Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

About mandatory PvP.

12467

Comments

  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I dunno how we can measure "very successful" when it's pretty much the first MMORPG.
    It's easy to be "very successful" with no competition.
    As soon as PvE servers became an option, those became to most popular servers for MMORPGs.
  • FerrymanFerryman Member
    edited June 2022
    Frost01 wrote: »
    Skribby wrote: »
    Forced PvP is the mmo killer. I've been playing mmo's for 20 years. Not a single fantasy based mmo has been able to do it.

    Ultima Online was completely, mandatory PvP. It was very successful, player killers turned red and had to avoid town. If you died you dropped EVERYTHING. This worked well for years, then the game changed due to higher up decisions, killing off the risk with insurance, blessed items, and creating entire worlds where pvp was not allowed. It certainly didn't improve the game. Did you work hard for the thing you lost? Yes. That drives the need to become a better player with better skills and better strategy. It drives the need to continually go out and get more cool items.

    Well it depends who you ask. PvP oriented players typically claims that Trammel ruined the game but that is not quite the truth. It might ruin the game from their point of view, however, if you ask this from PvE oriented players the answer is totally opposite. On top of that, Trammel actually became very popular very fast because there was not non-consensual PvP available. This is not a surprise because hardcore PvP is a really niche genre anyway. It is of course understandable that the changes did not make PvP players happy because they lost a good amount of prey. There was demand for PvE world and therefore, the game evolved more on that direction.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 2022
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Frost01 wrote: »
    Skribby wrote: »
    Forced PvP is the mmo killer. I've been playing mmo's for 20 years. Not a single fantasy based mmo has been able to do it.

    Ultima Online was completely, mandatory PvP. It was very successful, player killers turned red and had to avoid town. If you died you dropped EVERYTHING. This worked well for years, then the game changed due to higher up decisions, killing off the risk with insurance, blessed items, and creating entire worlds where pvp was not allowed. It certainly didn't improve the game. Did you work hard for the thing you lost? Yes. That drives the need to become a better player with better skills and better strategy. It drives the need to continually go out and get more cool items.

    Well it depends who you ask. PvP oriented players typically claims that Trammel ruined the game but that is not quite the truth. It might ruin the game from their point of view, however, if you ask this from PvE oriented players the answer is totally opposite. On top of that, Trammel actually became very popular very fast because there was not non-consensual PvP available. This is not a surprise because hardcore PvP is a really niche genre anyway. It is of course understandable that the changes did not make PvP players happy because they lost a good amount of prey. There was demand for PvE world and therefore, the game evolved more on that direction.

    The worst possible thing the devs can do is abandoning their vision. Amazon did it to please the WoW and FF14 crowd only for them to abandon the game after 2 months. Believe it or not NW's alpha version was pretty cool. The good thing is AoC's monetization model allows the player base to keep the game alive easier, I think the team picked the monthly sub knowing this.
    There is definitely a demand for a PvE focused game, that's why WoW and FF14 are doing so well. Does this mean we need to turn AoC into the same thing? Hell no. Steven is very well aware that his PvX dream is going to be a niche thing, and that he can't please everyone. It's impossible to please everyone, and luckily the monthly sub gives them some breathing room.
    Even with PvP being so important in the game, there are still safety nets for people who wish to not participate that much in PvP, so there's that. AoC is a sandbox game, if someone wishes to participate as little as possible they can do that. You can go full gatherer/merchant, make boatloads of money, hire other people to help you, buy their gear, etc etc. There are guilds recruiting where their main profile is being mercenaries, protecting caravans (merchants moving their items) and such. These guilds often have reserved spots for merchants/gatherers/crafters. Also let's add the corruption system on top of that.
    There are so many ways to make PvX work. PvP and PvE doesn't have to be 2 completely separate games.
    Same thing was in Lineage 2, if you didn't join a guild that was in conflict chances are you barely PvP'd, it will be similar in AoC. You can keep a low profile and there will be barely any problems I'm sure.
  • Norkore wrote: »
    Ferryman wrote: »
    Frost01 wrote: »
    Skribby wrote: »
    Forced PvP is the mmo killer. I've been playing mmo's for 20 years. Not a single fantasy based mmo has been able to do it.

