Dungeon Griefing Idea after Asmongold reacts to Lucky Ghost

This was brought up recently about when dungeons get discovered and ganking inside while a group from the node is inside trying to clear. This was in a video by Lucky Ghost followed by a reaction from Asmongold.

My thoughts are why not have a dungeon guard system like the caravan where a guard unit can be placed to keep others out while your node members are inside. They can be paid for and activated whenever needed and upgraded same as the caravans.

This leaves the option to not use them if you still want pvp to be possible for maybe more rewards that dont go towards the guards payments.

EDIT:. A little ways down, in a reply to Natasha, I elaborate more on how this isn't a carebear mode and more an incentive for more pvp by giving the dungeons a guarding event that doesn't lead to simple ganking and corruption but actual battles over them so no one guild is ever able to hold them due to many not wanting to possibly get corruption to flag over the dungeons. Read that before jumping to conclusions like several did.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

erros

Also to add.. it is not a barring of other players since obviously players in the same guild / alliance / node could still enter because you can't flag against them.

ClintHardwood wrote: »

When I play Albion Online, here's what my guild does when we get invaded in an open world dungeon: We kill the invaders or die trying. That's all there is to it.

I watched the video you've mentioned and it's clear neither the narrator or Asmongold have much experience in PvP MMOs. Asmongold plays WoW, FF14, and Lost Ark. What does he know about open world full loot PvP? I've never seen him stream Eve, Ultima shards, Archage or Albion. While I like Asmon, in this case, he's talking out of his ass.

Here's the truth: Not everyone you'll encounter is in a top-tier gigachad PvP guild trying to grief you. Most of the players you meet are terrible, not much better or worse than you, and you stand a fair chance of killing them or at least running away if you take basic precautions. Don't pull too many mobs, retreat into already cleared territory when you see red-named players, have invisibility gear and potions to deaggro, etc. These are simple concepts anyone can apply.

Personally, I consider myself a PvE player. I like to craft and gather, and I stay away from PvP. And despite that, I almost never die in Albion or Ultima while carrying anything of value. I don't remember the last time I lost a substantial amount of progress. I'm careful and I know the basics. I store my loot when I get something good. I don't go to highly contested areas with legendary gear. I take cheap armor to high risk areas. You can easily do the same.

This is exactly me... Basically the whole concept of this was actually to allow more incentive to PvP for the dungeons by placing a guarding system, be it npc, players or both. Using the caravan system that allows the defending and attacking of dungeons without the worry of corruption to the attacking party.. I guess it wasnt really clear enough so I elaborated further in another post here.

hleV

RE: Hiring players

On paper this sounds great, but for it to be viable I think there needs to be a "guard duty" game system in place. The guard players should be considered "part" of the raiding group and receive appropriate rewards, instead of some agreed upon price with the potential to scam. I also don't think it's too much fun to be on guard duty throughout the duration of the raid, if nobody shows up willing to contest. So perhaps the guards should get a minigame of sort (killing waves of mobs, idk). Since most of the content in AoC is open world, I think such system would be quire warranted.

SongRune

hleV wrote: »

RE: Hiring players

On paper this sounds great, but for it to be viable I think there needs to be a "guard duty" game system in place. The guard players should be considered "part" of the raiding group and receive appropriate rewards, instead of some agreed upon price with the potential to scam. I also don't think it's too much fun to be on guard duty throughout the duration of the raid, if nobody shows up willing to contest. So perhaps the guards should get a minigame of sort (killing waves of mobs, idk). Since most of the content in AoC is open world, I think such system would be quire warranted.

While I'm not entirely against the "official guard payment contract" idea, it's worth noting that the guards will largely be other members of the same guild, or close allied guilds, not random hirelings. Cheating them already comes with large social consequences (probably guild war, short term, and loss of allies long term).

You can't use waves of mobs, because they need to be at full HP/MP/etc at a moment's notice to defend. It might be interesting to give them a way to watch the raid while defending it. This would produce some interesting gameplay where the analysts and possibly even shotcallers can be on guard duty while still playing an active role, in either the immediate gameplay, or post-mortem analysis.

erros

Also the flip side to this is all dungeons could have the options at the entrance to allow guarding... So you can bring friends who opt to guard and they can actually engage attackers without having to worry about corruption because it's an event based pvp setting just like the caravans.

