Another area perma flagged for PVP?

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

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

akabear wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Dizz1

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

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?

Strevi

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

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.

jarjarblinks

yeah im a bit confused why the corruption system won't apply to the open seas...

Dygz

Dizz wrote: »

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.

Nova_terra

Dygz wrote: »

Dizz wrote: »

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.

Dizz1

Dygz wrote: »

Dizz wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

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."

Strevi wrote: »

- you find unacceptable to explore only 90% of the game and you will rather not play at all

True enough.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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".

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

So I see that actually I was wrong. You would not be a player who would help creating nice communities.

Depends on what you mean by "nice communities", I suppose.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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?

Arya_Yeshe

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.

Strevi

You very patiently split my post in many sections. You must enjoy this.

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

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".

Dygz wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

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:

Dygz wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

While some of these intersect they are different from each other.

They're nesting dolls for each other.
Node system is the Reactive World and Player Agency

Meaningful conflict is Player Interaction, Player Agency and Risk vs Reward

Economy is the same three

Narrative is the Engaging and Immersive Story and the other way around

These are all just different words for the same concepts.

Exactly!

Dygz wrote: »

Ashes is not made for everyone. Right?

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."

Arya_Yeshe

Strevi wrote: »

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

VekoKrava

Abarat wrote: »

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.

Dygz

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

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.

VekoKrava

Dygz wrote: »

, 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.

Dygz

Strevi wrote: »

You very patiently split my post in many sections. You must enjoy this.

I love discussing MMORPGs. Yes.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

OK.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Strevi wrote: »

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.

Arya_Yeshe

Dygz wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

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

Dygz

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.

Dygz

Nova_terra wrote: »

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.

Nova_terra

Dygz wrote: »

Nova_terra wrote: »

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.

Child Item