Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Hot take debate: "Non-consensual PVP", does it exist in AoC?
Dolyem
Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
"Non-consensual PvP" is something mentioned quite a bit on these forums regarding PvP and Corruption systems. Does "Non-consensual PvP" actually exist in a game that you log into knowing full well that at any moment another player can kill you at any time for any reason, and that it is indeed even a part of the system and games design?
Let the debates begin!
Let the debates begin!
1
Comments
When you log in to Ashes, you consent to PvP.
Unless, of course, you’re only doing PvE instanced raids/dungeons or freehold.
Playing only those narrow portions of the game would limit your loot to middle of the road rewards.
It would also be a poor investment of a player’s monthly subscription fee.
Consensual means there must be consent. It makes no sense to play a game with PvP enabled everywhere and say "I do not consent to PvP". It's like playing CS and asking "is there consensual PvP here?".
I believe the better terms are "opt-in PvP" for caravans, castle sieges, guild wars, arena where you choose to participate.
And to me words such as "forced" (compelled by force or necessity: involuntary) or "involuntary" (done contrary to or without choice; compulsory) describe PKing a lot better: it doesn't matter if you want it or not, the PvP is coming your way.
You obviously can't personally opt out of PvP because all of the game systems are interconnected and take into account the inherent risk of existing in an open world PvP game. How would open world dungeons work if everyone opted out of PvP? Why would people risk using caravans, or better yet why wouldn't you just be able to teleport all your resources wherever you want to? You can't remove the PvP from the game without fundamentally changing the game and if someone wants to change the game at a fundamental level, they are clearly not the target audience for the game in the first place. I don't go to a pizza shop and request they start making everyone a sandwich.
The aversion to loss however is a common trait but is often exaggerated in the mind of the individual. The only way for this opinion to change is through experience, which is why it's stupid and pointless to try to convince people that they will enjoy some loss when they are convinced otherwise. Once they experience it for themselves, based on how the tuning of the loss (vs reward) is done, they will either realize it's below their quitting threshold or above it. The good thing is that this game will have membership monetization so the barrier to entry will be lower than box price (plus I'm sure there will be free trials) and there will be tons of opportunity to tune the risk v reward before and after release. The important thing to note here is that most people have very little experience with loss in games, especially newer gamers so they need a chance to try it hands on to form a real opinion.
So consent occurs before you are even able to login.
I think what folks typically call non-consensual really translates to undesired pvp. Those are very different things. Especially, when the game systems condone attacking other players of all stripes.
The only tangible penalty is for killing greens, and even then the corruption system is meant to deter mass lowbie murder streaks, not to eliminate murdering greens (from time to time).
This all adds up to creating a dangerous world that constantly balances risk v. reward - and where there are guardrails, not hand-holding.
Non-combatants in a boxing ring - photographers, referees, etc... do not give informed consent merely by entering the boxing ring. There will be severe penalties applied to their attackers.
Informed consent probably is not a thing.
Non-consensual and undesired are synonyms.
Non-consensual and desired are antonyms.
Ashes is not really intended to be a "dangerous world".
Ashes is a world focused on risk v reward.
I've walked down the streets of Compton and Inglewood in the middle of the night.
That's pretty risky, but I haven't been mugged yet. Penalties applied to my would-be attackers help prevent that. And, just because I choose to walk down the streets of Compton and Inglewood in the middle of the night does not mean I have given informed consent to being attacked.
It just means I'm aware of the risks and decided to gamble on and trust that the likelihood of my being attacked is low due to the penalties on my attackers being a strong deterrent.
As such, the only person a boxer would expect to see in the ring is another boxer. If you willingly get in a boxing ring with someone that only expects other boxers in said ring, that is tantamount to consent.
Having unscheduled PvP leads to great stories.
Referee's in a boxing match are moderators not participants. Logging into Verra you have chosen to be a participant.
Attacking the ref is like attack a server moderator.
That's what non-combatant means. Non-combatant and non-participant are synonyms.
Which is why killing non-combatants is severely penalized.
But you know what is under your control? Not entering the zone. Or getting into a bomb shelter (freehold) and sitting there forever. Outside of that, there's always danger and you willingly went to a place like that.
People who arent boxers arent playing the game
Boxers are combatants.
There are also non-combatants in the ring with the boxers.