Veeshan

btw most pvp guild you can probaly pay off to leave you alone too if you diplomacy with them before you go to the dungeon :P or even defend the entrance for you

pvp playr will stick to a node area too so alot of the dungeon will probaly be uncontested cause travel distance players will stick closer to there main node

Mag7spy

Lucky ghost video debunked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VY5SOZHn1Q

JustVine

The only thing 'debunked' (dictionary meaning 'expose falseness or hollowness') in that video was the fact that Lucky Ghost misrepresented his polling. Everything else was (fairly balanced) critique with his own opinion rather than 'exposing the falseness of Lucky's argument'. Lucky Ghost used some pretty flawed polling techniques and had a fairly poor choice of survey questioning and design to minimize bias on top of hiding some of his results. I'm glad it got reported on. That being said it wasn't that large a part of Lucky's original argument, just supporting evidence.

Tl:DW The diminishing rate of returns on going red combined with the way the node system works will create enough drag on the PvP guilds Lucky was referring to so that the rest of the server could fight back. And also that hiding percent health will mitigate people using mobs to last hit kill.

I disagree with some of this but it was still reasonable arguments for the content creator to make in response to Lucky's own critique. Nothing really different from what has been said on this forum, however.

(Also the cc'ing green thing never came up which means this person did their research rather than jumping on something recently changed by Steven so kudos on them for accurate research.)

Mag7spy

JustVine wrote: »

The only thing 'debunked' (dictionary meaning 'expose falseness or hollowness') in that video was the fact that Lucky Ghost misrepresented his polling. Everything else was (fairly balanced) critique with his own opinion rather than 'exposing the falseness of Lucky's argument'. Lucky Ghost used some pretty flawed polling techniques and had a fairly poor choice of survey questioning and design to minimize bias on top of hiding some of his results. I'm glad it got reported on. That being said it wasn't that large a part of Lucky's original argument, just supporting evidence.

Tl:DW The diminishing rate of returns on going red combined with the way the node system works will create enough drag on the PvP guilds Lucky was referring to so that the rest of the server could fight back. And also that hiding percent health will mitigate people using mobs to last hit kill.

I disagree with some of this but it was still reasonable arguments for the content creator to make in response to Lucky's own critique. Nothing really different from what has been said on this forum, however.

(Also the cc'ing green thing never came up which means this person did their research rather than jumping on something recently changed by Steven so kudos on them for accurate research.)

L2 is L2, Aoc is not released yet nor are all the systems detailed. If research is assuming AoC will work exactly the same as L2 and so he can say they should add pve servers, that is a hard disagree from me.

JustVine

Mag7spy wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

The only thing 'debunked' (dictionary meaning 'expose falseness or hollowness') in that video was the fact that Lucky Ghost misrepresented his polling. Everything else was (fairly balanced) critique with his own opinion rather than 'exposing the falseness of Lucky's argument'. Lucky Ghost used some pretty flawed polling techniques and had a fairly poor choice of survey questioning and design to minimize bias on top of hiding some of his results. I'm glad it got reported on. That being said it wasn't that large a part of Lucky's original argument, just supporting evidence.

Tl:DW The diminishing rate of returns on going red combined with the way the node system works will create enough drag on the PvP guilds Lucky was referring to so that the rest of the server could fight back. And also that hiding percent health will mitigate people using mobs to last hit kill.

I disagree with some of this but it was still reasonable arguments for the content creator to make in response to Lucky's own critique. Nothing really different from what has been said on this forum, however.

(Also the cc'ing green thing never came up which means this person did their research rather than jumping on something recently changed by Steven so kudos on them for accurate research.)

L2 is L2, Aoc is not released yet nor are all the systems detailed. If research is assuming AoC will work exactly the same as L2 and so he can say they should add pve servers, that is a hard disagree from me.

I was saying that the person you linked did research, I was not talking about Lucky Ghost. Read what I wrote again.

Dygz

Lucky Ghost said that Corruption is not different enough from L2 Karma.
He can opine that Intrepid should add PvE servers.
And, still... we will wait until Alpha 2 to evaluate...
Same as when everyone else suggests PvE servers.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

Lucky Ghost said that Corruption is not different enough from L2 Karma.

And Steven countered his assumptions with changes to said system. And those changes (on top of the Stat Dampening) make AoC's penalties for going Red muuuch higher than L2's.

