As for ocean pvp.. The seas were increased in size and volume and a pvp zone was created in the newly created middle.. .it is more an addition than a change.
I mean... Steven stated it's a "big change"... whatever that's worth.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It bothers me because I feel people like Dygz could create nice communities if they would embrace risk and adventure a bit more.
But he does not seem interested to play. Probably was never his main goal.
And if I have to chose, I prefer to see Dygz lose than see the game tuned down on the risk vs reward aspect.
I'm a casual-challenge, non-competitive, carebear. I'm not going to embrace "risk" more - especially where risk = PvP. I'm fine with risk, but I don't equate risk with PvP the way Steven does. I also love adventure, but I don;t include PvP with adventure. I sometimes enjoy PvP when defending objectives, like towns and, perhaps, Caravans. But, I typically end up playing on PvP-only servers and I tend not to enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers. So... first I'd have to be convinced that I would have fun playing on the same servers as PvPers.
For the past 5 years, Corruption has been the given answer for why people who enjoy a bit of PvP would feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. Implementing a large area of the game to explore that auto-flags players as Combatant - where Corruption is not a thing - is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
I still support the players in my player communities who want to play Ashes. And have plans to test with them in Alpha 2. I don't have to play after release in order to help build nice communities with players who like the current Ashes design.
You somehow think that the issue is successfully exploring the Open Seas.
I do not want to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring.
Friends cannot help me explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
Corruption would still have to be a penalty for killing me as a Non-Combatant in the Open Seas in order for me to play. Bringing friends along has nothing to do with that.
I don't know what lose is supposed to mean.
I haven't asked for the game to tune down risk v reward.
It bothers me because I feel people like Dygz could create nice communities if they would embrace risk and adventure a bit more.
But he does not seem interested to play. Probably was never his main goal.
And if I have to chose, I prefer to see Dygz lose than see the game tuned down on the risk vs reward aspect.
I'm a casual-challenge, non-competitive, carebear. I'm not going to embrace "risk" more - especially where risk = PvP. I'm fine with risk, but I don't equate risk with PvP the way Steven does. I also love adventure, but I don;t include PvP with adventure. I sometimes enjoy PvP when defending objectives, like towns and, perhaps, Caravans. But, I typically end up playing on PvP-only servers and I tend not to enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers. So... first I'd have to be convinced that I would have fun playing on the same servers as PvPers.
For the past 5 years, Corruption has been the given answer for why people who enjoy a bit of PvP would feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. Implementing a large area of the game to explore that auto-flags players as Combatant - where Corruption is not a thing - is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
I still support the players in my player communities who want to play Ashes. And have plans to test with them in Alpha 2. I don't have to play after release in order to help build nice communities with players who like the current Ashes design.
You somehow think that the issue is successfully exploring the Open Seas.
I do not want to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring.
Friends cannot help me explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
Corruption would still have to be a penalty for killing me as a Non-Combatant in the Open Seas in order for me to play. Bringing friends along has nothing to do with that.
I don't know what lose is supposed to mean.
I haven't asked for the game to tune down risk v reward.
If there will be some kind of consumable items or abilities with some trade off like you have to master certain profession to craft it otherwise you have to buy it or the abilities have a long CD time and you can use these on your ship and your character to make you a green player for a period of time in open seas, will you feel better about having auto pvp flagging open sea game design?
It bothers me because I feel people like Dygz could create nice communities if they would embrace risk and adventure a bit more.
But he does not seem interested to play. Probably was never his main goal.
And if I have to chose, I prefer to see Dygz lose than see the game tuned down on the risk vs reward aspect.
I'm a casual-challenge, non-competitive, carebear. I'm not going to embrace "risk" more - especially where risk = PvP. I'm fine with risk, but I don't equate risk with PvP the way Steven does. I also love adventure, but I don;t include PvP with adventure. I sometimes enjoy PvP when defending objectives, like towns and, perhaps, Caravans. But, I typically end up playing on PvP-only servers and I tend not to enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers. So... first I'd have to be convinced that I would have fun playing on the same servers as PvPers.
For the past 5 years, Corruption has been the given answer for why people who enjoy a bit of PvP would feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. Implementing a large area of the game to explore that auto-flags players as Combatant - where Corruption is not a thing - is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
I still support the players in my player communities who want to play Ashes. And have plans to test with them in Alpha 2. I don't have to play after release in order to help build nice communities with players who like the current Ashes design.
You somehow think that the issue is successfully exploring the Open Seas.
I do not want to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring.
Friends cannot help me explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
Corruption would still have to be a penalty for killing me as a Non-Combatant in the Open Seas in order for me to play. Bringing friends along has nothing to do with that.
I don't know what lose is supposed to mean.
I haven't asked for the game to tune down risk v reward.
I've seen your answer many times stated the same way, bringing very little to help understand your point of view.
All I can take away is that
- you find unacceptable to explore only 90% of the game and you will rather not play at all
- you are highly sensitive when somebody attacks you in game and kills you
- the level of risk you find acceptable is the same or very close to that of a PvE player
- if friendly players would create a safe zone around you, that would still be unacceptable (this is maybe new info)
This last point is actually against the "Player interaction" design pillar of the game.
Nodes with citizenship and localized economy help creating communities which span across guilds and include solo players too.
A PvP area is a game mechanic which rewards players who cooperate. Obviously a solo player can die more often there, if he doesn't keep the distance from others.
So I see that actually I was wrong. You would not be a player who would help creating nice communities.
You are against 2 design pillars of the game:
- Player interaction
- Risk vs reward
You are a solo PvE player and you are active on a forum which doesn't focus on this category of players. It doesn't push them away but full rewards come when you like and accept all design pillars of the game.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
If there will be some kind of consumable items or abilities with some trade off like you have to master certain profession to craft it otherwise you have to buy it or the abilities have a long CD time and you can use these on your ship and your character to make you a green player for a period of time in open seas, will you feel better about having auto pvp flagging open sea game design?
I think this cannot be a thing because it would mean Corruption is possible in the Open Seas. Having Non-Combatants in an auto-flag Combatant area would infuriate PvPers. This is not really a viable solution
But, sure, if there were a way for me to explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant, with Corruption as a penalty for those who PK me... I would probably pursue that.
That assumes that Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for PKing that I'm comfortable playing the game - which I would have to determine in Alpha 2.
If there will be some kind of consumable items or abilities with some trade off like you have to master certain profession to craft it otherwise you have to buy it or the abilities have a long CD time and you can use these on your ship and your character to make you a green player for a period of time in open seas, will you feel better about having auto pvp flagging open sea game design?
I think this cannot be a thing because it would mean Corruption is possible in the Open Seas. Having Non-Combatants in an auto-flag Combatant area would infuriate PvPers. This is not really a viable solution
But, sure, if there were a way for me to explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant, with Corruption as a penalty for those who PK me... I would probably pursue that.
That assumes that Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for PKing that I'm comfortable playing the game - which I would have to determine in Alpha 2.
Lets assume that corruption does work as intended for a second. Are you ok with this "solution of you being a non-combatant" also drastically decreasing what you can obtain out there. Again going off of what IS stated about rewards on the Open seas as the ones marking themselves non-combatants would have an inherent advantage if you were getting the same loot etc.
As a PvP player, I could care less if you were a green out on the open seas knowing that you are not there for the risk v reward and are being "rewarded" as such. I do appreciate your opinions but I often find your posts to assume much of PvP players and what makes us mad when you yourself are not one (self-admitted in this post). I find myself disagreeing with what you believe PvP players will feel or how we would react.
If there will be some kind of consumable items or abilities with some trade off like you have to master certain profession to craft it otherwise you have to buy it or the abilities have a long CD time and you can use these on your ship and your character to make you a green player for a period of time in open seas, will you feel better about having auto pvp flagging open sea game design?
I think this cannot be a thing because it would mean Corruption is possible in the Open Seas. Having Non-Combatants in an auto-flag Combatant area would infuriate PvPers. This is not really a viable solution
But, sure, if there were a way for me to explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant, with Corruption as a penalty for those who PK me... I would probably pursue that.
That assumes that Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for PKing that I'm comfortable playing the game - which I would have to determine in Alpha 2.
Well, fair enough to me.
I won't get mad because of any player able to use some kind of trade off items or abilities to temporary explore open sea, I understand that people are not always willing to partake pvp contents and a more forgiving learning curve for new players will better to keep player population, I don't worry about people use this as advantages to claim rewards from open sea because there still lots of ways to balance abuse usages.
