tuned to get the desired results of the devs, which is what I talk about. Because that's all we have.
People that come to the forums and try to portray the game as a 24/7 murder fest where you cant even chop a tree, that's a bit of hysteria. Because we know that's not what Steven wants. We also know there will be no pve servers.
It will all be tested in an NDA free series of alphas and betas. Everyone will be able to see.
I'm more interested in asking people requesting PvE servers 'what about corruption would need to be modified to make you willing to take the risk anyway?' If they THEN go 'PvE server or bust I dont care about corruption'. Then I would say yes, you are not the target audience because you don't THINK in terms of risk v reward when prompted in any way.
(As a side note thanks for dealing with the person in question in the other thread. That was a good approach.)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
When did I say it was all the game would be? I said IF it is that way then I have no interest in playing. Also to claim that what it will be now, regardless of any feedback that they get, is not actually a positive trait IMO.
The WIKI itself says that the exact specifics are up in the air so to claim it will be exactly as it is now is pretty disingenuous. Could easily decide to have pvp free zones.
You get the normal death penalty for refusing to become a combatant and for punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
You get rewarded with half the normal death penalty for flagging as a combatant and not punishing the PvPer with Corruption.
That is a positive incentive for a "fair" PvP battle. "Fair" meaning two combatants as opposed to the PvPer being punished with Corruption.
Players are positively reinforced combatant PvP combat.
Getting your opponents' stuff is not positive reinforcement - especially not for PvEers who just want to be left alone. If someone ganks me, I couldn't care less about their stuff. But, if another player is going to mess with my character progression when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I can at least get some satisfaction by turning them red, thereby making their character progression more difficult than my own.
What should be said is that if you die in PvP while a non-combatant you get the normal death penalty and if you dies in PvP as a combatant you get half the normal death penalty.
Spinning it any other way is biased and misleading... and irresponsible.
If I die as a non-combatant, that is still 100% on me. I can flag as a combatant and get half the normal death penalty if I want to. But, if I want to punish my attacker with Corruption, I will have to settle for the normal death penalty.
That is 100% my choice.
If Corruption works as intended... my choice to have my attacker contemplate the risk flagging red should be a significant enough of a deterrent that I rarely encounter players willing to become red.
There is no adequate measure for "very little". The Corruption mechanic is expected to be sufficient - because it worked sufficiently in Lineage 2 and the Ashes version of Corruption is harsher on PKers than the Lineage 2 version.
The whole idea of these societies is that they are a mechanism for progression that do not have to rely on your level progression. These are different progression paths that players can participate in. If you don't want to leave a node in your gameplay experience and you want to find as much as you can do within that city, these offer those things. Now, some quests might take you outside of the city to you know hunt and pursue things, but you could also perfectly be a person that is a merchant and purchases them from other travelers instead of having to go do it yourself. We want to offer players a diverse method of progression; and these systems house those benefits.
– Steven Sharif
It's not foolish at all.
The responsible thing to do is fairly and neutrally explain the Corruption system and suggest the person concerned check to see if Corruption, as implemented, is satisfactory.
If it turns out to not be a sufficient deterrent, the people who find it insufficient simply won't play.
But, people who typically play on separate PvE-Only servers are still the target audience for the Ashes devs - very much so.
Ashes is a PvX game.
I take it you ignored or got confused by the whole 'how I define punishment renforcement positive and negative' segment. Your being fairly emotional so it's understandable you missed what I explained. I gave a fairly neutral unbiased explanation of the differences in psychological incentive in each corruption system mechanic.
'You get the same penalty as 'normal'' which is a higher negative punishment than if you fought in pvp. It's negative renforcement.
You will also have to explain to me how getting an opponents resources fails my definition of positive renforcement. Your current explanation is fairly emotionally biased so it's hard to understand from a clinical point of view.
If you want I am happy to use your emotionally driven definitions of renforce, punish, positive, and negative, but you will have to write them down for me, as I clearly wrote down and clarified my own terminology for you, since I have no idea what yours are.
In either case I fail to see how it is irresponsible for me to point out the different psychological tools. By doing so it is clear there is clear differences in each system because the designers intend to encourage pvp.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I'm not being emotional at all.
