Another area perma flagged for PVP?

Is this true? Nodes that have been destroyed... through siege or neglect... will be auto flagged PVP areas for some time?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

DarkTides

SongRune wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Sure.
Which is why I "opt-out" by just not playing games with that form of "opt-in".

Come now Dygz, surely you can tough it out.... lol

Dont need the open seas and opt in pvp nodes to kill people.

Yeah, see. This is exactly the sort of mindset that drives away a certain subset of player that might otherwise be able to ease into it. This whole "It's supposed to be painful and unfun, and you're supposed to just deal with that." People without experiences that show them the value in this sort of gameplay then go "But why?" and leave. The PvP you're talking about may not even need to be painful or un-fun, but when you have this kind of reaction, you make sure they'll never find that out. It's very unproductive.

SongRune, you have been around awhile......You've never seen this before?

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption

Not sure how you conjured up "It's supposed to be painful and unfun, and you're supposed to just deal with that." and other ramblings, when I'm pointing out something SO obviously part of the game, that having decayed nodes or nodes after being destroyed become PVP enabled zones, briefly, is a massive upset, when by comparison, you can be killed at any time, any moment, if someone wants to kill you.

I'm not saying the game has to be any way...I'm laughing that you are complaining about PVP when anyone can kill you at any time. Based on what Dygz said, he's just not going to play at all, but he's put in all of this effort and donated cash, and this is what upsets him? How?

Abarat

SongRune wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Sure.
Which is why I "opt-out" by just not playing games with that form of "opt-in".

Yeah, see. This is exactly the sort of mindset that drives away a certain subset of player that might otherwise be able to ease into it.

Not sure you can blame @DarkTides or anyone else for driving off a guy that has already paid at least $500.00 and repeatedly posts he WILL NOT play this game because Steven misled him in some interview two years ago.. or it is too PVP centric or whatever.

Come to think of it, @Dygz, you could gift your Alpha 2+ access to a young player who cannot afford it who would really like to opt in to stuff like this. I bet we could get permission from Intrepid so the new person does not get banned... you getting banned would not be an issue, since you will NEVER play.

SongRune

Abarat wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

Yeah, see. This is exactly the sort of mindset that drives away a certain subset of player that might otherwise be able to ease into it.

Not sure you can blame @DarkTides or anyone else for driving off a guy that has already paid at least $500.00 and repeatedly posts he WILL NOT play this game because Steven misled him in some interview two years ago.. or it is too PVP centric or whatever.

Well, it's never been about Dygz. It's about all the silent people who have similar perspectives and don't post them here. Dygz knows about corruption, he knows how all these systems work. He has legitimate reasons that he personally doesn't like Steven's new direction. No-one here is gonna drive away Dygz. Steven already did that, and you know what? That's fine. Personally, I'm glad Steven is clarifying his target audience rather than stringing along people who don't fit.

If he started a discussion about Corruption, sure. If he had made arguments about how it's a small temporary thing and doesn't matter much, sure. But the argument wasn't "this won't be a problem", it was "tough it out".

That said, I've realized that I called out someone who said "just tough it out", with an appeal to empathy and a broader concept of 'global community dynamics', but the type of person who says that isn't interested in the type of person it alienates. I'll back down, here.

Abarat

SongRune wrote: »

Well, it's never been about Dygz.

I understand what you are trying to say in general, however...

You say it is not about Dygz, but his comment was directly addressed to Dygz... by your logic he should have only been concerned by how Dygz reacted and we all know... from the incessant proclamations... how he feels.

Mag7spy

Personally there are a lot of people on all sides that are silent about things on both fronts. Tons of people also want a pvp game but will never post on a forum.

Sathrago

Abarat wrote: »

still. i dont believe this was outlined in the Kickstarter, are we not worried about deviations from the kickstarter?

It's what I would consider a battleground and that is something we have known about for quite some time. We are just learning where and when at this point. I expect more places to be designated battlegrounds in the future.

Sathrago

Seriously the idea of battlegrounds has been there the whole time it's really odd that people are actually side blinded by this revelation that there are areas in the open world that flag you. Heres steven talking about it as far back as 2017.

https://youtu.be/3UIqmWTGZ2k?t=14m26s

BaSkA_9x2

This was a pretty good addition to the game, now people who just got nuked can try to fight for some of the leftovers from "their own city/loot/work".

As a matter of fact, I'd rather have dozens of temporary FFA PvP zones added to the game than a permanent one.

Dygz

DarkTides wrote: »

Come now Dygz, surely you can tough it out.... lol
Dont need the open seas and opt in pvp nodes to kill people.

Tough what out?
I don't play MMORPGs that have zones with permanent auto-flag.

@Sathrago The Battlegrounds Steven described previously are temporary and opt-in - you manually choose to participate.
"Players within that area are going to be cued with a user-interface that says, "Do you want to participate to Attack, Defend or Ignore..."
Ignore means you are not auto-flagged.