I've seen your answer many times stated the same way, bringing very little to help understand your point of view.
Yeah, it can be difficult for people to understand the mindsets of those who have a different playstyle.
I have a friend who doesn't like chocolate. I don't understand how she cannot like chocolate. She cannot explain that to me. But..
If someone offers her a desert and she asks, "Does it have chocolate? Because I don't eat deserts that have chocolate." And the answer is, "The desert will not have chocolate." I'm not going to be surprised when it's revealed, "Hey. There is a big change: the desert will include chocolate." And my friend responds, "Oh. No thanks. I don't eat deserts that include chocolate."
you are highly sensitive when somebody attacks you in game and kills you
No. I am highly sensitive to being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
And I am highly sensitive to being pushed into non-consensual PvP when I am not in the mood for PvP.
If I am in the mood for PvP and I make the choice to participate in PvP, rather than some other player making the choice for me, I don't care if another player kills me.
Typically, when I PvP, I let players kill me as much as they wish, while I focus on completing other objectives - like capturing flags.
But, if I am out exploring, socializing or gathering... which is what I do most of the time... I don't want some other player deciding for me that I must PvP. And, if they do, the penalty for that needs to be Corruption. If there is an area in the game to explore and gather where Corruption is not a penalty for non-consensual PvP - I won't play that game. Even if the area is only 10% of the game.
the level of risk you find acceptable is the same or very close to that of a PvE player
Maybe. I never think about risk when I play MMORPGs.
I would say the issue is not risk. Each time I level, I explore the map as far as possible until I encounter skulled mobs that can see through my Stealth. That typically includes quite a bit of risk from mobs. So, risk is not really an issue.
The issue is non-consensual PvP.
I enjoy PvP sometimes. Sometimes, I enjoy defending towns from other players.
That is for very short periods of time within a game session.
When I am not in the mood for that, I do not want other players pushing me into PvP.
While I have typically started on PvP-Optional servers, I always move to PvE-Only servers because I hate it when PvPers engage me even when I've found a secluded area to gather while waiting for the PvP flag to cooldown.
I don't enjoy playing MMORPGs on the same servers as PvPers.
That has nothing to do with "risk" and everything to do with not enjoying PvP as much as hardcore PvPers. And also not in the same way as PvPers.
if friendly players would create a safe zone around you, that would still be unacceptable
This a hardcore PvPer solution that is not a solution for those who don't love PvP.
It's a common disconnect. Seems to be because hardcore PvPers think that the issue with PvP is the dying. The issue is not the dying. The issue is that I don't want to be involved with PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP and just want to do more casual stuff, like exploring and gathering.
Other people PvPing around me is not a solution for that.
In addition, I'm probably also not going to be in the mood for the trash talking that typically accompanies PvP.
As I watched the Intrepid devs play League of Legends during ExtraLife this past weekend, they mentioned how they would be trash talking if they were winning, but they couldn't trash talk since they were losing. I hate being around trash-talking. I typically hate being around PvPers while they are PvPing. I don't like the way PvPers act while PvPing.
I would say I don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers.
But, I have PvPer friends, like CROW3 and Nikr. Theoretically, I might enjoy RPing with them. So, I was curious about how Ashes might entice casual PvPers and players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same server as hardcore PvPers.
Corruption has always been the solution presented: Corruption should be harsh enough that random PKing is rare.
I was open to testing that. But, I don't need to test that once there is a permanent area on the map without the Corruption mechanic. That is a recent change.
So, yes, while my playstyle is closer to that of a PvEer - even though I like PvP sometimes (I had fun with the Alpha 1 Sieges, for instance) - that really has very little to do with "risk".
This last point is actually against the "Player interaction" design pillar of the game.
Nodes with citizenship and localized economy help creating communities which span across guilds and include solo players too.
I think that point is meaningless with regard to "Player interaction".
None of that has anything to do with being auto-flagged as a Combatant in the Open Seas.
A PvP area is a game mechanic which rewards players who cooperate. Obviously a solo player can die more often there, if he doesn't keep the distance from others.
No. It merely "rewards" people who love PvP by providing them with a permanent PvP area that does not have Corruption as a penalty.
Again, here, you are fixated on dying.
I don't particularly care about dying.
I care about my exploration and gathering and NPC/mob combat being interrupted by PvP combat. When I'm not in the mood for the hardcore gameplay associated with PvP combat.
You are against 2 design pillars of the game:
- Player interaction
- Risk vs reward
That is false.
I am specifically not willing to play a game where I am auto-flagged as a Combatant in an area where I am going to be focused on exploring, gathering and fighting NPC/mobs.
There are a myriad of ways to interact with other players without being auto-flagged as a Combatant. And, "risk" does not have to include being auto-flagged as a Combatant.
More importantly, I am not against the Open Seas having an auto-flag mechanic.
I can encourage people for whom that is not a deal-breaker to play the game even if I'm not willing to play the game.
Also... Risk v Reward might be a design pillar... now.
But, originally, it was not a design pillar.
Originally, the 4 Pillars were:
Node System
Meaningful Conflict
Economy
Narrative
Steven focusing on Risk v Reward has increased over the span of years. Sure.
Especially with this "big change" with the Open Seas.
You are a solo PvE player and you are active on a forum which doesn't focus on this category of players. It doesn't push them away but full rewards come when you like and accept all design pillars of the game.
I categorize myself as a PvP-sometimes player who typically ends up playing on PvE-Only servers (because PvPers are assholes). I specifically enjoy objective-based PvP. And the focus of Ashes is objective-based PvP.
Auto-flag PvP has never been a design pillar - it wasn't even in the design until a few months ago.
Auto-flag PvP in the Open Seas is pushing some people who were previously interested in Ashes away. How many remains to be seen.
And, that's OK.
Ashes is not made for everyone. Right?
I will skip all replies from page 2 to page 6, so I can reply about the thread's subject.
Do you people even realized that just the water in AoC is many times bigger than Azeroth in WoW?
Many times bigger, just the water.
Well, good luck finding people to PvP out there.
Why this outcry about PvP on water?
Even if people could find you in this humongous body of water, you can still run away.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
you are highly sensitive when somebody attacks you in game and kills you
No. I am highly sensitive to being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
And I am highly sensitive to being pushed into non-consensual PvP when I am not in the mood for PvP.
If I am in the mood for PvP and I make the choice to participate in PvP, rather than some other player making the choice for me, I don't care if another player kills me.
Typically, when I PvP, I let players kill me as much as they wish, while I focus on completing other objectives - like capturing flags.
But, if I am out exploring, socializing or gathering... which is what I do most of the time... I don't want some other player deciding for me that I must PvP. And, if they do, the penalty for that needs to be Corruption. If there is an area in the game to explore and gather where Corruption is not a penalty for non-consensual PvP - I won't play that game. Even if the area is only 10% of the game.
A PvP area is a game mechanic which rewards players who cooperate. Obviously a solo player can die more often there, if he doesn't keep the distance from others.
No. It merely "rewards" people who love PvP by providing them with a permanent PvP area that does not have Corruption as a penalty.
Again, here, you are fixated on dying.
I don't particularly care about dying.
I care about my exploration and gathering and NPC/mob combat being interrupted by PvP combat. When I'm not in the mood for the hardcore gameplay associated with PvP combat.
I see. Then that's your problem. The entire concept is designed based on the idea that players care about dying and they want to stay alive.
Maybe you doing a lot of testing made you insensitive to this. Or something else.
The exploration and wish to explore 100% of the content might be similar to those who want to have 100% achievements. They are another category I do not understand.
the level of risk you find acceptable is the same or very close to that of a PvE player
Maybe. I never think about risk when I play MMORPGs.
I would say the issue is not risk. Each time I level, I explore the map as far as possible until I encounter skulled mobs that can see through my Stealth. That typically includes quite a bit of risk from mobs. So, risk is not really an issue.
If we replace the player death with player ability to explore, then it is still a risk.
But you insist to want to explore safely at any time the mood drives you there.
That means 0% risk. Or a very low one (because you rely on other players caring about their death)
There can be cases when you may never meet anyone able to kill you on the sea.
Not because seas would be empty but even being flagged, not all players will be able to kill each-other. Guilds can be quite large and bound in alliances and they will not be able to fight each-other.
So you could explore if that is your wish. But if you accept it, then the risk is that somebody comes and kills you.
That is the risk. You call it "issue".