    Ultima Online was completely, mandatory PvP. It was very successful, player killers turned red and had to avoid town. If you died you dropped EVERYTHING. This worked well for years, then the game changed due to higher up decisions, killing off the risk with insurance, blessed items, and creating entire worlds where pvp was not allowed. It certainly didn't improve the game. Did you work hard for the thing you lost? Yes. That drives the need to become a better player with better skills and better strategy. It drives the need to continually go out and get more cool items.

    Well it depends who you ask. PvP oriented players typically claims that Trammel ruined the game but that is not quite the truth. It might ruin the game from their point of view, however, if you ask this from PvE oriented players the answer is totally opposite. On top of that, Trammel actually became very popular very fast because there was not non-consensual PvP available. This is not a surprise because hardcore PvP is a really niche genre anyway. It is of course understandable that the changes did not make PvP players happy because they lost a good amount of prey. There was demand for PvE world and therefore, the game evolved more on that direction.

    The worst possible thing the devs can do is abandoning their vision. Amazon did it to please the WoW and FF14 crowd only for them to abandon the game after 2 months. Believe it or not NW's alpha version was pretty cool. The good thing is AoC's monetization model allows the player base to keep the game alive easier, I think the team picked the monthly sub knowing this.
    There is definitely a demand for a PvE focused game, that's why WoW and FF14 are doing so well. Does this mean we need to turn AoC into the same thing? Hell no. Steven is very well aware that his PvX dream is going to be a niche thing, and that he can't please everyone. It's impossible to please everyone, and luckily the monthly sub gives them some breathing room.
    Even with PvP being so important in the game, there are still safety nets for people who wish to not participate that much in PvP, so there's that. AoC is a sandbox game, if someone wishes to participate as little as possible they can do that. You can go full gatherer/merchant, make boatloads of money, hire other people to help you, buy their gear, etc etc. There are guilds recruiting where their main profile is being mercenaries, protecting caravans (merchants moving their items) and such. These guilds often have reserved spots for merchants/gatherers/crafters. Also let's add the corruption system on top of that.
    There are so many ways to make PvX work. PvP and PvE doesn't have to be 2 completely separate games.
    Same thing was in Lineage 2, if you didn't join a guild that was in conflict chances are you barely PvP'd, it will be similar in AoC. You can keep a low profile and there will be barely any problems I'm sure.

    I would not say that changing the vision is the worst thing to do because sometimes it might be necessary or actually make the game better. However, sometimes those changes will cause new problems so it can be risky as well.

    Alpha New World can be considered good from hardcore PvP players pov but the harsh open world PvP rules divided opinions. On top of that there was not enough intrest around the game and therefore, It could been died even before the launch without these changes.

    WoW had open world PvP but it was removed and put on specific PvP servers. Yeah they tried but the problems were severe enough to take actions.

    We do not know yet where Ashes rules will eventually settle but part of their vision has been from the beginning that "AoC won't be a gankbox". Will see what that eventually means and which direction the corrupt system will move after testing, but I have noticed that some members have perhaps too high expectations how much there will be open world PvP. Will see.
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • NorkoreNorkore Member
    edited June 2022
    Once they diluted the game, there was nothing left behind. They tried to please the casuals only for the game to completely lose it's flavor.

    Sometimes people just need to accept they might not be the target audience for a game. There is already a set vision and direction for the game. If you think this game should be more like WoW there is a chance this applies to you, however WoW and FF14 should be right up your alley.

    It's fine if Blizzard thought they need to do this. That doesn't mean this is the right call in every single MMO from this point moving forward. This is a different team with different vision and different priorities.

    The only reason why New World's rules "divided opinions" was because again, the WoW and FF community has this weird thing where they want to turn every game into the same thing. They go to a new MMO, demand to remove everything that makes the game unique, leave the game after 2 months, go back to their old MMO, repeat.
    WoW and FF14 mains can't handle sandbox MMOs. If there is no streamlined themepark content they just freak out. This game however is way more on the sandbox side, with tons of player agency.