@DarkTides I'm not upset by anything. I donated money to Ashes in order to help designers and programers work on systems I want to see in future MMORPGs, like Nodes. Doesn't matter to me whether I play the game.
Doesn't matter to me whether the game is ever released. Especially since I have friends working on the game and some small portion of my money helps them with their work.
I just don't play MMORPGs that have permanent auto-flag PvP zones in addition to no PvE-Only servers.

I'm still going to test Alpha 2 (and the Betas) for the systems I am interested in exploring.

Sathrago

Dygz wrote: »

@Sathrago The Battlegrounds Steven described previously are temporary and opt-in - you manually choose to participate.
"Players within that area are going to be cued with a user-interface that says, "Do you want to participate to Attack, Defend or Ignore..."
Ignore means you are not auto-flagged.

Yes when you enter a battleground zone it notifies you that you will be flagged. This is both the case for a caravan and the open sea. You're problem is that one moves and is temporary while the other persists for a long or permanent duration making you, my god, have to choose to engage with it or not to engage with the areas content.

You are entitled to not liking pvp. But acting like you weren't told it would be a thing when I just posted him saying open world battlegrounds from 2017 is just dumb.

DarkTides

Plenty of incongruent behaviour being demonstrated within this particular thread. Hope you can see it.

Azherae

Sathrago wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

@Sathrago The Battlegrounds Steven described previously are temporary and opt-in - you manually choose to participate.
"Players within that area are going to be cued with a user-interface that says, "Do you want to participate to Attack, Defend or Ignore..."
Ignore means you are not auto-flagged.

Yes when you enter a battleground zone it notifies you that you will be flagged. This is both the case for a caravan and the open sea. You're problem is that one moves and is temporary while the other persists for a long or permanent duration making you, my god, have to choose to engage with it or not to engage with the areas content.

You are entitled to not liking pvp. But acting like you weren't told it would be a thing when I just posted him saying open world battlegrounds from 2017 is just dumb.

I don't know about Dygz but to me the reason this is different is because of how it causes/allows OTHER players to behave.

A game which has a constant FFA PvP area has both a different 'feel' and a different set of players and player behaviours than one that doesn't. Node Ruins wouldn't change it, but Open Seas does.

TheDarkSorcerer

Dygz wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Come now Dygz, surely you can tough it out.... lol
Dont need the open seas and opt in pvp nodes to kill people.

Tough what out?
I don't play MMORPGs that have zones with permanent auto-flag.

@Sathrago The Battlegrounds Steven described previously are temporary and opt-in - you manually choose to participate.
"Players within that area are going to be cued with a user-interface that says, "Do you want to participate to Attack, Defend or Ignore..."
Ignore means you are not auto-flagged.

@DarkTides I'm not upset by anything. I donated money to Ashes in order to help designers and programers work on systems I want to see in future MMORPGs, like Nodes. Doesn't matter to me whether I play the game.
Doesn't matter to me whether the game is ever released. Especially since I have friends working on the game and some small portion of my money helps them with their work.
I just don't play MMORPGs that have permanent auto-flag PvP zones in addition to no PvE-Only servers.

I'm still going to test Alpha 2 (and the Betas) for the systems I am interested in exploring.

But.... but.... I wanted to see you in-game playing upon release

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

Come now Dygz, surely you can tough it out.... lol
Dont need the open seas and opt in pvp nodes to kill people.

Tough what out?
I don't play MMORPGs that have zones with permanent auto-flag.

What if some servers would not have this permanent auto-flag?
I assume you will say that you could play on those servers.

But then, what if those servers would have different map? Like each of them some unique biomes?
Would it bother you that the other server which has permanent auto-flag has a biome yours don't have?

You know the next question.

Dygz

Sathrago wrote: »

Yes when you enter a battleground zone it notifies you that you will be flagged. This is both the case for a caravan and the open sea.

Not quite.
With Caravans, you have a choice to be flagged as Combatant or not be flagged as Combatant via a UI interface. You can be in the battlegrounds of a Caravan as a Non-Combatant.
With the Open Seas, you are auto-flagged as a Combatant.
My problem is that I want to be able to explore all areas of a server without being auto-flagged that I am in the mood for PvP.

Sathrago wrote: »

You're problem is that one moves and is temporary while the other persists for a long or permanent duration making you, my god, have to choose to engage with it or not to engage with the areas content.

I'm OK with temporary auto-flag zones that last hours or a couple days. Yes.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by choosing to engage with the area's content, but...
If the game has permanent auto-flag PvP zones, I will just choose not to engage with any of the content and instead play other games where I can play everywhere, without permanent auto-flag PvP zones.

Sathrago wrote: »

You are entitled to not liking pvp. But acting like you weren't told it would be a thing when I just posted him saying open world battlegrounds from 2017 is just dumb.

I enjoy PvP - sometimes.
And, you know, you can see the interview where I asked Steven specifically about Ashes PvP and he spun the PvP differently. In that interview, he says that Ashes won't have permanent, auto-flag PvP zones.
He has said both with the Open Seas and with the Node Ruins that these are changes made a few months ago, so... I dunno why you are trying to debate that there has been a change.