You are against 2 design pillars of the game:
- Player interaction
- Risk vs reward
That is false.
I am specifically not willing to play a game where I am auto-flagged as a Combatant in an area where I am going to be focused on exploring, gathering and fighting NPC/mobs.
There are a myriad of ways to interact with other players without being auto-flagged as a Combatant. And, "risk" does not have to include being auto-flagged as a Combatant.
More importantly, I am not against the Open Seas having an auto-flag mechanic.
I can encourage people for whom that is not a deal-breaker to play the game even if I'm not willing to play the game.
Also... Risk v Reward might be a design pillar... now.
But, originally, it was not a design pillar.
Originally, the 4 Pillars were:
Node System
Meaningful Conflict
Economy
Narrative
Steven focusing on Risk v Reward has increased over the span of years. Sure.
Especially with this "big change" with the Open Seas.
Regarding
"And, "risk" does not have to include being auto-flagged as a Combatant"
That is true. The Corruption system can be balanced in many ways. Can be lenient enough at the first kill, so it would almost be like being auto-flagged. Then the 2nd kill could give increased penalties and only a few kills later to make the player visible to Bounty Hunters and finally to make the items of the corrupted players to have a chance to drop. The curve can be linear or exponential.
Probably there is no convenient way to balance it around certain world boss NPCs were it is expected players to fight each other a lot. Allowing the first kill and denying the next ones has the purpose to prevent griefing.
But players who go to a world boss cannot claim to be griefed and request special protection to sail away with a legendary drop.
Regarding "originally, it was not a design pillar"
I understand it can be frustrating.
But not for you. You seem to have no problem with this. You gracefully accept it.
You even agree that actually just the wording was different:
Is not for
- hardcore PvP-ers who hate the corruption system (as somebody said in a post today)
- and not for hardcore PvE-ers who want to explore everything in game peacefully
It is for PvX players who can control and predict their mood instead of just watch their node under siege and say: "Dang! Let it burn. I have no mood to defend it today. I'm out of here."
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
Is not for
- hardcore PvP-ers who hate the corruption system (as somebody said in a post today)
- and not for hardcore PvE-ers who want to explore everything in game peacefully
It is for PvX players who can control and predict their mood instead of just watch their node under siege and say: "Dang! Let it burn. I have no mood to defend it today. I'm out of here."
That's a real good way to put it, definitely a sweaty hardcore pvper who wants nothing but unrestricted pvp in all zones while having full loot drops will not have this in AoC.
Neither the mushy bot aspirant PvE-only carebear with drone ant behaviour of just accumulating and hoarding stuff
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
still. i dont believe this was outlined in the Kickstarter, are we not worried about deviations from the kickstarter?
This is great idea. MMO needs more ''rituals'' like these. The more content similar to this will lead to more content to do in game in shorter period of time which means it will be as some kind of ritual which is always good. You know that feeling when something happens everyone is talking about it for short time then it all goes quiet. We need this, even if its repetitive it won't be boring because it is player driven content.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why this outcry about PvP on water?
Even if people could find you in this humongous body of water, you can still run away.
Sure. That would still be true with Non-Combatant as the default and Corruption in play.
For me, the issue has nothing to do about whether I can run and everything to do with being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when it is most likely I will not be in the mood for PvP combat... and would want the other player to be penalized with Corruption for the non-consensual PvP.
, when it is most likely I will not be in the mood for PvP combat... and would want the other player to be penalized with Corruption for the non-consensual PvP.
Hard things can teach you patience and MMO design that changed over the years made people more and more soft and impatient. You will never learn wisdom in gaming because how games are made and what is their purpose. More and more teenagers are becoming toxic because of hyper competitive design in games, and more and more impatient (especially in MMO genre)
MMOs are hard to master because of their progression design element. If you just look for end result, you will become average retail WoW player that is both toxic and impatient, beware of that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I see. Then that's your problem. The entire concept is designed based on the idea that players care about dying and they want to stay alive.
Maybe you doing a lot of testing made you insensitive to this. Or something else.
The exploration and wish to explore 100% of the content might be similar to those who want to have 100% achievements. They are another category I do not understand.
I'd say that the "problem" is that Steven is a hardcore PvPer.
And he is designing a game he would love to play.
Steven's perspective on griefing is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Steven's perspective on opt-in PvP is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Steven's perspective on Risk v Reward is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Even so, Steven's hoping that most players will not play like the asshole he was when he played.
But, yeah... different playstyles will have different needs and different deal-breakers.
That's life. It's OK.
If we replace the player death with player ability to explore, then it is still a risk.
But you insist to want to explore safely at any time the mood drives you there.
That means 0% risk. Or a very low one (because you rely on other players caring about their death)
Non-Combatant with Corruption is not "safe".
Open Seas still would have risk from NPCs, mobs and bosses - even without any PvP at all. So, again, it is not about being "safe".
It is about not being flagged as interested in PvP combat when I am actually just interested in exploring, gathering and mob combat.
Also, keep in mind that I would prefer to be killed in the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant with normal death penalties than be killed as a Combatant in the Open Seas with half the normal death penalties, so... avoiding "risk" is not really my concern.
There can be cases when you may never meet anyone able to kill you on the sea.
Not because seas would be empty but even being flagged, not all players will be able to kill each-other. Guilds can be quite large and bound in alliances and they will not be able to fight each-other.
So you could explore if that is your wish. But if you accept it, then the risk is that somebody comes and kills you.
That is the risk. You call it "issue".
Whether someone can kill me is irrelevant. Whether someone can push me into non-consensual PvP with no penalty for doing so is the issue. That is not what I would call "risk". But, label it whatever you will, I easily avoid that by not playing the game.
So. No. I don't accept the auto-flagging in the Open Seas.
Specifically, I do not accept being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when, most likely, I will be in quite the opposite mood - even while exploring the Open Seas.
The Corruption system can be balanced in many ways. Can be lenient enough at the first kill, so it would almost be like being auto-flagged. Then the 2nd kill could give increased penalties and only a few kills later to make the player visible to Bounty Hunters and finally to make the items of the corrupted players to have a chance to drop. The curve can be linear or exponential.
Probably there is no convenient way to balance it around certain world boss NPCs were it is expected players to fight each other a lot. Allowing the first kill and denying the next ones has the purpose to prevent griefing.
But players who go to a world boss cannot claim to be griefed and request special protection to sail away with a legendary drop.
Regarding "originally, it was not a design pillar"
I understand it can be frustrating.
But not for you. You seem to have no problem with this. You gracefully accept it.
Yep. I don't find it frustrating.
It's OK.
My TheoryForge co-host, Fantmx, does find it frustrating. But... it's not a deal-breaker for him.
Is not for
- hardcore PvP-ers who hate the corruption system (as somebody said in a post today)
- and not for hardcore PvE-ers who want to explore everything in game peacefully
Yep. I agree with that.
I think we may not quite agree on what is meant by "peacefully", but it's probably not really worth the nitpick.
It is for PvX players who can control and predict their mood instead of just watch their node under siege and say: "Dang! Let it burn. I have no mood to defend it today. I'm out of here."
Ashes is designed for hardcore PvPers. PvX just means that PvPers who play the game will sometimes have to PvE.
Why this outcry about PvP on water?
Even if people could find you in this humongous body of water, you can still run away.
Sure. That would still be true with Non-Combatant as the default and Corruption in play.
For me, the issue has nothing to do about whether I can run and everything to do with being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when it is most likely I will not be in the mood for PvP combat... and would want the other player to be penalized with Corruption for the non-consensual PvP.
Just don't go to the water when you are "in those days"
There's nothing mandatory in there anyway
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2022
Other than I'm an explorer, so that's what I do, but...
Yes. I won't be playing the game so... that is inherently solved.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Lets assume that corruption does work as intended for a second. Are you ok with this "solution of you being a non-combatant" also drastically decreasing what you can obtain out there. Again going off of what IS stated about rewards on the Open seas as the ones marking themselves non-combatants would have an inherent advantage if you were getting the same loot etc.
As a PvP player, I could care less if you were a green out on the open seas knowing that you are not there for the risk v reward and are being "rewarded" as such. I do appreciate your opinions but I often find your posts to assume much of PvP players and what makes us mad when you yourself are not one (self-admitted in this post). I find myself disagreeing with what you believe PvP players will feel or how we would react.
ooops. Just noticed I missed this one... sorry...
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I think a decrease in what I can obtain is probably of fairly low consequence for me.