    Expectations regarding open world PvP goes both ways: I see WoW mains pre-emptively complaining about something they haven't even experienced.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Ferryman wrote: »
    WoW had open world PvP but it was removed and put on specific PvP servers. Yeah they tried but the problems were severe enough to take actions.
    WoW had faction-based free genocide w/o penalties. L2 had the previous iteration of AoC's corruption system and they didn't have to implement PvE servers. People suffered from other hardcore features that just didn't fly in the western culture, but PvP definitely wasn't the biggest reason for its death.
    Ferryman wrote: »
    We do not know yet where Ashes rules will eventually settle but part of their vision has been from the beginning that "AoC won't be a gankbox". Will see what that eventually means and which direction the corrupt system will move after testing, but I have noticed that some members have perhaps too high expectations how much there will be open world PvP. Will see.
    My bet is that most people will complain about getting killed a few times in a week and make a much bigger problem out of it than it really will be. And it'll be on Steven to either hold out against that complaining or finally crumble under the pressure after years of telling people "this game's not for everyone". We'll see what happens.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Norkore wrote: »
    The only reason why New World's rules "divided opinions" was because again, the WoW and FF community has this weird thing where they want to turn every game into the same thing. They go to a new MMO, demand to remove everything that makes the game unique, leave the game after 2 months, go back to their old MMO, repeat.
    WoW and FF14 mains can't handle sandbox MMOs. If there is no streamlined themepark content they just freak out. This game however is way more on the sandbox side, with tons of player agency.

    Expectations regarding open world PvP goes both ways: I see WoW mains pre-emptively complaining about something they haven't even experienced.
    Amazon would have ignored the "divided opinions" if they felt they had enough hardcore numbers to sustain the game without significantly changing it.

    WoW and FF14 mains don't enjoy sandbox games.
    Ashes is a themebox game.
    There are just as many people complaining that Corruption is too harsh as there are people complaining that Corruption is insufficient.
    The vast majority of Ashes fans are content to withold judgment until Alpha 2 opens for testing.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    NiKr wrote: »
    My bet is that most people will complain about getting killed a few times in a week and make a much bigger problem out of it than it really will be. And it'll be on Steven to either hold out against that complaining or finally crumble under the pressure after years of telling people "this game's not for everyone". We'll see what happens.
    Depends on how annoying getting killed is...
    In Bless Online, I encountered non-consensual PvP less than once per week - and I'm a hardcore time player.
    Didn't bother me because it took up less than 2 minutes of my playtime and I quickly returned to what I really wanted to be doing in the game.

    During Alpha 2, the devs will tweak Corruption and respawning until it reaches a balance Steven is comfortable with.
  • Norkore wrote: »
    Once they diluted the game, there was nothing left behind. They tried to please the casuals only for the game to completely lose it's flavor.

    The only reason why New World's rules "divided opinions" was because again, the WoW and FF community has this weird thing where they want to turn every game into the same thing. They go to a new MMO, demand to remove everything that makes the game unique, leave the game after 2 months, go back to their old MMO, repeat.
    WoW and FF14 mains can't handle sandbox MMOs. If there is no streamlined themepark content they just freak out. This game however is way more on the sandbox side, with tons of player agency.

    This is so ridiculous blame WoW or FF players that Amazon changed the direction of their design. Moreover, it is not like players could not like themepark and sandbox games. LMAO :D
    Do you need a ride to the Underworld?
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    edited June 2022
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    There are just as many people complaining that Corruption is too harsh as there are people complaining that Corruption is insufficient.
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.

    Ooooo, I enjoy this take on the corruption system. Makes sense and plenty of potential for risk vs reward on both fronts. I hope Steven sees this!