I am fully aware of most of Steven's quotes about battlegrounds over the years, including the one below:

"My definition of what a battleground is- and it's non-traditional - is not typically something that is defined in the same way in other MMORPGS, but I kind of view them as these small skirmishes that might lead up to a siege or to a war and they might have capture points during node and castle fights; and these PvP objectives may be more relevant for smaller groups than for giant raids; and you might have concurrently running objectives during a particular event where you have to dispatch groups simultaneously to go address these objectives in order to complete one particular type of event or one particular type of of success condition."
---Steven

DarkTides

Accomplished in open world, not instanced

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

What if some servers would not have this permanent auto-flag?
I assume you will say that you could play on those servers.

It's quite a bit more likely. Yes.
I was already on the fence about playing and waiting to test whether Corruption deters non-consensual PvP satisfactorily in Alpha 2.
So... there has never been a guarantee that I would be playing Ashes after release.

Strevi wrote: »

But then, what if those servers would have different map? Like each of them some unique biomes?
Would it bother you that the other server which has permanent auto-flag has a biome yours don't have?

Seems like that is not a sufficient solution. It's still saying "Hey, Ashes has these cool areas to explore, but if you want to explore them, you will have to agree to be auto-flagged for PvP."
And, for me, my response is, "No, thanks. I'd rather just play some other game."

But, if my TheoryForge co-hosts were playing on a server like I might hang out with them in game from time to time.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

Seems like that is not a sufficient solution. It's still saying "Hey, Ashes has these cool areas to explore, but if you want to explore them, you will have to agree to be auto-flagged for PvP."
And, for me, my response is, "No, thanks. I'd rather just play some other game."

But, if my TheoryForge co-hosts were playing on a server like I might hang out with them in game from time to time.

Yep. I've contended for some time that Ashes will be employing a social contract where the pvp opt-in is implied upon login. The open seas open-pvp zone kinda confirmed that assertion - and I wouldn't be surprised if additional such areas began to appear across Verra.

Now, before the PvP-only crowd goes nuts, keep in mind that Ashes long term success will hinge on hooking the PvE consumer base - I don't mean 'casuals' I mean the hardcore PvE-base. IMO the more Ashes swings toward MO2 the more niche it will become.

@dygz is gonna do what Dygz is gonna do. I'd really like to play Ashes with him, and also totally respect his not wanting to play. I'm also pretty happy that even though he doesn't want to play the final game he's committed to testing in A2 to make the game better. Much respect there.

George_Black

This isnt news.
When nodes get destroyed the attackers can loot freeholds and the defenders must try to protect their property.
How else were yall expecting to get this done without a temp pvp zone?
It is still a siege area.
Why are ppl freaking out?

Azherae

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Seems like that is not a sufficient solution. It's still saying "Hey, Ashes has these cool areas to explore, but if you want to explore them, you will have to agree to be auto-flagged for PvP."
And, for me, my response is, "No, thanks. I'd rather just play some other game."

But, if my TheoryForge co-hosts were playing on a server like I might hang out with them in game from time to time.

Yep. I've contended for some time that Ashes will be employing a social contract where the pvp opt-in is implied upon login. The open seas open-pvp zone kinda confirmed that assertion - and I wouldn't be surprised if additional such areas began to appear across Verra.

Now, before the PvP-only crowd goes nuts, keep in mind that Ashes long term success will hinge on hooking the PvE consumer base - I don't mean 'casuals' I mean the hardcore PvE-base. IMO the more Ashes swings toward MO2 the more niche it will become.

@dygz is gonna do what Dygz is gonna do. I'd really like to play Ashes with him, and also totally respect his not wanting to play. I'm also pretty happy that even though he doesn't want to play the final game he's committed to testing in A2 to make the game better. Much respect there.

I also may end up in the same situation because I too, have a very specifically defined principle. I can 'draw my line'.

If FFA PvP Zones are a First Order Win Condition for this game, I'm out.

Not because I don't like them, even, but because I don't ever seem to like the community of games where that is the case.

By the nature of a temporary zone, particularly one under the control of players (Caravans, Node Siege Ruins, etc), it CAN'T in itself be a true First Order Win Condition, so I support those entirely. You can add a LOT of them before I even start to worry.

But 'Open Seas are the most rewarding so they are the most risky' is a strong hint that they are at least in competition for First Order, especially if ships can be maintained without having to interact as much with harbor nodes or their politics (whether that's by having people on land bring resources, or just being able to keep yourself going at sea based on what is out there).

And I too, will test. Probably even play for a while before the game reaches the point where most stronger groups are starting to use that Win Condition (again, if it is one). Already paid for it, not gonna ditch right away. But that's how precisely I can define it. "I'll play until the point where being at Sea is a First Order Win Condition".

You could say that I have more of a problem with the reasoning for the Zone than the Zone itself, therefore.

But to speak to the OP, a very temporary zone, one that is explicitly a RESULT of an Objective based PvP situation, is very difficult to 'turn into a First Order Win Condition'. Usually you PAY resources to get that far.

Child Item