Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them.
Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server.
Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You said: "I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here." And now you are saying that you are perfectly aware what he is asking. Makes no sense. Example: WoW (PvE-server) = Consensual owPvP WoW (PvP-server) = Non-consensual owPvP
Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You didn't get it, and you've gone beyond just 'disagreeing'. So I'll finish the analogy. Assume that the brownies contain both nuts, and some other less 'dangerous' crunchy textured addition. "Why are there nuts in your brownies, I don't like/can't eat those." "It's part of the texture, we don't consider them to be as good without them." "Can you make a version without nuts?" "Sorry, the texture's required or they don't even bake properly." "But they already have 'other crunchy thing' anyway, I just want it without the nuts." You can disagree on whether or not the brownies need the nuts, but for a lot of people, brownies are fine without nuts, and if the point is the texture, and they'll eat it with the other texture (the multiple other PvP), to them, you're just refusing to remove the nuts on principle. So they ask.
Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You said: "I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here." And now you are saying that you are perfectly aware what he is asking. Makes no sense. Example: WoW (PvE-server) = Consensual owPvP WoW (PvP-server) = Non-consensual owPvP "I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here" This is something we say in my native language to people who act really dumb. I do understand the point, I just don't get it how can anyone be so obnoxious to not realize how wrong it is. I guess it translates rough into english, which is a good argument if you got nothing else. What's next, calling out sarcasm and irony? Great, you found one of the MMOs that have PvE servers and flagging. Now go and play it.
Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You said: "I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here." And now you are saying that you are perfectly aware what he is asking. Makes no sense. Example: WoW (PvE-server) = Consensual owPvP WoW (PvP-server) = Non-consensual owPvP "I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here" This is something we say in my native language to people who act really dumb. I do understand the point, I just don't get it how can anyone be so obnoxious to not realize how wrong it is. I guess it translates rough into english, which is a good argument if you got nothing else. What's next, calling out sarcasm and irony? Great, you found one of the MMOs that have PvE servers and flagging. Now go and play it. So basically you decided the other person was wrong and then explicitly acted as if you didn't understand them. Not even that you didn't understand 'why they had the perception' so you could correct it... just 'outright not meaning it'. This sounds to me like you're much more likely to be the one not understanding. If Ashes retained Caravan PvP, Node PvP, Siege PvP, Guild v Guild PvP, Arena PvP, and then changed a few things about people's expectations of bosses, then they still have a heavy PvP game that just doesn't contain pure owPvP. To some people, who want or don't mind those five forms of PvP but don't want 'random owPvP', this sounds like a good product. It's also one you can't currently get at the implied quality anywhere else. So in short, you're conflating 'I would like this specific form of PvP removed' with 'I should be willing to play other less good games without any of the other forms of PvP I might eventually like because the designers of this game are adamant about keeping the last kind that I don't like'. Anyways, since you've clarified now that you actually don't have a lack of understanding, just 'prefer to dismiss other people's perspectives if you have a way to just not engage', then at least say that, because there are other people with genuine lack of understanding, so people try to engage you as if you are one of those people.
Norkore wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You said: "I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here." And now you are saying that you are perfectly aware what he is asking. Makes no sense. Example: WoW (PvE-server) = Consensual owPvP WoW (PvP-server) = Non-consensual owPvP "I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here" This is something we say in my native language to people who act really dumb. I do understand the point, I just don't get it how can anyone be so obnoxious to not realize how wrong it is. I guess it translates rough into english, which is a good argument if you got nothing else. What's next, calling out sarcasm and irony? Great, you found one of the MMOs that have PvE servers and flagging. Now go and play it. So basically you decided the other person was wrong and then explicitly acted as if you didn't understand them. Not even that you didn't understand 'why they had the perception' so you could correct it... just 'outright not meaning it'. This sounds to me like you're much more likely to be the one not understanding. If Ashes retained Caravan PvP, Node PvP, Siege PvP, Guild v Guild PvP, Arena PvP, and then changed a few things about people's expectations of bosses, then they still have a heavy PvP game that just doesn't contain pure owPvP. To some people, who want or don't mind those five forms of PvP but don't want 'random owPvP', this sounds like a good product. It's also one you can't currently get at the implied quality anywhere else. So in short, you're conflating 'I would like this specific form of PvP removed' with 'I should be willing to play other less good games without any of the other forms of PvP I might eventually like because the designers of this game are adamant about keeping the last kind that I don't like'. Anyways, since you've clarified now that you actually don't have a lack of understanding, just 'prefer to dismiss other people's perspectives if you have a way to just not engage', then at least say that, because there are other people with genuine lack of understanding, so people try to engage you as if you are one of those people. I understand the situation, you don't seem to be realizing how ridiculous it is when people try to force their optics and needs on other games where the direction is set. You are literally arguing the fundamental systems of the game. You should practice that "understanding" you're preaching about and move on.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You didn't get it, and you've gone beyond just 'disagreeing'. So I'll finish the analogy. Assume that the brownies contain both nuts, and some other less 'dangerous' crunchy textured addition. "Why are there nuts in your brownies, I don't like/can't eat those." "It's part of the texture, we don't consider them to be as good without them." "Can you make a version without nuts?" "Sorry, the texture's required or they don't even bake properly." "But they already have 'other crunchy thing' anyway, I just want it without the nuts." You can disagree on whether or not the brownies need the nuts, but for a lot of people, brownies are fine without nuts, and if the point is the texture, and they'll eat it with the other texture (the multiple other PvP), to them, you're just refusing to remove the nuts on principle. So they ask. That would work if you are talking about WoW. Pvp is in the game but its more just thrown on. When you are talking about system built around pvp, balancing and progression for players and the server its different. It be more like i want a burger but I don't like meat, so they created beyond burger.
Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Norkore wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Consensual and non-consensual are standard terminology and just playing the game does not change non-consensual to consensual. If a player cannot choose when he/she wants to fight in PvP (for example get ganked) that is always non-consensual PvP. He would not touch to any consensual PvP part of the game, sieges, caravans, other battlegrounds, and those can stay as are. However, he would like to change open world PvP rules from non-consensual PvP to consensual PvP which would mean in practice that non-combatant green players cannot be attacked anymore. Open world PvP would happen only between those players who are flagged to combatant. Perhaps PvE-server as a term is here a little bit misleading because most of the PvP would be still involded in this theoretical server. You don't have to try to perform these sort of mental gymnastics to explain his point of view. I am perfectly aware what he is asking for, and I still disagree. There is open world PvP, which means you are okay with fighting in the open. End of story. This argument is like saying dying in Call of duty Multiplayer is non consensual because I am doing a pacifist challenge, and it's unfair how people shoot me. There are guns in the game, and you're playing against other people. This is the game with it's rules, and you knowingly entered that space. It doesn't matter if at some points you REALLY don't want to die (because let's say you're carrying some rare materials, and trust me nobody wants to die and lose items, but this sort of emotional investment is the point of the system), open world PvP still allows people to attack you. I could copy Steven's stance and the PvX article again on why this is important for the game's design but I'm not going to, you can scroll up and read it. Arguing about this makes absolutely zero sense. The guy who want this to be different clearly just wishes for a more forgiving environment. Go and play a game with such a setting, there are boatloads of them. You said: "I've been reading your comments and I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here." And now you are saying that you are perfectly aware what he is asking. Makes no sense. Example: WoW (PvE-server) = Consensual owPvP WoW (PvP-server) = Non-consensual owPvP "I still don't understand the point you're trying to make here" This is something we say in my native language to people who act really dumb. I do understand the point, I just don't get it how can anyone be so obnoxious to not realize how wrong it is. I guess it translates rough into english, which is a good argument if you got nothing else. What's next, calling out sarcasm and irony? Great, you found one of the MMOs that have PvE servers and flagging. Now go and play it. So basically you decided the other person was wrong and then explicitly acted as if you didn't understand them. Not even that you didn't understand 'why they had the perception' so you could correct it... just 'outright not meaning it'. This sounds to me like you're much more likely to be the one not understanding. If Ashes retained Caravan PvP, Node PvP, Siege PvP, Guild v Guild PvP, Arena PvP, and then changed a few things about people's expectations of bosses, then they still have a heavy PvP game that just doesn't contain pure owPvP. To some people, who want or don't mind those five forms of PvP but don't want 'random owPvP', this sounds like a good product. It's also one you can't currently get at the implied quality anywhere else. So in short, you're conflating 'I would like this specific form of PvP removed' with 'I should be willing to play other less good games without any of the other forms of PvP I might eventually like because the designers of this game are adamant about keeping the last kind that I don't like'. Anyways, since you've clarified now that you actually don't have a lack of understanding, just 'prefer to dismiss other people's perspectives if you have a way to just not engage', then at least say that, because there are other people with genuine lack of understanding, so people try to engage you as if you are one of those people. I understand the situation, you don't seem to be realizing how ridiculous it is when people try to force their optics and needs on other games where the direction is set. You are literally arguing the fundamental systems of the game. You should practice that "understanding" you're preaching about and move on. Yeah ok, your stance is clear, thanks.
Azherae wrote: » What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists?