    Edit: it can also be directly related to node levels, types, and their range of influence.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Otr wrote: »
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.
    The chances are, there'll be more low lvl players outside of big cities, so you're pretty much dooming them for constant PKing
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    There are just as many people complaining that Corruption is too harsh as there are people complaining that Corruption is insufficient.
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.
    Because there are plenty of PvE-only folk and PvP-sometimes folk who want to explore the world without encountering non-consensual PvP. So, the penalties for non-consensual PvP will be consistent across the world.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    NiKr wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.
    The chances are, there'll be more low lvl players outside of big cities, so you're pretty much dooming them for constant PKing

    Not if you maintain a large corruption penalty for killing players with much lower power than yourself.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    There are just as many people complaining that Corruption is too harsh as there are people complaining that Corruption is insufficient.
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.
    Because there are plenty of PvE-only folk who just want to explore the world without encountering non-consensual PvP. So, the penalties for non-consensual PvP will be consistent across the world.

    exploring new places should be dangerous in many ways in my opinion. Not like you should just be able to fly around in creative mode minecraft without a care in the world. Its only natural that a timid player should feel a bit of unease going out into a new place they know nothing about. But for all they know it is either a lovely community where people constantly help each other, or its a pvp wonderland where nobody is safe, or even just a zone far beyond their level of power, and that is sort of beautiful when you consider a game that is supposed to be a living world.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    A general reminder of why games might limit PvP to 'at X level'.

    1. It forces people who enjoy 'griefing' others to actually level that high every time they make a 'Griefing Alt'.
    2. It prevents players that understand how to exploit mechanics or leverage skills at lower levels from doing so before other players necessarily have the skills or understanding to counter.
    3. It prevents the phase of the game where many people are looking for allies and friends, from becoming too unpredictable.

    I mention this simply to remind that it is sometimes not 'I am higher level than you so I can kill you'. It is 'you don't know how to counter this/don't understand what I'm doing yet/don't have tools for managing this problem.

    Any changes to the system that alters Corruption penalties in either direction, particularly if one can hide the connection between one's Alt and Main, will need to factor for this.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Exploring new places can be plenty dangerous without PvP.
    In Ashes, exploring new places includes the possiblity of PvP combat. Nonconsensual PvP will be penalized with Corruption.

    In the world I live in, I have never been mugged.
    Not when I lived in NYC.
    Not when I walked around DC at night.
    Not when I walked through Compton in the middle of the night.
    Not when I lived in Tokyo.
    Not when I lived in Moscow.

    Because the penalties for attacking people minding their own business are a strong enough deterrent that people almost never encounter it. It certainly doesn't happen to the average person several times per week.

    I dunno what is meant by "timid player".
    Has nothing to do with timidity and everything to do with preventing a player from forcing an unwanted activity on another player. In Ashes, removing player agency in that fashion is penalized with Corruption.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Azherae wrote: »
    A general reminder of why games might limit PvP to 'at X level'.

    1. It forces people who enjoy 'griefing' others to actually level that high every time they make a 'Griefing Alt'.
    2. It prevents players that understand how to exploit mechanics or leverage skills at lower levels from doing so before other players necessarily have the skills or understanding to counter.
    3. It prevents the phase of the game where many people are looking for allies and friends, from becoming too unpredictable.

    I mention this simply to remind that it is sometimes not 'I am higher level than you so I can kill you'. It is 'you don't know how to counter this/don't understand what I'm doing yet/don't have tools for managing this problem.

    Any changes to the system that alters Corruption penalties in either direction, particularly if one can hide the connection between one's Alt and Main, will need to factor for this.

    As someone who has made many level 19-39 twinks in WoW I kind of get where you're coming from, but if the corruption system is applied at all levels it will still be prevented. And on top of that, its much easier to go and destroy a toxic twink character with a main than it is to just fight somebody elses geared main. And I can also say that twinked character platers mostly only want to fight other twinked character players. It less "I am dominating" and more "I enjoy this more limited skillset" or "Thank god there arent mounts in this level bracket" and even "I want to duel higher level players with this low level one just because". Its mostly for fun, not malice. Although there are obviously some toxic ones. As an example, in WoW I had a level 19 fully twinked gnome rogue that I would take to hillsbrad foothills and either challenge level 28+ horde, or wait for them to try to "gank" me. What result was usually some pretty even fights, it was just funny to both parties involved because I was just a level 19. Made a name for myself and even befriended quite a few enemy players that way.
    All of that being said, this isn't as big of a concern as you believe it to be.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    A general reminder of why games might limit PvP to 'at X level'.