Risk v Reward is an obsession of Steven's hardcore PvPer mindset, but... it holds little interest for me.
Meaningful Conflict in the sense of Caravans and Sieges is intriguing to me.
If there's interesting stuff to explore in the Open Seas, I'm going to want to explore the Open Seas.
But, there is no reward that will make being auto-flagged as a Combatant OK.
There won't be Non-Combatants in the Open Seas, so same loot is irrelevant, I think.
I'm speaking about PvPers in general. It's not an absolute.
But, sure, why not try allowing Non-Combatants in the Open Seas and let's see what the general PvPer response is.
Lets assume that corruption does work as intended for a second. Are you ok with this "solution of you being a non-combatant" also drastically decreasing what you can obtain out there. Again going off of what IS stated about rewards on the Open seas as the ones marking themselves non-combatants would have an inherent advantage if you were getting the same loot etc.
As a PvP player, I could care less if you were a green out on the open seas knowing that you are not there for the risk v reward and are being "rewarded" as such. I do appreciate your opinions but I often find your posts to assume much of PvP players and what makes us mad when you yourself are not one (self-admitted in this post). I find myself disagreeing with what you believe PvP players will feel or how we would react.
ooops. Just noticed I missed this one... sorry...
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I think a decrease in what I can obtain is probably of fairly low consequence for me.
Risk v Reward is an obsession of Steven's hardcore PvPer mindset, but... it holds little interest for me.
Meaningful Conflict in the sense of Caravans and Sieges is intriguing to me.
If there's interesting stuff to explore in the Open Seas, I'm going to want to explore the Open Seas.
But, there is no reward that will make being auto-flagged as a Combatant OK.
There won't be Non-Combatants in the Open Seas, so same loot is irrelevant, I think.
I'm speaking about PvPers in general. It's not an absolute.
But, sure, why not try allowing Non-Combatants in the Open Seas and let's see what the general PvPer response is.
I am a fairly new poster, long time lurker and my post was more of me trying to understand your angle. Even as a "solution" making rewards less for being non-combatant is interesting to me as a PvPer, I doubt that will ever work in a system like this but Was just interested to see your "flavor profile" when it comes to being at a loot disadvantage if it means you can do whatever you want. This is all moot as the final game will most likely not feature anything like this but I guess is interesting to someone trying to understand your stance.
0
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am just here to find out how 750 km2 of a 1200 km2 world comes out to 10%.
There can be cases when you may never meet anyone able to kill you on the sea.
Not because seas would be empty but even being flagged, not all players will be able to kill each-other. Guilds can be quite large and bound in alliances and they will not be able to fight each-other.
So you could explore if that is your wish. But if you accept it, then the risk is that somebody comes and kills you.
That is the risk. You call it "issue".
Whether someone can kill me is irrelevant. Whether someone can push me into non-consensual PvP with no penalty for doing so is the issue. That is not what I would call "risk". But, label it whatever you will, I easily avoid that by not playing the game.
So. No. I don't accept the auto-flagging in the Open Seas.
Specifically, I do not accept being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when, most likely, I will be in quite the opposite mood - even while exploring the Open Seas.
Trying to make you accept the PvP was a thought experiment. I did that when I compared the players with the NPCs and tried to imagine a situation where you would not be aware if the opponent is a real player or an AI. But you avoided that, invoking common sense AI behavior which is fun in games for average PvE players. Like tethers.
There were other puzzling things which were mentioned before by others too:
- why you invested in this game so much knowing that chances are low to be as you want it to be
- and why you are still here now
But I guess you said as much as you can say and I got my answer from these last posts.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
I'm playing either way, but I do think its notable that the super hyped corruption system that was going to solve all of the problems, wasn't considered adequate for the open seas. That seems like kind of a mixed message to me.
I'm playing either way, but I do think its notable that the super hyped corruption system that was going to solve all of the problems, wasn't considered adequate for the open seas. That seems like kind of a mixed message to me.
Corruption is for protecting the kids and mushy carebears forever mining and forever cutting trees around starting areas
Steven was smart, the PvPers will go to the PvP areas and there will be barely anyone corrupted at all
Carebears are so greedy and self-entitled that they can't stand the fact that somewhere over there there's some farming too, but people can touch them if they travel over there
Carebears can't stand living the possibility of someone stealing a little bit of lumber from them
This type of players are the ones who lead the outcries in the forums, social media and support tickets... then the companies change the games making the games safer for appeasing the carebears and then the games become boring
They can't stand player driven content
They want the companies providing all the content, they put the responsibility over the fun in the hands of the companies, that's why they suck as players and it is uninteresting being around them
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm playing either way, but I do think its notable that the super hyped corruption system that was going to solve all of the problems, wasn't considered adequate for the open seas. That seems like kind of a mixed message to me.
Corruption is for protecting the kids and mushy carebears forever mining and forever cutting trees around starting areas
Steven was smart, the PvPers will go to the PvP areas and there will be barely anyone corrupted at all
Carebears are so greedy and self-entitled that they can't stand the fact that somewhere over there there's some farming too, but people can touch them if they travel over there
Carebears can't stand living the possibility of someone stealing a little bit of lumber from them
This type of players are the ones who lead the outcries in the forums, social media and support tickets... then the companies change the games making the games safer for appeasing the carebears and then the games become boring
They can't stand player driven content
They want the companies providing all the content, they put the responsibility over the fun in the hands of the companies, that's why they suck as players and it is uninteresting being around them
This is the best "Welcome To Verra" marketing message I have ever seen.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I am a fairly new poster, long time lurker and my post was more of me trying to understand your angle. Even as a "solution" making rewards less for being non-combatant is interesting to me as a PvPer, I doubt that will ever work in a system like this but Was just interested to see your "flavor profile" when it comes to being at a loot disadvantage if it means you can do whatever you want. This is all moot as the final game will most likely not feature anything like this but I guess is interesting to someone trying to understand your stance.
Yes. So...
Again... with my Bartle Score Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%...
You can see that my Achiever rating is fairly low. Acquiring loot is not a significant motivator for me.
And... I am a quintessential carebear - I prefer to focus on enhancing and healing people and environments and (in D&D) using social skills and Stealth to avoid combat. Which is why my Killer rating so low.
In MMORPGs, it's not actually 0% because killing stuff is so core to MMORPG leveling at a reasonable pace.
My main will do quite a bit of killing to complete quests - sometimes to my personal horror.
Steven's memorable moments are when PvP spikes his adrenaline.
My most memorable moments are when I had quests to massacre Goblins by steamrolling over them as they fled screaming in terror - and even backing over them to make sure I squished all of the required kill count. And when I used a cannon to immolate Goblins with fire - who writhed in such pain that they flung themselves off a cliff to end their suffering.
I don't play RPGs because I want to kill stuff. I play RPGs because I want to enact the life of protagonists on the Hero's Journey in fantasy and sci-fi novels. And... those protagonists typically are not going on killing sprees. And they typically are not killing people for revenge or to stop rivals from gathering resources in their territories.
Even though my main will do quite a lot of killing to complete quests and level quickly, I also typically have alts doing the Carebear Challenge of leveling to max with 0 kills. Instead of raiding for a full set of BiS gear, I'm more likely to be focused on an alt pursuing the Ironman Carebear Challenge of 0 kills/0 deaths.
So... my concept of "Risk" is not the same as what is touted by Steven and other hardcore PvPers.
UO was too PvP-centric for me. I refused to play UO.
In EQ and WoW, I started on PvP-Optional servers. Occassionally, I would choose to flag for PvP inorder to protect towns from having their quest-givers killed by players from the rival faction.
I'm not thinking about how much loot I can get when I do that. I'm also not thinking about Risk v Reward. I'm not really thinking about "risk".
When I PvP in NWO, I mostly ignore kills and deaths. I engage in combat as little as possible and focus on completing the PvE objectives as often as possible, like capturing pylons or building up base defenses.
Sieges and Caravans in the Ashes design seem like a good fit for my PvP interests - objective-based PvP.
I like defending towns and cities - even if I have to kill some other players in the process - although killing other players and looting other players would be the least of my insterests in those scenarios.
I enjoyed Sieges in Alpha 1... but I mostly focused on using cannons to destroy the trebuchets tryng to break down the gates and on healing defenders at the wall gates and healing defenders and the Castle doors and on recapturing pylons.
I consider those opt-in.
Alpha 1, Sieges were instances, but they should be open world in the release game. I can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant and choose not to flag as a Combatant. Node Ruins being auto-flag PvP for several hours or even a couple days is not a deal-breaker like the Open Seas because Node Runs are temporary.