If someone forces me to engage in an activity that I'm in no mood to engage in, getting their stuff has no positive reinforcement at all. I'm not interested in their stuff. I just want to do whatever activity it is that I prefer to do at that moment. Their stuff is completely irrelevant.
If they are going to force me to engage in an activity I am not in the mood for, I can punish them with Corruption... that gives at least a small bit of satisfaction and helps deter future instances of me being forced into an activity I'm not in the mood for.
If you think I didn't write down my definitions, I guess you ignored them or were confused by them - but that would be due to your bias. What I wrote isn't rocket science. It's just a neutral explanation of the game design.
It is irresponsible to present a flawed, negative spin on the death penalty rather than the neutral explanation.
You are the one who first mentioned "irresponsible". It is perfectly fine to share the perspective that Corruption means not having a separate PvE-Only server will not be as bad as someone new to the forums fears.
That is not irresponsible at all. Regardless of what you may or may not see.
Ashes is a PvX game so of course they encourage PvP combat.
The devs also discourage ganking and murder hobos. Even moreso than Lineage 2.
They also have systems, like Social Orgs and Religions for people who wish to minimize their involvement with PvP combat.
This disagreement seems to be for the academics then.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Yhr9WpjaDzw
I didn't say that you said that's all the game would be.
Exact specifics are unknown right now. How many kills does it take before you have a chance to drop loot as a corrupted? How exact will corrupted players positions be marked on the map for bounty hunters? How fast will skill dampening affect corrupted players and make them combat ineffective?
We don't know. What we do know according to the wiki is that the only safe zones will be player stalls and player housing/freeholds. Not even towns/cities will be 100% safe. There will be guards that aggro attacking players, but players can still attack you. That and more is all currently in the design. Of course everything is subject to change, but certain design principles have a pretty low chance of being changed unless its found they just don't work.
The design is laid out as is. Steven thinks the corruption system will be enough of a deterrent to keep the cities from becoming ffa pvp gank zones. If for some reason it doesn't work out that way, you'd probably see that design change dramatically.
But its not in the game yet. It hasn't been tested and tweaked. No one can give feedback on it because it's not available to give feedback on.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvP
It's all in there.
Phase 1
Abolish. Abolish the systems you do not want. (You are here.)
Phase 2
Castrate/neuter. Apply economic and groupthink
pressure to enact changes that render the systems
meaningless and moot.
Phase 3
When all fails, disparage and discredit the game on
forums, write your senators, make negative youtube
videos.
I am so trolling. This isn't directed at you Leth, just militant pve'rs in general.
His definition is literally textbook.
Unless you are more qualified than B.F. Skinner you have no place to reject it.
We will see how it goes. I don’t care if it is technically possible. As long as enough things make it realistically improbable then I am good.
For example: if cities have lots of guards, no loot drops, with close respawns. someone could technically kill me, but the situation makes it so that almost no one will bother.
However if town guards only protect you if you are in the controlling guild and players in that guild can kill you with impunity? Then I am not interested in.
As I said, I am waiting and seeing, might be a moot point since I might not have time.
Corruption inherently makes it not FFA.
Lots of people are wait and see on several features.
As an example, if someone on my server rambled even half of the rubbish you do, I (and many others I'm sure) would kill them every time I saw them - corruption be damned.
Yeah I know Dygz, I wasn't about to list it all across every possible scenario, I meant the city example more as a parallel to every in game situation. Obviously some locations being more dangerous and ganky than others, but in general not a pvp gankbox. It actually says that in the wiki.
Agreed. This comes down to 'can't' v. 'won't.' I CAN run down the freeway naked waving a giant Mets banner and daring people to hit me. But I WON'T do that.
The Mets suck.
There are going to be more scenarios in which corruption is turned off (my assumption is around raid encounters), and so these areas will be more dangerous.
However, it will also be dangerous to be in an area in which a would-be attacker feels like they can kill you and work off that corruption before it becomes an issue.
If I can work off corruption from one kill in 7 or 8 minutes, there will be large parts of the world where I feel comfortable killing the occasional person as I would be able to work off that corruption before I get the real penalty from corruption.