    1. It forces people who enjoy 'griefing' others to actually level that high every time they make a 'Griefing Alt'.
    2. It prevents players that understand how to exploit mechanics or leverage skills at lower levels from doing so before other players necessarily have the skills or understanding to counter.
    3. It prevents the phase of the game where many people are looking for allies and friends, from becoming too unpredictable.

    I mention this simply to remind that it is sometimes not 'I am higher level than you so I can kill you'. It is 'you don't know how to counter this/don't understand what I'm doing yet/don't have tools for managing this problem.

    Any changes to the system that alters Corruption penalties in either direction, particularly if one can hide the connection between one's Alt and Main, will need to factor for this.

    As someone who has made many level 19-39 twinks in WoW I kind of get where you're coming from, but if the corruption system is applied at all levels it will still be prevented. And on top of that, its much easier to go and destroy a toxic twink character with a main than it is to just fight somebody elses geared main. And I can also say that twinked character platers mostly only want to fight other twinked character players. It less "I am dominating" and more "I enjoy this more limited skillset" or "Thank god there arent mounts in this level bracket" and even "I want to duel higher level players with this low level one just because". Its mostly for fun, not malice. Although there are obviously some toxic ones. As an example, in WoW I had a level 19 fully twinked gnome rogue that I would take to hillsbrad foothills and either challenge level 28+ horde, or wait for them to try to "gank" me. What result was usually some pretty even fights, it was just funny to both parties involved because I was just a level 19. Made a name for myself and even befriended quite a few enemy players that way.
    All of that being said, this isn't as big of a concern as you believe it to be.

    All of the datasets I have indicate that this is a serious issue.

    Multiple games have needed to explicitly take action against it.

    I'm glad that your experience has been different from the players of those games. WoW really is an interesting game to use for an example.
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Dygz wrote: »
    Exploring new places can be plenty dangerous without PvP.
    In Ashes, exploring new places includes the possiblity of PvP combat. Nonconsensual PvP will be penalized with Corruption.

    In the world I live in, I have never been mugged.
    Not when I lived in NYC.
    Not when I walked around DC at night.
    Not when I walked through Compton in the middle of the night.
    Not when I lived in Tokyo.
    Not when I lived in Moscow.

    Because the penalties for attacking people minding their own business are a strong enough deterrent that people almost never encounter it. It certainly doesn't happen to the average person several times per week.

    I dunno what is meant by "timid player".
    Has nothing to do with timidity and everything to do with preventing a player from forcing an unwanted activity on another player. In Ashes, removing player agency in that fashion is penalized with Corruption.
    Indeed it can! That is why I mentioned the high level zone. But it can also be VERY dangerous as a direct result of pvp. And that is fine, as it is also fine that PvP can be properly penalized, though it can possibly be a fun idea that the further you are from a safe place, the less penalties are incurred.

    Lucky you! I have been held at gunpoint 4 times, and have dealt with several instances of people attempting to rob me. I guess we live in different worlds seeing as all of my occurrences didn't happen in any of the places you mentioned either. However, all but 1 of the instances involving getting held at gunpoint ended with me giving up my wallet. And most of the other robbery attempts ended in me either beating down my assailant or getting the crap kicked out of me. Luckily I am a pretty sturdy dude so I have been able to bounce back from the rough incidents.

    A timid player is simply that. A player with a timid personality who is unsure of themselves and their decisions, usually based on fear of the outcome of their decisions. Corruption isnt there to prevent unwanted activities being forced onto other players, it is simply there to limit how often it occurs.