A permanent zone that has quests and bosses and resources to entice people to auto-flag for PvP is too PvP-centric for me. I won't play a game that has permanent zones with that ruleset.
Even though I used to start on PvP-Optional servers because I enjoy PvP sometimes - I typically rage-quit those and move to PvE-Only servers. I don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers.
I don't play MMORPGs that don't have a separate PvE-Only server.
In EQ, the PvE-Only servers have the highest populations.
So, I was surprised that the EQNext design did not have a separate PvE-Only server.
The devs stated that they didn't want to split the playerbase like that and instead wanted all the playstyles to play together and that they believed they would have a world where PvEers would be able to focus on PvE while Crafting and Supporting PvPers with buffs and healing while the PvPers focused on the actual PvP combat.
I never understood how that would be successful.
On the EQNext forums, the quickest way to get a temporary ban was to discuss designs that would convince PvPers to play alongside PvEers.
PvPers would share their ideas - the PvEers would become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
PvEers would hare ther ideas - the PvPers woud become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
EQNext died before we learned what the dev solution was supposed to be to get these oposing playstyles to play together on the same servers.
I backed the Kickstarter for Ashes of Creation primarily because I want devs to be learning how to quickly develop and implement players building and defending their cities. I think that's crucial for the longevity of an MMORPG world. It's a better gap bridger while waiting for new content than repetitive raiding.
But, I typically play on PvE-only servers and don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers, so I'm curious about how the devs will entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Corruption has been the presented solution. Steven and other Lineage II players suggest that Corruption should deter non-consensual PvP enough that most PvE-focused players should feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. It's mostly just those who want zero PvP who will not feel comfortable playing Ashes.
I'm highly skeptical, but eager to test Corruption to see if it will truly work as claimed.
Hopefully so because I have some PvPer friends who I like enough out-of-game that I think I should enjoy hanging out with them in-game. (Although, that being said, I like Steven out-of-game, but I'm pretty sure I would hate playing with his PvP mindset in-game.)
But, with the inclusion a permanent zone that does not penalize non-consensual PvP - where you auto-consent for PvP just by entering the zone - that nullifies the solution of Corruption. So, it's an automatic deal-breaker for me. I now place Ashes in the same category as UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge.
And that's OK.
I don't need to play every MMORPG that's made.
I expect to find other MMORPGs I prefer to play before Ashes is released.
And there are systems I still want to test in Alpha 2.
Just Steven's gameplay philosophy for Ashes is too hardcore and too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Carebears are so greedy and self-entitled that they can't stand the fact that somewhere over there there's some farming too, but people can touch them if they travel over there.
LMFAO
I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Carebears don't like killing stuff. And, yes, carebears are going to want to explore and farm everywhere without being involved in combat.
Carebears are fine with other people farming.
Greed really has nothing to do with that. It's just a playstyle preference.
You can expect carebears to prefer PvE-Only servers and not care about what PvPers are doing on PvP servers.
Carebears can't stand living the possibility of someone stealing a little bit of lumber from them
Carebears can't stand combat - especially PvP combat.
That's even before looting. But, sure, you can expect that carebears are not going to be very interested in stealing stuff or having stuff stolen. Especially not where it involves other players.
This type of players are the ones who lead the outcries in the forums, social media and support tickets... then the companies change the games making the games safer for appeasing the carebears and then the games become boring
It's not just carebears who do that.
Most PvEers are not carebears.
But, yes, you can expect lots of complaints from PvEers if there is an MMORPG that wants PvEers to play, but doesn't provide a PvE-Only server or some way for them to opt-out of PvP that is not just - "Stay away unless you want to PvP."
PvEers won't stand for being content for PvPers - true.
Which is why there should probably be separate servers for PvErs in games where the devs want PvEers to play.
They want the companies providing all the content, they put the responsibility over the fun in the hands of the companies, that's why they suck as players and it is uninteresting being around them
Well, I think your attitude is a great example of why PvEers prefer not to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Not enjoying PvP is not the same thing as sucking as a player. It's just different interests.
But, yeah, if you are obsessed with PvP, it stands to reason that you will find people who don't enjoy PvP to be uninteresting.
Player-driven content must be PvP??
I am a fairly new poster, long time lurker and my post was more of me trying to understand your angle. Even as a "solution" making rewards less for being non-combatant is interesting to me as a PvPer, I doubt that will ever work in a system like this but Was just interested to see your "flavor profile" when it comes to being at a loot disadvantage if it means you can do whatever you want. This is all moot as the final game will most likely not feature anything like this but I guess is interesting to someone trying to understand your stance.
Yes. So...
Again... with my Bartle Score Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%...
You can see that my Achiever rating is fairly low. Acquiring loot is not a significant motivator for me.
And... I am a quintessential carebear - I prefer to focus on enhancing and healing people and environments and (in D&D) using social skills and Stealth to avoid combat. Which is why my Killer rating so low.
In MMORPGs, it's not actually 0% because killing stuff is so core to MMORPG leveling at a reasonable pace.
My main will do quite a bit of killing to complete quests - sometimes to my personal horror.
Steven's memorable moments are when PvP spikes his adrenaline.
My most memorable moments are when I had quests to massacre Goblins by steamrolling over them as they fled screaming in terror - and even backing over them to make sure I squished all of the required kill count. And when I used a cannon to immolate Goblins with fire - who writhed in such pain that they flung themselves off a cliff to end their suffering.
I don't play RPGs because I want to kill stuff. I play RPGs because I want to enact the life of protagonists on the Hero's Journey in fantasy and sci-fi novels. And... those protagonists typically are not going on killing sprees. And they typically are not killing people for revenge or to stop rivals from gathering resources in their territories.
Even though my main will do quite a lot of killing to complete quests and level quickly, I also typically have alts doing the Carebear Challenge of leveling to max with 0 kills. Instead of raiding for a full set of BiS gear, I'm more likely to be focused on an alt pursuing the Ironman Carebear Challenge of 0 kills/0 deaths.
So... my concept of "Risk" is not the same as what is touted by Steven and other hardcore PvPers.
UO was too PvP-centric for me. I refused to play UO.
In EQ and WoW, I started on PvP-Optional servers. Occassionally, I would choose to flag for PvP inorder to protect towns from having their quest-givers killed by players from the rival faction.
I'm not thinking about how much loot I can get when I do that. I'm also not thinking about Risk v Reward. I'm not really thinking about "risk".
When I PvP in NWO, I mostly ignore kills and deaths. I engage in combat as little as possible and focus on completing the PvE objectives as often as possible, like capturing pylons or building up base defenses.
Sieges and Caravans in the Ashes design seem like a good fit for my PvP interests - objective-based PvP.
I like defending towns and cities - even if I have to kill some other players in the process - although killing other players and looting other players would be the least of my insterests in those scenarios.
I enjoyed Sieges in Alpha 1... but I mostly focused on using cannons to destroy the trebuchets tryng to break down the gates and on healing defenders at the wall gates and healing defenders and the Castle doors and on recapturing pylons.
I consider those opt-in.
Alpha 1, Sieges were instances, but they should be open world in the release game. I can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant and choose not to flag as a Combatant. Node Ruins being auto-flag PvP for several hours or even a couple days is not a deal-breaker like the Open Seas because Node Runs are temporary.
A permanent zone that has quests and bosses and resources to entice people to auto-flag for PvP is too PvP-centric for me. I won't play a game that has permanent zones with that ruleset.
Even though I used to start on PvP-Optional servers because I enjoy PvP sometimes - I typically rage-quit those and move to PvE-Only servers. I don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers.
I don't play MMORPGs that don't have a separate PvE-Only server.
In EQ, the PvE-Only servers have the highest populations.
So, I was surprised that the EQNext design did not have a separate PvE-Only server.
The devs stated that they didn't want to split the playerbase like that and instead wanted all the playstyles to play together and that they believed they would have a world where PvEers would be able to focus on PvE while Crafting and Supporting PvPers with buffs and healing while the PvPers focused on the actual PvP combat.
I never understood how that would be successful.
On the EQNext forums, the quickest way to get a temporary ban was to discuss designs that would convince PvPers to play alongside PvEers.
PvPers would share their ideas - the PvEers would become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
PvEers would hare ther ideas - the PvPers woud become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
EQNext died before we learned what the dev solution was supposed to be to get these oposing playstyles to play together on the same servers.