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists? Mule runs being completely safe. I'd imagine a lot of people will use them in the game as the safer version of caravans because most people would be scared of x2 corruption, but if anyone wanted the resources in that mule (if they knew the transporting player and their value) - they could still risk it. I think others have mentioned it before, but I dunno how pvp-dislikers would look at node wars as a concept. To me that's literally owpvp on a huge scale and a kind of replacement of L2's guild wars (because AoC's GWs will be more goal-based). So if you watched that 17min video that I posted in your thread, you know how those wars went, and that definitely doesn't look all too consensual to me (mainly because it's gonna be a bit harder to change your node, compared to how ez it was to exit a clan at war if you didn't want to bother with the war). And even outside of node wars there's pvp/pk attacks as the means of active node attrition. We obviously have no clue how exactly the node points will be distributed, but I'd assume higher lvled content would probably give out more points (at least that seems logical to me), so a guild/group from another node coming to yours and just locking everyone out of a dungeon through pvp/pk would quickly put pressure on your node's atrophy. Obviously this would be a huge undertaking and would probably be difficult to execute well, but I'm sure you know that there'll always be people ready to attempt the hardest things if they see a benefit in doing so. Those 3 are the biggest ones that came to my mind rn.
Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists? Mule runs being completely safe. I'd imagine a lot of people will use them in the game as the safer version of caravans because most people would be scared of x2 corruption, but if anyone wanted the resources in that mule (if they knew the transporting player and their value) - they could still risk it. I think others have mentioned it before, but I dunno how pvp-dislikers would look at node wars as a concept. To me that's literally owpvp on a huge scale and a kind of replacement of L2's guild wars (because AoC's GWs will be more goal-based). So if you watched that 17min video that I posted in your thread, you know how those wars went, and that definitely doesn't look all too consensual to me (mainly because it's gonna be a bit harder to change your node, compared to how ez it was to exit a clan at war if you didn't want to bother with the war). And even outside of node wars there's pvp/pk attacks as the means of active node attrition. We obviously have no clue how exactly the node points will be distributed, but I'd assume higher lvled content would probably give out more points (at least that seems logical to me), so a guild/group from another node coming to yours and just locking everyone out of a dungeon through pvp/pk would quickly put pressure on your node's atrophy. Obviously this would be a huge undertaking and would probably be difficult to execute well, but I'm sure you know that there'll always be people ready to attempt the hardest things if they see a benefit in doing so. Those 3 are the biggest ones that came to my mind rn. I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... Might as well clarify to you and reference it in case they ever catch on. One of the main things successful leads and CEOs learn not to do (because they move around between companies as managers) is not to put much weight on the opinions of people who can't justify the status quo other than to restate that it is so. This means that when you don't want something to change, you should come up with a better reason than 'there's no need to change it'. If Ashes works like this at all, and Steven isn't just 'refusing to actually debate things with staff', then some of even Steven's ideas are subject to change if he can't justify them beyond 'I just don't think it needs to change'. Every person who jumps on the same line is taking a big risk of losing the thing they are interested in because they didn't give real feedback, they just relied on inertia. So here's my problem. I don't think the above are enough. They're good arguments, surely, but even as the person who wants to keep the owPvP... I'm not sure I could justify it given design at the moment. I'm trying to figure it out. What the actual reason to not change it is. What the core 'This is why Ashes MUST have this', is, so that I can keep having it with some certainty beyond 'But Steven promised!' I'd love for this thread to result in a concrete reason that people could be pointed to as to why Ashes must have this and will not change it that doesn't boil down to 'Oh you scared?! Suck it up, buttercup, or gtfo!' Because that is helping precisely nobody. So, separately, all y'all having that reaction to ME... You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what?