    GJjUGHx.gif
  • AzheraeAzherae Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Dolyem wrote: »
    As someone who has made many level 19-39 twinks in WoW I kind of get where you're coming from, but if the corruption system is applied at all levels it will still be prevented.
    And on top of that, its much easier to go and destroy a toxic twink character with a main than it is to just fight somebody elses geared main. And I can also say that twinked character platers mostly only want to fight other twinked character players. It less "I am dominating" and more "I enjoy this more limited skillset" or "Thank god there arent mounts in this level bracket" and even "I want to duel higher level players with this low level one just because". Its mostly for fun, not malice. Although there are obviously some toxic ones. As an example, in WoW I had a level 19 fully twinked gnome rogue that I would take to hillsbrad foothills and either challenge level 28+ horde, or wait for them to try to "gank" me. What result was usually some pretty even fights, it was just funny to both parties involved because I was just a level 19.
    Made a name for myself and even befriended quite a few enemy players that way.
    All of that being said, this isn't as big of a concern as you believe it to be.

    followed by...
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Lucky you! I have been held at gunpoint 4 times, and have dealt with several instances of people attempting to rob me. I guess we live in different worlds seeing as all of my occurrences didn't happen in any of the places you mentioned either.

    Bruh...
    Sorry, my native language is Erlang.
    
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Azherae wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Azherae wrote: »
    A general reminder of why games might limit PvP to 'at X level'.

    1. It forces people who enjoy 'griefing' others to actually level that high every time they make a 'Griefing Alt'.
    2. It prevents players that understand how to exploit mechanics or leverage skills at lower levels from doing so before other players necessarily have the skills or understanding to counter.
    3. It prevents the phase of the game where many people are looking for allies and friends, from becoming too unpredictable.

    I mention this simply to remind that it is sometimes not 'I am higher level than you so I can kill you'. It is 'you don't know how to counter this/don't understand what I'm doing yet/don't have tools for managing this problem.

    Any changes to the system that alters Corruption penalties in either direction, particularly if one can hide the connection between one's Alt and Main, will need to factor for this.

    As someone who has made many level 19-39 twinks in WoW I kind of get where you're coming from, but if the corruption system is applied at all levels it will still be prevented. And on top of that, its much easier to go and destroy a toxic twink character with a main than it is to just fight somebody elses geared main. And I can also say that twinked character platers mostly only want to fight other twinked character players. It less "I am dominating" and more "I enjoy this more limited skillset" or "Thank god there arent mounts in this level bracket" and even "I want to duel higher level players with this low level one just because". Its mostly for fun, not malice. Although there are obviously some toxic ones. As an example, in WoW I had a level 19 fully twinked gnome rogue that I would take to hillsbrad foothills and either challenge level 28+ horde, or wait for them to try to "gank" me. What result was usually some pretty even fights, it was just funny to both parties involved because I was just a level 19. Made a name for myself and even befriended quite a few enemy players that way.
    All of that being said, this isn't as big of a concern as you believe it to be.

    All of the datasets I have indicate that this is a serious issue.

    Multiple games have needed to explicitly take action against it.

    I'm glad that your experience has been different from the players of those games. WoW really is an interesting game to use for an example.

    What datasets do you have? I am genuinely curious.

    Yes I realize many games have dealt with this sort of problem in their own ways but I feel that corruption is ashes of creations way of dealing with this problem.

    It was indeed and awesome experience, but to extend an olive branch I will give you an interesting example of the toxic side. And that was the dreaded level 10 night elf rogue twink! If you acquired the appropriate gear, your character would have over 100% dodge rating making you untouchable even to level 60 players! You werent exactly able to kill anyone else, but once you picked up the flag in capture the flag, it was a simple as running it back unhindered to your base to either capture it, or simply wait until the other carrier died, all while being swarmed by the enemy team. Ironically you arent killing anyone in this way but it was pure trolling to do this. We strongly denounced this sort of playing style in the twinking community.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    Azherae wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    As someone who has made many level 19-39 twinks in WoW I kind of get where you're coming from, but if the corruption system is applied at all levels it will still be prevented.
    And on top of that, its much easier to go and destroy a toxic twink character with a main than it is to just fight somebody elses geared main. And I can also say that twinked character platers mostly only want to fight other twinked character players. It less "I am dominating" and more "I enjoy this more limited skillset" or "Thank god there arent mounts in this level bracket" and even "I want to duel higher level players with this low level one just because". Its mostly for fun, not malice. Although there are obviously some toxic ones. As an example, in WoW I had a level 19 fully twinked gnome rogue that I would take to hillsbrad foothills and either challenge level 28+ horde, or wait for them to try to "gank" me. What result was usually some pretty even fights, it was just funny to both parties involved because I was just a level 19.
    Made a name for myself and even befriended quite a few enemy players that way.
    All of that being said, this isn't as big of a concern as you believe it to be.

    followed by...
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Lucky you! I have been held at gunpoint 4 times, and have dealt with several instances of people attempting to rob me. I guess we live in different worlds seeing as all of my occurrences didn't happen in any of the places you mentioned either.