I backed the Kickstarter for Ashes of Creation primarily because I want devs to be learning how to quickly develop and implement players building and defending their cities. I think that's crucial for the longevity of an MMORPG world. It's a better gap bridger while waiting for new content than repetitive raiding.
But, I typically play on PvE-only servers and don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers, so I'm curious about how the devs will entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Corruption has been the presented solution. Steven and other Lineage II players suggest that Corruption should deter non-consensual PvP enough that most PvE-focused players should feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. It's mostly just those who want zero PvP who will not feel comfortable playing Ashes.
I'm highly skeptical, but eager to test Corruption to see if it will truly work as claimed.
Hopefully so because I have some PvPer friends who I like enough out-of-game that I think I should enjoy hanging out with them in-game. (Although, that being said, I like Steven out-of-game, but I'm pretty sure I would hate playing with his PvP mindset in-game.)
But, with the inclusion a permanent zone that does not penalize non-consensual PvP - where you auto-consent for PvP just by entering the zone - that nullifies the solution of Corruption. So, it's an automatic deal-breaker for me. I now place Ashes in the same category as UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge.
And that's OK.
I don't need to play every MMORPG that's made.
I expect to find other MMORPGs I prefer to play before Ashes is released.
And there are systems I still want to test in Alpha 2.
Just Steven's gameplay philosophy for Ashes is too hardcore and too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing.
I appreciate your insight as it helps me understand you better. I would find what you do an exercise in insanity by posting on the forums daily for a game that isn't one you seem to be interested in (the hardline stance of game is not for you with Open Seas and you repeatedly stating this game is not for you). I realize there will be cool systems for you and that Alpha 2 will fulfill your interest in those ideas, but we are two very different minded individuals and I am glad to have you here with all of us.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited November 2022
I enjoy discussing MMORPGs that are in development.
I've been discussing Ashes for 5 years.
The Open Seas being auto-flag PvP was just revealed 3 months ago.
When I asked Steven about games similar to that, like EvE Online and ArcheAge in 2018, his response was that Ashes does not have zones like that.
The Open Seas is a recent change.
But, yeah... different strokes for different folks.
I'm still interested in the development of Ashes.
Especially since I have friends on the dev team who I've known years before Intrepid Studios existed.
I was a game dev with Activision for 10+ years, so... I'm actually interested in the development of the game; not merely whether I will play the game.
Comments
For the past 5 years, Corruption has been the given answer for why people who enjoy a bit of PvP would feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. Implementing a large area of the game to explore that auto-flags players as Combatant - where Corruption is not a thing - is an automatic deal-breaker for me.
I still support the players in my player communities who want to play Ashes. And have plans to test with them in Alpha 2. I don't have to play after release in order to help build nice communities with players who like the current Ashes design.
You somehow think that the issue is successfully exploring the Open Seas.
I do not want to be auto-flagged as a Combatant while I'm exploring.
Friends cannot help me explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant.
Corruption would still have to be a penalty for killing me as a Non-Combatant in the Open Seas in order for me to play. Bringing friends along has nothing to do with that.
I don't know what lose is supposed to mean.
I haven't asked for the game to tune down risk v reward.
If there will be some kind of consumable items or abilities with some trade off like you have to master certain profession to craft it otherwise you have to buy it or the abilities have a long CD time and you can use these on your ship and your character to make you a green player for a period of time in open seas, will you feel better about having auto pvp flagging open sea game design?
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
I've seen your answer many times stated the same way, bringing very little to help understand your point of view.
All I can take away is that
- you find unacceptable to explore only 90% of the game and you will rather not play at all
- you are highly sensitive when somebody attacks you in game and kills you
- the level of risk you find acceptable is the same or very close to that of a PvE player
- if friendly players would create a safe zone around you, that would still be unacceptable (this is maybe new info)
This last point is actually against the "Player interaction" design pillar of the game.
Nodes with citizenship and localized economy help creating communities which span across guilds and include solo players too.
A PvP area is a game mechanic which rewards players who cooperate. Obviously a solo player can die more often there, if he doesn't keep the distance from others.
So I see that actually I was wrong. You would not be a player who would help creating nice communities.
You are against 2 design pillars of the game:
- Player interaction
- Risk vs reward
You are a solo PvE player and you are active on a forum which doesn't focus on this category of players. It doesn't push them away but full rewards come when you like and accept all design pillars of the game.
But, sure, if there were a way for me to explore the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant, with Corruption as a penalty for those who PK me... I would probably pursue that.
That assumes that Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for PKing that I'm comfortable playing the game - which I would have to determine in Alpha 2.
Lets assume that corruption does work as intended for a second. Are you ok with this "solution of you being a non-combatant" also drastically decreasing what you can obtain out there. Again going off of what IS stated about rewards on the Open seas as the ones marking themselves non-combatants would have an inherent advantage if you were getting the same loot etc.
As a PvP player, I could care less if you were a green out on the open seas knowing that you are not there for the risk v reward and are being "rewarded" as such. I do appreciate your opinions but I often find your posts to assume much of PvP players and what makes us mad when you yourself are not one (self-admitted in this post). I find myself disagreeing with what you believe PvP players will feel or how we would react.
Well, fair enough to me.
I won't get mad because of any player able to use some kind of trade off items or abilities to temporary explore open sea, I understand that people are not always willing to partake pvp contents and a more forgiving learning curve for new players will better to keep player population, I don't worry about people use this as advantages to claim rewards from open sea because there still lots of ways to balance abuse usages.
↓Good youtube channel to learn things about creating games.↓
Masahiro Sakurai on Creating Games:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv1DvRY5PyHHt3KN9ghunuw
I have a friend who doesn't like chocolate. I don't understand how she cannot like chocolate. She cannot explain that to me. But..
If someone offers her a desert and she asks, "Does it have chocolate? Because I don't eat deserts that have chocolate." And the answer is, "The desert will not have chocolate." I'm not going to be surprised when it's revealed, "Hey. There is a big change: the desert will include chocolate." And my friend responds, "Oh. No thanks. I don't eat deserts that include chocolate."
True enough.
No. I am highly sensitive to being flagged for PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP.
And I am highly sensitive to being pushed into non-consensual PvP when I am not in the mood for PvP.
If I am in the mood for PvP and I make the choice to participate in PvP, rather than some other player making the choice for me, I don't care if another player kills me.
Typically, when I PvP, I let players kill me as much as they wish, while I focus on completing other objectives - like capturing flags.
But, if I am out exploring, socializing or gathering... which is what I do most of the time... I don't want some other player deciding for me that I must PvP. And, if they do, the penalty for that needs to be Corruption. If there is an area in the game to explore and gather where Corruption is not a penalty for non-consensual PvP - I won't play that game. Even if the area is only 10% of the game.
Maybe. I never think about risk when I play MMORPGs.
I would say the issue is not risk. Each time I level, I explore the map as far as possible until I encounter skulled mobs that can see through my Stealth. That typically includes quite a bit of risk from mobs. So, risk is not really an issue.
The issue is non-consensual PvP.
I enjoy PvP sometimes. Sometimes, I enjoy defending towns from other players.
That is for very short periods of time within a game session.
When I am not in the mood for that, I do not want other players pushing me into PvP.
While I have typically started on PvP-Optional servers, I always move to PvE-Only servers because I hate it when PvPers engage me even when I've found a secluded area to gather while waiting for the PvP flag to cooldown.
I don't enjoy playing MMORPGs on the same servers as PvPers.
That has nothing to do with "risk" and everything to do with not enjoying PvP as much as hardcore PvPers. And also not in the same way as PvPers.
This a hardcore PvPer solution that is not a solution for those who don't love PvP.
It's a common disconnect. Seems to be because hardcore PvPers think that the issue with PvP is the dying. The issue is not the dying. The issue is that I don't want to be involved with PvP when I'm not in the mood for PvP and just want to do more casual stuff, like exploring and gathering.
Other people PvPing around me is not a solution for that.
In addition, I'm probably also not going to be in the mood for the trash talking that typically accompanies PvP.
As I watched the Intrepid devs play League of Legends during ExtraLife this past weekend, they mentioned how they would be trash talking if they were winning, but they couldn't trash talk since they were losing. I hate being around trash-talking. I typically hate being around PvPers while they are PvPing. I don't like the way PvPers act while PvPing.
I would say I don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers.
