Feedback: We love the open sea PvP change - now, what about open PvP zones for World Bosses?

High risk, high reward, the open sea change was one of the best possible changes Intrepid made, now, we know that on the open seas we will have unique NPCs and rewards, but the best gear and materials that are legendary tier only drop from legendary world bosses,

because of that, I would love to see the area around the legendary world bosses being open pvp zones as well, so people can't abuse the corruption system and rely on that to try to do the legendary world bosses without the risk of being killed by other Guilds

the corruption system is amazing but it should be used only for it's intended purpose: deter ganking and PKing in the open world where there is nothing to gain, I feel like Legendary World bosses fall under the same ruleset as the open seas, and because of that I would love to see this change.

I feel like similar to the open seas, this would help to protect the PvErs in the game, by alleviating the need for gankers to PK random people, since now they have the oceans and they would also have the open world bosses areas to PK, and this would make the content even more challenging, and reducing the number of people that have access to Legendary gear, making it actually Legendary and not the "endgame" set that every guild can obtain.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Just stopping in to say risking dying more often even at reduced penalties still equates to greater risk if the chances of you dying multiple times are greater than in the area where you'd receive higher penalties though less likelihood of being killed by other players, in other words less dying, less risk.

It’s reduced risk. Players will be willing to die twice as often in the Open Seas because the death penalties are half what they would be on land.
And there’s no corpse runs.

Liniker

Dygz wrote: »

It’s reduced risk. Players will be willing to die twice as often in the Open Seas because the death penalties are half what they would be on land.
And there’s no corpse runs.

No - you don't know if they are half, stop pulling info out your ass

even if they are, which nobody knows, still higher risk

and where did you get this Stupid fucking idea that in land people will be dying and taking 100% penalties? people can and most (with brains) WILL Flag and take 50% - maybe YOU won't flag and will happily take the 100%, but you can't assume everyone else is dumb

you need to stop creating imaginary scenarios to justify your stupid thought process

Strevi

The trip from a continent to the other is longer.
Caravans need scouts to know if the path is clear and take evasive maneuvers.
Before the change, scouts would stay green.
Now scouts will be eliminated.
Without scouts, it is higher risk to run into pirates.

Fohlenbraten

Even as a PVP Player i dont want to have PVP Zones for World Bosses - there are allready enought possibilities for PVP in ashes - the game also needs PVE oriented players to survive ... the hardcore PVP players are not enought to fund a game and i see no reason why we cant be happy in ashes together - pve players try a litte pvp from time to time and PVP players will need to do PVE to achieve goals too.

Liniker

Fohlenbraten wrote: »

Even as a PVP Player i dont want to have PVP Zones for World Bosses - there are allready enought possibilities for PVP in ashes - the game also needs PVE oriented players to survive ... the hardcore PVP players are not enought to fund a game and i see no reason why we cant be happy in ashes together - pve players try a litte pvp from time to time and PVP players will need to do PVE to achieve goals too.

this is irrelevant, legendary world bosses will already be pvp zones... with corruption.... you call yourself a PVP player but you think large guilds won't absolutely dominate those world bosses for the unique legendary mats and items?

corruption in highly competitive content is not meant and won't protect any PvE-oriented player..... because that is Not a PvE content... it's a PvX content WITH PvP - with or without corruption it would continue to be a PvX content with PvP

now ofc, it's a completely different case when talking about random ganking in the open world

CROW3

Sapiverenus wrote: »

What game/ MMO has FFA PvP.
Doesn't Sea of Thieves have FFA PvP?

Mortal Online II has probably the most open PVP system for an MMO. It's basically a modernization of the old UO open pvp full-loot system.

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

The trip from a continent to the other is longer.
Caravans need scouts to know if the path is clear and take evasive maneuvers.
Before the change, scouts would stay green.
Now scouts will be eliminated.
Without scouts, it is higher risk to run into pirates.

Caravans have no death penalties and was already opt-in PvP.
Naval Caravans are the exact same risk as Land Caravans. Which is whatever cargo the Caravan is carrying.

Eliminating scouts is a meaningless assumption at this point.

Liniker

Dygz wrote: »

Caravans have no death penalties and was already opt-in PvP.

@Dygz again, for the 10th time, you are wrong, there is Gear Degradation when you die attacking caravans and that is called a Death Penalty, and they already said gear degradation is Significant as it requires both gold and material to repair.

https://youtu.be/4sUTuUAgavE?t=1h14m52s

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

The trip from a continent to the other is longer.
Caravans need scouts to know if the path is clear and take evasive maneuvers.
Before the change, scouts would stay green.
Now scouts will be eliminated.
Without scouts, it is higher risk to run into pirates.

Caravans have no death penalties and was already opt-in PvP.
Naval Caravans are the exact same risk as Land Caravans. Which is whatever cargo the Caravan is carrying.

Eliminating scouts is a meaningless assumption at this point.

I don't know why you mention death penalty. The real penalty is losing the cargo.

Your assumption is that the entire sea will be full of players and will be like a firewall between the two continents?
My assumption is that player density will be low enough to allow passing from one side to the other without any encounter, depending on route, time of the day, luck and strategy.
Your view is more pessimistic than mine.

Dygz

Sooo.... your claim is that gear degradation is increased in the Open Seas? And compensates for the lack of the other death penalties?
As opposed to Caravans on Land?

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Sooo.... your claim is that gear degradation is increased in the Open Seas? And compensates for the lack of the other death penalties?
As opposed to Caravans on Land?

On land I can send scouts ahead, low level players, to tell me if there are known bandits around.
On sea, I can try a similar strategy with fast ships.
PvP is more likely in the deep sea now than before. You agreed to that, isn't it?
Therefore, the fast ships have to flee now, to play a cat and mouse game. And I will sail almost blindly.