    Bruh...

    Yes? is there some correlation here?
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    There are just as many people complaining that Corruption is too harsh as there are people complaining that Corruption is insufficient.
    Why not make the corruption factor decrease gradually on the map, the further you are from developed areas?
    That means killing near cities would be harshly punished by corruption and being deep in the wilderness would be risky for the less prepared.
    Because there are plenty of PvE-only folk and PvP-sometimes folk who want to explore the world without encountering non-consensual PvP. So, the penalties for non-consensual PvP will be consistent across the world.
    - PvE players should stay where is safe for them and watch YouTube videos.
    - PvP-sometimes folk should then only sometime venture into the more dangerous areas. They will enjoy the adventure when they are ready.
    PvP folk should be penalized when they kill Non-Combatants. Regardless of where they are.
    And they will be.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Dolyem wrote: »
    A timid player is simply that. A player with a timid personality who is unsure of themselves and their decisions, usually based on fear of the outcome of their decisions. Corruption isnt there to prevent unwanted activities being forced onto other players, it is simply there to limit how often it occurs.
    By your definition, timid player is not a thing.
    Corruption is designed to deter non-consensual PvP such that it is a rare occurence.
  • RamirezRamirez Member
    edited June 2022
    Marpo wrote: »
    We've reached a certain age where we just want to sit in our chairs and enjoy a good game, just stay in the predictable zone of bots and AI.

    Just like me, there are many players who hate PvP, and who don't want 1% of it. I hope the kind of frustrations we're going to have are just not being able to kill a very difficult boss. I hope PvP combats in Caravans, World PvP and Nodes for example, don't take us away from AoC.

    Developers, I'm really excited about what's being presented. It's all very beautiful! I'm super excited for the next tests and the upcoming release!

    Then you Will get another new world , where they killed the pvp, then the game didn t make sence because was build around PvP and territory conquest...
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited June 2022
    It's what Steven states the design is.
    Guilds coulld try that. If it's common... expect the devs to adjust the Corruption penalty accordingly to deter that.
  • Adventure should be mandatory in an adventure game (an rpg).


  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    We shall see.
  • Actually agree there should be a base level where you can't pvp like pvp activates starting at lvl 10 or something.
    Otr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    A timid player is simply that. A player with a timid personality who is unsure of themselves and their decisions, usually based on fear of the outcome of their decisions. Corruption isnt there to prevent unwanted activities being forced onto other players, it is simply there to limit how often it occurs.
    By your definition, timid player is not a thing.
    Corruption is designed to deter non-consensual PvP such that it is a rare occurence.
    That's just your wish and hope that it will be rare. :smile:
    Guilds can organize themselves and take turn on killing you.

    As much of a fair point that is you are thinking an a extreme. First off if a guild attacks you and kills you turning red. You can attack them for free unless they want to gain more corruption to the point they eventually drop gear. By them attacking you BH will show up, or you can actually just say there is a group of reds with high corruption and everyone will come because they want their gear.

    As well you would have to piss a guild off if that many of their members come out to do that even knowing the risk if they keep killing you. What is more likely and if you are a solo player with no guild they can't dec you so they are at a loss except for all gaining corruption.

    This isn't a likely scenario as a hardcore pvper myself that kills people for no reason. I won't just gain corruption without a clear reason just because some guildy has a issue with a random. If that random is weak and a low level they would be on their own.
  • I don't care for PvP. But i know it's part of the game, and i don't expect them to change it. I also think Steven has said, it won't be changed. As it's part of the game.
Sign In or Register to comment.