But, I have PvPer friends, like CROW3 and Nikr. Theoretically, I might enjoy RPing with them. So, I was curious about how Ashes might entice casual PvPers and players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same server as hardcore PvPers.
Corruption has always been the solution presented: Corruption should be harsh enough that random PKing is rare.
I was open to testing that. But, I don't need to test that once there is a permanent area on the map without the Corruption mechanic. That is a recent change.
So, yes, while my playstyle is closer to that of a PvEer - even though I like PvP sometimes (I had fun with the Alpha 1 Sieges, for instance) - that really has very little to do with "risk".
I think that point is meaningless with regard to "Player interaction".
None of that has anything to do with being auto-flagged as a Combatant in the Open Seas.
No. It merely "rewards" people who love PvP by providing them with a permanent PvP area that does not have Corruption as a penalty.
Again, here, you are fixated on dying.
I don't particularly care about dying.
I care about my exploration and gathering and NPC/mob combat being interrupted by PvP combat. When I'm not in the mood for the hardcore gameplay associated with PvP combat.
Depends on what you mean by "nice communities", I suppose.
That is false.
I am specifically not willing to play a game where I am auto-flagged as a Combatant in an area where I am going to be focused on exploring, gathering and fighting NPC/mobs.
There are a myriad of ways to interact with other players without being auto-flagged as a Combatant. And, "risk" does not have to include being auto-flagged as a Combatant.
More importantly, I am not against the Open Seas having an auto-flag mechanic.
I can encourage people for whom that is not a deal-breaker to play the game even if I'm not willing to play the game.
Also... Risk v Reward might be a design pillar... now.
But, originally, it was not a design pillar.
Originally, the 4 Pillars were:
Node System
Meaningful Conflict
Economy
Narrative
Steven focusing on Risk v Reward has increased over the span of years. Sure.
Especially with this "big change" with the Open Seas.
I categorize myself as a PvP-sometimes player who typically ends up playing on PvE-Only servers (because PvPers are assholes). I specifically enjoy objective-based PvP. And the focus of Ashes is objective-based PvP.
Auto-flag PvP has never been a design pillar - it wasn't even in the design until a few months ago.
Auto-flag PvP in the Open Seas is pushing some people who were previously interested in Ashes away. How many remains to be seen.
And, that's OK.
Ashes is not made for everyone. Right?
Do you people even realized that just the water in AoC is many times bigger than Azeroth in WoW?
Many times bigger, just the water.
Well, good luck finding people to PvP out there.
Why this outcry about PvP on water?
Even if people could find you in this humongous body of water, you can still run away.
I see. Then that's your problem. The entire concept is designed based on the idea that players care about dying and they want to stay alive.
Maybe you doing a lot of testing made you insensitive to this. Or something else.
The exploration and wish to explore 100% of the content might be similar to those who want to have 100% achievements. They are another category I do not understand.
If we replace the player death with player ability to explore, then it is still a risk.
But you insist to want to explore safely at any time the mood drives you there.
That means 0% risk. Or a very low one (because you rely on other players caring about their death)
There can be cases when you may never meet anyone able to kill you on the sea.
Not because seas would be empty but even being flagged, not all players will be able to kill each-other. Guilds can be quite large and bound in alliances and they will not be able to fight each-other.
So you could explore if that is your wish. But if you accept it, then the risk is that somebody comes and kills you.
That is the risk. You call it "issue".
Regarding
"And, "risk" does not have to include being auto-flagged as a Combatant"
That is true. The Corruption system can be balanced in many ways. Can be lenient enough at the first kill, so it would almost be like being auto-flagged. Then the 2nd kill could give increased penalties and only a few kills later to make the player visible to Bounty Hunters and finally to make the items of the corrupted players to have a chance to drop. The curve can be linear or exponential.
Probably there is no convenient way to balance it around certain world boss NPCs were it is expected players to fight each other a lot. Allowing the first kill and denying the next ones has the purpose to prevent griefing.
But players who go to a world boss cannot claim to be griefed and request special protection to sail away with a legendary drop.
Regarding "originally, it was not a design pillar"
I understand it can be frustrating.
But not for you. You seem to have no problem with this. You gracefully accept it.
You even agree that actually just the wording was different:
Is not for
- hardcore PvP-ers who hate the corruption system (as somebody said in a post today)
- and not for hardcore PvE-ers who want to explore everything in game peacefully
It is for PvX players who can control and predict their mood instead of just watch their node under siege and say: "Dang! Let it burn. I have no mood to defend it today. I'm out of here."
That's a real good way to put it, definitely a sweaty hardcore pvper who wants nothing but unrestricted pvp in all zones while having full loot drops will not have this in AoC.
Neither the mushy bot aspirant PvE-only carebear with drone ant behaviour of just accumulating and hoarding stuff
This is great idea. MMO needs more ''rituals'' like these. The more content similar to this will lead to more content to do in game in shorter period of time which means it will be as some kind of ritual which is always good. You know that feeling when something happens everyone is talking about it for short time then it all goes quiet. We need this, even if its repetitive it won't be boring because it is player driven content.
For me, the issue has nothing to do about whether I can run and everything to do with being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when it is most likely I will not be in the mood for PvP combat... and would want the other player to be penalized with Corruption for the non-consensual PvP.
Hard things can teach you patience and MMO design that changed over the years made people more and more soft and impatient. You will never learn wisdom in gaming because how games are made and what is their purpose. More and more teenagers are becoming toxic because of hyper competitive design in games, and more and more impatient (especially in MMO genre)
MMOs are hard to master because of their progression design element. If you just look for end result, you will become average retail WoW player that is both toxic and impatient, beware of that.
I'd say that the "problem" is that Steven is a hardcore PvPer.
And he is designing a game he would love to play.
Steven's perspective on griefing is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Steven's perspective on opt-in PvP is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Steven's perspective on Risk v Reward is purely from a hardcore PvPer mindset.
Even so, Steven's hoping that most players will not play like the asshole he was when he played.
But, yeah... different playstyles will have different needs and different deal-breakers.
That's life. It's OK.
Non-Combatant with Corruption is not "safe".
Open Seas still would have risk from NPCs, mobs and bosses - even without any PvP at all. So, again, it is not about being "safe".
It is about not being flagged as interested in PvP combat when I am actually just interested in exploring, gathering and mob combat.
Also, keep in mind that I would prefer to be killed in the Open Seas as a Non-Combatant with normal death penalties than be killed as a Combatant in the Open Seas with half the normal death penalties, so... avoiding "risk" is not really my concern.
Whether someone can kill me is irrelevant. Whether someone can push me into non-consensual PvP with no penalty for doing so is the issue. That is not what I would call "risk". But, label it whatever you will, I easily avoid that by not playing the game.
So. No. I don't accept the auto-flagging in the Open Seas.
Specifically, I do not accept being flagged as interested in PvP combat, when, most likely, I will be in quite the opposite mood - even while exploring the Open Seas.
OK.
Yep. I don't find it frustrating.
It's OK.
My TheoryForge co-host, Fantmx, does find it frustrating. But... it's not a deal-breaker for him.
Yep. I agree with that.
I think we may not quite agree on what is meant by "peacefully", but it's probably not really worth the nitpick.
Ashes is designed for hardcore PvPers. PvX just means that PvPers who play the game will sometimes have to PvE.
Just don't go to the water when you are "in those days"
There's nothing mandatory in there anyway
Yes. I won't be playing the game so... that is inherently solved.
My Bartle Score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
I think a decrease in what I can obtain is probably of fairly low consequence for me.
Risk v Reward is an obsession of Steven's hardcore PvPer mindset, but... it holds little interest for me.
Meaningful Conflict in the sense of Caravans and Sieges is intriguing to me.
If there's interesting stuff to explore in the Open Seas, I'm going to want to explore the Open Seas.
But, there is no reward that will make being auto-flagged as a Combatant OK.
There won't be Non-Combatants in the Open Seas, so same loot is irrelevant, I think.
I'm speaking about PvPers in general. It's not an absolute.
But, sure, why not try allowing Non-Combatants in the Open Seas and let's see what the general PvPer response is.
I am a fairly new poster, long time lurker and my post was more of me trying to understand your angle. Even as a "solution" making rewards less for being non-combatant is interesting to me as a PvPer, I doubt that will ever work in a system like this but Was just interested to see your "flavor profile" when it comes to being at a loot disadvantage if it means you can do whatever you want. This is all moot as the final game will most likely not feature anything like this but I guess is interesting to someone trying to understand your stance.