You're going to want to sit down for this revelation but... sports are competitive games.
Also I was refering to your analogy. Although a poor one, the event(the game) is boxing, the people competing in the event are the boxers(players). The staff(intrepid) at the event manage it. The spectators(everyone not logged into the game) watch it without participating in the event itself.
Sure, the attacker may become a combatant as soon as they attack, but at the point of engagement, they are both non-participants according to your severely flawed analogue.
In Ashes, a non-combatant is someone that has given consent for PvP, but has not been involved in it for the last few minutes.
Meh. That’s fine. There are very few things we don’t see eye to eye on. 👊
In this particular case, I don’t think your ‘walking in Compton’ analogy quite fits, because open world combat is such a clear part of the initial agreement. That agreement isn’t part of moving into a neighborhood. It might be a circumstance, but not an explicit agreement. But our common denominator is still true: this just needs to be tested.
It just means it is possible to be attacked anywhere. Just because it's possible does not mean the victims consented to be forced into combat or killed.
Which is why there is a severe penalty for killing non-combatants.
Open world just means not in an instance. Consent has nothing to do with that.
Some sports are games. Some sports are not games.
Boxing is a sport that is not a game.
There are combatants in the boxing ring. There are also non-combatants in theboxing ring.
Non-combatants in the ring have not given consent to be attacked simply because they entered the boxing ring. Participating in the combat is not the only legitimate reason for being in the boxing ring.
Case closed.
Hm… I’m more inclined to see it analogous to going to a water park. You may prefer not to get wet, and the circumstances of how you get wet may not be desired, but it’s kind of built into the experience you opted into.
Part of my family is in Inglewood, violence isn’t part of the intended experience anyone signed up for.
Mate I dont think you learned anything of importance. People still respond to this guy. Zero progress.
The term can mean different things for different people but it is used in some games already to help defining different kind of PvP rules. For example, in games EvE, Albion and UO this term is used even you can expect that non-consensual PvP will happen. Therefore, answer is easy yes.
Your water park would have relatively few safety measures with visitors dying fairly regularly.
It would be a "dangerous water park".
But, you would say that it's part of the attraction and people who attend do so with informed consent.
Sure, some people may prefer to not get wet - but if you make your water park good enough, they will happily jump in head first.
On the other hand, if your water park is average, they wouldn't even bother going - and that is the right decision for you.
If you just don't like getting wet, you would avoid water parks. If you go to a water park, there is a damn good chance that you will end up wet in some manner. At the very least, you understand that it is a very real possibility, and if you wish to not get wet, you can go to some other type of park.
The issue is other people forcing you to go on a water slide that you don't want to go on. People who don't want to be forced by others to go down a water slide they don't wish to would not attend that water park.
If I'm at the water park because I just want to go to the fish restaurant and eat some fried shrimp, I'm going to be pissed if someone abducts me and forces me to go down a slide when I'm not in the mood to do that.
Going to the water park is not consent for some other attendee to force me onto a ride that I'm not in the mood for.
And if it were consent for that, without any form of punishment, I would not attend that water park.
Nor would anyone else who normally plays on PvE servers. They would just got to fish restaurants away from water parks. Even if they sometimes like water slides - it's not worth being abducted and sent down a slide when you don't to. Especially not after you've already had your fill of water slides for the day.
However, ashes is being made to be pvx. Its not that you will be forced into pvp. It is that you can not be excluded from the pvp.
You never have to participate in pvp. The game does not force you. Even while under attack from another player you can decide to stay green, and the other player is punished for not respecing your wishes of not participating. But you can not be excluded from it.
Not fighting back, and letting someone kill you, is not participating in pvp. Its being killed for refusing to play the game. And on the other hand, the party that doesnt respect your want to not play that part of the game, is still punished for it.
You have absolute control over whether or not you fight back (get on a slide). No one can force you to do that.
However, if you play Ashes, expect to be attacked (get wet). You have no control over this, but are actively aware that it is likely to happen.
If you are in that park to get some shrimp, then that shrimp must be better than the shrimp you can get elsewhere. If you can get better shrimp elsewhere, without the risk of getting wet, you would get it there instead.
The fact you are getting that shrimp in the water park means you know there is that possibility of getting wet. However, no one is forcing you down a slide.