So when we said "People didn't PK all that much in L2", you can now imagine that people would PK even less in Ashes. Well, at least if the balancing doesn't change drastically during testing.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Lucky Ghost said that Corruption is not different enough from L2 Karma.

And Steven countered his assumptions with changes to said system. And those changes (on top of the Stat Dampening) make AoC's penalties for going Red muuuch higher than L2's.

So when we said "People didn't PK all that much in L2", you can now imagine that people would PK even less in Ashes. Well, at least if the balancing doesn't change drastically during testing.

Red's getting cc'd like..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh_PRbIvYIE

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lucky ghost video debunked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VY5SOZHn1Q

One critique of this video that I have is the "you can't see player hp" point. L2 showed you 0 info about your target's hp values. Ashes will show you, at the very least, how much dmg your target has already received, maybe even their rough hp% values.

In other words it'll be easier to avoid corruption when trying to hit a player who's being attacked by mobs.

Okeydoke

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lucky ghost video debunked.

Oof, yeah pretty embarassing. Exposed and debunked. Even Narc called out Asmongold in his latest video.

Good to see people standing up and pushing back. Now the only question is, will Steven hold the line or fold. I think he'll hold. Depends on the day you ask me lol.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

And Steven countered his assumptions with changes to said system. And those changes (on top of the Stat Dampening) make AoC's penalties for going Red muuuch higher than L2's.

So when we said "People didn't PK all that much in L2", you can now imagine that people would PK even less in Ashes. Well, at least if the balancing doesn't change drastically during testing.

I don't think Steven necessarily countered what Lucky Ghost said.
Much different is going to be subjective.
The changes Steven listed may be different enough to you and not different enough to Lucky Ghost.
And... we'd still need to test Alpha 2 to know.

Also...
In dungeons... I think both Lucky Ghost and Asmongold discussed ways to grief that would bypass Corruption -- like trains.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

In dungeons... I think both Lucky Ghost and Asmongold discussed ways to grief that would bypass Corruption -- like trains.

Yeah, that'll come down to mob AI, agro design and class counteragro abilities (if any). I could see a few way of countering that kind of griefing so I'm sure Intrepid has had at least a few ideas too.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Lucky ghost video debunked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VY5SOZHn1Q

One critique of this video that I have is the "you can't see player hp" point. L2 showed you 0 info about your target's hp values. Ashes will show you, at the very least, how much dmg your target has already received, maybe even their rough hp% values.

In other words it'll be easier to avoid corruption when trying to hit a player who's being attacked by mobs.

They shouldn't show hp values imo or any hints.

Mag7spy

Dygz wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

And Steven countered his assumptions with changes to said system. And those changes (on top of the Stat Dampening) make AoC's penalties for going Red muuuch higher than L2's.

So when we said "People didn't PK all that much in L2", you can now imagine that people would PK even less in Ashes. Well, at least if the balancing doesn't change drastically during testing.

I don't think Steven necessarily countered what Lucky Ghost said.
Much different is going to be subjective.
The changes Steven listed may be different enough to you and not different enough to Lucky Ghost.
And... we'd still need to test Alpha 2 to know.

Also...
In dungeons... I think both Lucky Ghost and Asmongold discussed ways to grief that would bypass Corruption -- like trains.

Ya but they also said you can do that on pure pve as well, so it doesn't make any difference. Not really a strong point as players could do that to troll you. But in a pvp game you could just dec their guild or flag on them.

Okeydoke

Woo. Yeah. Mob trains. I haven't died to a mob train since the 7th grade. Still think about it to this day. It just takes time ya know.

Mag7spy

Okeydoke wrote: »

Woo. Yeah. Mob trains. I haven't died to a mob train since the 7th grade. Still think about it to this day. It just takes time ya know.

I did that back in shadowbane where some group teleported my friend and I out there and we decided to kill our party instead. Pulled extra mobs and flagged on them killing and looting all their bodies. Was good times.

They could use special threat metrics possibility to make it more annoying to do with more risk tot he uder dying than the people in the dungeon maybe.

Like if you aggro a mob and try to pull it really far even if a aoe from another party hits it the mob still aggros you or something and doesn't get pulled tot he party fighting mobs as easily. It be a mix of how far it is pulled and two different parties dealing damage, as well as size of those parties.

Ie if you are pulling a group, dragging them far and in a smaller party than the other, the mobs will be more aggressive to you even if aoes are hitting them, ensuring you die first.

Child Item