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » What if anything do we know about Ashes that requires owPvP to exist given that there are no Factions and that Guild v Guild exists? Mule runs being completely safe. I'd imagine a lot of people will use them in the game as the safer version of caravans because most people would be scared of x2 corruption, but if anyone wanted the resources in that mule (if they knew the transporting player and their value) - they could still risk it. I think others have mentioned it before, but I dunno how pvp-dislikers would look at node wars as a concept. To me that's literally owpvp on a huge scale and a kind of replacement of L2's guild wars (because AoC's GWs will be more goal-based). So if you watched that 17min video that I posted in your thread, you know how those wars went, and that definitely doesn't look all too consensual to me (mainly because it's gonna be a bit harder to change your node, compared to how ez it was to exit a clan at war if you didn't want to bother with the war). And even outside of node wars there's pvp/pk attacks as the means of active node attrition. We obviously have no clue how exactly the node points will be distributed, but I'd assume higher lvled content would probably give out more points (at least that seems logical to me), so a guild/group from another node coming to yours and just locking everyone out of a dungeon through pvp/pk would quickly put pressure on your node's atrophy. Obviously this would be a huge undertaking and would probably be difficult to execute well, but I'm sure you know that there'll always be people ready to attempt the hardest things if they see a benefit in doing so. Those 3 are the biggest ones that came to my mind rn. I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... Might as well clarify to you and reference it in case they ever catch on. One of the main things successful leads and CEOs learn not to do (because they move around between companies as managers) is not to put much weight on the opinions of people who can't justify the status quo other than to restate that it is so. This means that when you don't want something to change, you should come up with a better reason than 'there's no need to change it'. If Ashes works like this at all, and Steven isn't just 'refusing to actually debate things with staff', then some of even Steven's ideas are subject to change if he can't justify them beyond 'I just don't think it needs to change'. Every person who jumps on the same line is taking a big risk of losing the thing they are interested in because they didn't give real feedback, they just relied on inertia. So here's my problem. I don't think the above are enough. They're good arguments, surely, but even as the person who wants to keep the owPvP... I'm not sure I could justify it given design at the moment. I'm trying to figure it out. What the actual reason to not change it is. What the core 'This is why Ashes MUST have this', is, so that I can keep having it with some certainty beyond 'But Steven promised!' I'd love for this thread to result in a concrete reason that people could be pointed to as to why Ashes must have this and will not change it that doesn't boil down to 'Oh you scared?! Suck it up, buttercup, or gtfo!' Because that is helping precisely nobody. So, separately, all y'all having that reaction to ME... You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what? Why are you against ganking?
So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover...
Mag7spy wrote: » I'm im trolling it make it clear. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... That sounds like you are against ganking.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm im trolling it make it clear. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... That sounds like you are against ganking. My bad I will spell it out for you. I am a ganker sometimes. I want more PvP. All of it. I want everyone to PvP. I want everyone to WANT to PvP. I want everyone to see PvP as a valid way of solving their conflicts and a fun experience 90% of the time it happens. I want to finally have an MMO where if I see someone and I just feel like fighting and that person is at my level, that they have a good reason to think 'I should have this fight, it might be good/fun'. I don't see that in Ashes yet, I see the same old annoying world in which the moment I start fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, they're going to be very upset and not fight back. And I will kill them anyway.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm im trolling it make it clear. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... That sounds like you are against ganking. My bad I will spell it out for you. I am a ganker sometimes. I want more PvP. All of it. I want everyone to PvP. I want everyone to WANT to PvP. I want everyone to see PvP as a valid way of solving their conflicts and a fun experience 90% of the time it happens. I want to finally have an MMO where if I see someone and I just feel like fighting and that person is at my level, that they have a good reason to think 'I should have this fight, it might be good/fun'. I don't see that in Ashes yet, I see the same old annoying world in which the moment I start fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, they're going to be very upset and not fight back. And I will kill them anyway. Now im more confused, if you will them and go red you will drop gear though if it was that many people. I'm evil and I wouldn't do that.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm im trolling it make it clear. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... That sounds like you are against ganking. My bad I will spell it out for you. I am a ganker sometimes. I want more PvP. All of it. I want everyone to PvP. I want everyone to WANT to PvP. I want everyone to see PvP as a valid way of solving their conflicts and a fun experience 90% of the time it happens. I want to finally have an MMO where if I see someone and I just feel like fighting and that person is at my level, that they have a good reason to think 'I should have this fight, it might be good/fun'. I don't see that in Ashes yet, I see the same old annoying world in which the moment I start fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, they're going to be very upset and not fight back. And I will kill them anyway. Now im more confused, if you will them and go red you will drop gear though if it was that many people. I'm evil and I wouldn't do that. Then I guess you're small-time evil compared to me.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » I'm im trolling it make it clear. So since I am not actually sure that I can get anything out of @Mag7spy or @Okeydoke until they accept that I'm a ganker and not a PvP-remover... That sounds like you are against ganking. My bad I will spell it out for you. I am a ganker sometimes. I want more PvP. All of it. I want everyone to PvP. I want everyone to WANT to PvP. I want everyone to see PvP as a valid way of solving their conflicts and a fun experience 90% of the time it happens. I want to finally have an MMO where if I see someone and I just feel like fighting and that person is at my level, that they have a good reason to think 'I should have this fight, it might be good/fun'. I don't see that in Ashes yet, I see the same old annoying world in which the moment I start fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, they're going to be very upset and not fight back. And I will kill them anyway. Now im more confused, if you will them and go red you will drop gear though if it was that many people. I'm evil and I wouldn't do that. Then I guess you're small-time evil compared to me. I would 100% pk you though lol. So your worry is you will kill too many people and scare people off the game?
Azherae wrote: » I'd absolutely treat Mules as Caravans, I honestly figured they basically were, but obv there's no reason that must be true.
Azherae wrote: » You wanna actually help make sure we get to keep this thing or what?