If there are too many pirates, traders will travel less often. Then pirates will move to land leaving the seas open and traders start traveling more often. Eventually the number of pirates vs trades will reach an equilibrium which is good for both sides. Until resources deplete and spawn on other parts of the map, shifting the balance again.

Of course Steven has to balance the resources well. Too few of them will drive players away from the game.
Too many resources will make everything worthless. But maybe some servers will have more peaceful players, more metros, playing tavern games... possibly too boring for some players.

Dygz

With Caravans, scouts are mostly irrelevant anyways.
Caravans have to move often enough for Node progression, so... "traveling less" is subjective and doesn;t necessarily mean much.

WHIT3ROS3

Sapiverenus wrote: »

Volgaris wrote: »

Lets just not have corruption. FFA PVP! Find your side! Bend the knee! Pay tribute to live and play the game! It's been sooo successful with every other game that's done it! Trust no one! Paranoia is true when they are really after you!

What game/ MMO has FFA PvP.
Doesn't Sea of Thieves have FFA PvP?

EvE
Albion Online
Mortal Online 2 (a great example of why you shouldn't listen to the hardcore PvP crowd, they destroyed that game)

Sapiverenus

Fohlenbraten wrote: »

Even as a PVP Player i dont want to have PVP Zones for World Bosses - there are allready enought possibilities for PVP in ashes - the game also needs PVE oriented players to survive ... the hardcore PVP players are not enought to fund a game and i see no reason why we cant be happy in ashes together - pve players try a litte pvp from time to time and PVP players will need to do PVE to achieve goals too.

Those that indiscriminately kill AI and Players want the PvX game where world bosses are contested zones. It adds importance/ impact to the world and player agency both.

Sapiverenus

CROW3 wrote: »

Mortal Online II has probably the most open PVP system for an MMO. It's basically a modernization of the old UO open pvp full-loot system.

Yeah but it's pretty unfinished. The criticism of FFA PvP (it being the cause of MMO death) doesn't have a good example I'm aware of.

Sapiverenus

WHIT3ROS3 wrote: »

EvE
Albion Online
Mortal Online 2 (a great example of why you shouldn't listen to the hardcore PvP crowd, they destroyed that game)

Yeah Eve. It's a bit controlled but not that much.
It's a bit of a niche game no matter what and it has some decent success even with FFA PvP compounding losses from an already slooow progression system.
Albion Online had all sorts of problems based purely on potato salad costing 167k silver lol. I haven't seen anything about it that looks good though.
Mortal Online 2 looks very very very unfinished.

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

With Caravans, scouts are mostly irrelevant anyways.
Caravans have to move often enough for Node progression, so... "traveling less" is subjective and doesn;t necessarily mean much.

Doesn't look like you know how this game works

Caravans which move often are the mayoral caravans and only if the mayor creates a trade agreement with that other node: a trade route And over the large ocean, if he makes an agreement, then he must have many players defending that route. Then the path is safe most of the time.

Regarding need of scouts... you need then to know what surrounds you. Steven has a similar opinion.
https://youtu.be/4XLJelgfO3g?t=3637

So when you move off of land, from where we have a flagging system that protects, and the Open Seas are international waters where you need to be careful and there is a lot of opportunity at sea. And because there is a lot of opportunity that is unique to that content, that is unique to that sea, that's treasure finding, that's NPCs, that's a lot of different stuff,
...
and players now know when they move into into the Open Sea they are doing so in a method that requires them to be cognizant of their surroundings, who is near me, who can mess with me, who do I need to make friends with, who do I know my enemies are who can I forge alliances with, how can I create flotillas of protection... these are things that add a dynamic of political intrigue and seas are a great place for that.

But I think you understand all of these.
You just pretend things are different, thinking that you can convince everybody to see things in a twisted way... maybe even Steven?

This must be how influencers and game journalists act when they don't like some changes.

Noaani

Strevi wrote: »

Caravans which move often are the mayoral caravans and only if the mayor creates a trade agreement with that other node

This is untrue.

The most common form of caravan will be a personal caravan being used to transport materials.

Strevi

Noaani wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

Caravans which move often are the mayoral caravans and only if the mayor creates a trade agreement with that other node

This is untrue.

The most common form of caravan will be a personal caravan being used to transport materials.

Over the ocean the path will be less safe.
So only risk taking caravans will move.
If risks are high, no mayoral caravans run at all.
On land possibly all of them will move as much as they can and makes sense. Some for profit others to improve node defense.

There is this other thread
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53503/caravan-system-does-not-work-well-with-crafting/p1

Where we were trying to find out how many caravans will run between nodes and how much players will gather to fill them. Last post is from @Dygz

Dygz wrote: »

Caravans are mostly for Node progression; not individuals Crafting a Sword.

Someone striving to be Mayor of an Economic Node might be doing quests with enough bulk orders to drive a Caravan.

Noaani

Strevi wrote: »

Where we were trying to find out how many caravans will run between nodes and how much players will gather to fill them.

There is no way to gauge this at all.

However, the bulk of caravans being run will be personal caravans.

We know this because we know that not all material types will be available in all node ZoI's. Even if a material type is available in a given nodes ZoI, that doesn't mean all resources within that material type will be available all the time.

As such, players will need to move materials around the game world all the time.

While it may well be true that an individual player crafting a sword is not going to require a caravan specifically for them, the player selling raw materials on that nodes market would probably need caravans to supply them.

Even in regards to a metropolis, you are going to use caravans to transport materials between the vassal nodes within that metropolis' ZoI.

Child Item