There were other puzzling things which were mentioned before by others too:
- why you invested in this game so much knowing that chances are low to be as you want it to be
- and why you are still here now
But I guess you said as much as you can say and I got my answer from these last posts.
Corruption is for protecting the kids and mushy carebears forever mining and forever cutting trees around starting areas
Steven was smart, the PvPers will go to the PvP areas and there will be barely anyone corrupted at all
Carebears are so greedy and self-entitled that they can't stand the fact that somewhere over there there's some farming too, but people can touch them if they travel over there
Carebears can't stand living the possibility of someone stealing a little bit of lumber from them
This type of players are the ones who lead the outcries in the forums, social media and support tickets... then the companies change the games making the games safer for appeasing the carebears and then the games become boring
They can't stand player driven content
They want the companies providing all the content, they put the responsibility over the fun in the hands of the companies, that's why they suck as players and it is uninteresting being around them
This is the best "Welcome To Verra" marketing message I have ever seen.
Again... with my Bartle Score Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%...
You can see that my Achiever rating is fairly low. Acquiring loot is not a significant motivator for me.
And... I am a quintessential carebear - I prefer to focus on enhancing and healing people and environments and (in D&D) using social skills and Stealth to avoid combat. Which is why my Killer rating so low.
In MMORPGs, it's not actually 0% because killing stuff is so core to MMORPG leveling at a reasonable pace.
My main will do quite a bit of killing to complete quests - sometimes to my personal horror.
Steven's memorable moments are when PvP spikes his adrenaline.
My most memorable moments are when I had quests to massacre Goblins by steamrolling over them as they fled screaming in terror - and even backing over them to make sure I squished all of the required kill count. And when I used a cannon to immolate Goblins with fire - who writhed in such pain that they flung themselves off a cliff to end their suffering.
I don't play RPGs because I want to kill stuff. I play RPGs because I want to enact the life of protagonists on the Hero's Journey in fantasy and sci-fi novels. And... those protagonists typically are not going on killing sprees. And they typically are not killing people for revenge or to stop rivals from gathering resources in their territories.
Even though my main will do quite a lot of killing to complete quests and level quickly, I also typically have alts doing the Carebear Challenge of leveling to max with 0 kills. Instead of raiding for a full set of BiS gear, I'm more likely to be focused on an alt pursuing the Ironman Carebear Challenge of 0 kills/0 deaths.
So... my concept of "Risk" is not the same as what is touted by Steven and other hardcore PvPers.
UO was too PvP-centric for me. I refused to play UO.
In EQ and WoW, I started on PvP-Optional servers. Occassionally, I would choose to flag for PvP inorder to protect towns from having their quest-givers killed by players from the rival faction.
I'm not thinking about how much loot I can get when I do that. I'm also not thinking about Risk v Reward. I'm not really thinking about "risk".
When I PvP in NWO, I mostly ignore kills and deaths. I engage in combat as little as possible and focus on completing the PvE objectives as often as possible, like capturing pylons or building up base defenses.
Sieges and Caravans in the Ashes design seem like a good fit for my PvP interests - objective-based PvP.
I like defending towns and cities - even if I have to kill some other players in the process - although killing other players and looting other players would be the least of my insterests in those scenarios.
I enjoyed Sieges in Alpha 1... but I mostly focused on using cannons to destroy the trebuchets tryng to break down the gates and on healing defenders at the wall gates and healing defenders and the Castle doors and on recapturing pylons.
I consider those opt-in.
Alpha 1, Sieges were instances, but they should be open world in the release game. I can be in those areas as a Non-Combatant and choose not to flag as a Combatant. Node Ruins being auto-flag PvP for several hours or even a couple days is not a deal-breaker like the Open Seas because Node Runs are temporary.
A permanent zone that has quests and bosses and resources to entice people to auto-flag for PvP is too PvP-centric for me. I won't play a game that has permanent zones with that ruleset.
Even though I used to start on PvP-Optional servers because I enjoy PvP sometimes - I typically rage-quit those and move to PvE-Only servers. I don't like playing on the same servers as PvPers.
I don't play MMORPGs that don't have a separate PvE-Only server.
In EQ, the PvE-Only servers have the highest populations.
So, I was surprised that the EQNext design did not have a separate PvE-Only server.
The devs stated that they didn't want to split the playerbase like that and instead wanted all the playstyles to play together and that they believed they would have a world where PvEers would be able to focus on PvE while Crafting and Supporting PvPers with buffs and healing while the PvPers focused on the actual PvP combat.
I never understood how that would be successful.
On the EQNext forums, the quickest way to get a temporary ban was to discuss designs that would convince PvPers to play alongside PvEers.
PvPers would share their ideas - the PvEers would become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
PvEers would hare ther ideas - the PvPers woud become offended and enfuriated and get banned.
EQNext died before we learned what the dev solution was supposed to be to get these oposing playstyles to play together on the same servers.
I backed the Kickstarter for Ashes of Creation primarily because I want devs to be learning how to quickly develop and implement players building and defending their cities. I think that's crucial for the longevity of an MMORPG world. It's a better gap bridger while waiting for new content than repetitive raiding.
But, I typically play on PvE-only servers and don't enjoy playing on the same servers as PvPers, so I'm curious about how the devs will entice players who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Corruption has been the presented solution. Steven and other Lineage II players suggest that Corruption should deter non-consensual PvP enough that most PvE-focused players should feel comfortable playing Ashes of Creation. It's mostly just those who want zero PvP who will not feel comfortable playing Ashes.
I'm highly skeptical, but eager to test Corruption to see if it will truly work as claimed.
Hopefully so because I have some PvPer friends who I like enough out-of-game that I think I should enjoy hanging out with them in-game. (Although, that being said, I like Steven out-of-game, but I'm pretty sure I would hate playing with his PvP mindset in-game.)
But, with the inclusion a permanent zone that does not penalize non-consensual PvP - where you auto-consent for PvP just by entering the zone - that nullifies the solution of Corruption. So, it's an automatic deal-breaker for me. I now place Ashes in the same category as UO, EvE Online and ArcheAge.
And that's OK.
I don't need to play every MMORPG that's made.
I expect to find other MMORPGs I prefer to play before Ashes is released.
And there are systems I still want to test in Alpha 2.
Just Steven's gameplay philosophy for Ashes is too hardcore and too PvP-centric for me to enjoy playing.
I think that word does not mean what you think it means.
Carebears don't like killing stuff. And, yes, carebears are going to want to explore and farm everywhere without being involved in combat.
Carebears are fine with other people farming.
Greed really has nothing to do with that. It's just a playstyle preference.
You can expect carebears to prefer PvE-Only servers and not care about what PvPers are doing on PvP servers.
Carebears can't stand combat - especially PvP combat.
That's even before looting. But, sure, you can expect that carebears are not going to be very interested in stealing stuff or having stuff stolen. Especially not where it involves other players.
It's not just carebears who do that.
Most PvEers are not carebears.
But, yes, you can expect lots of complaints from PvEers if there is an MMORPG that wants PvEers to play, but doesn't provide a PvE-Only server or some way for them to opt-out of PvP that is not just - "Stay away unless you want to PvP."
PvEers won't stand for being content for PvPers - true.
Which is why there should probably be separate servers for PvErs in games where the devs want PvEers to play.
Well, I think your attitude is a great example of why PvEers prefer not to play on the same servers as PvPers.
Not enjoying PvP is not the same thing as sucking as a player. It's just different interests.
But, yeah, if you are obsessed with PvP, it stands to reason that you will find people who don't enjoy PvP to be uninteresting.
Player-driven content must be PvP??
I appreciate your insight as it helps me understand you better. I would find what you do an exercise in insanity by posting on the forums daily for a game that isn't one you seem to be interested in (the hardline stance of game is not for you with Open Seas and you repeatedly stating this game is not for you). I realize there will be cool systems for you and that Alpha 2 will fulfill your interest in those ideas, but we are two very different minded individuals and I am glad to have you here with all of us.
I've been discussing Ashes for 5 years.
The Open Seas being auto-flag PvP was just revealed 3 months ago.
When I asked Steven about games similar to that, like EvE Online and ArcheAge in 2018, his response was that Ashes does not have zones like that.
The Open Seas is a recent change.
But, yeah... different strokes for different folks.
I'm still interested in the development of Ashes.
Especially since I have friends on the dev team who I've known years before Intrepid Studios existed.
I was a game dev with Activision for 10+ years, so... I'm actually interested in the development of the game; not merely whether I will play the game.