I'll be devil's advocate and say, why should Corrupted Players have a safe haven? No-one else will have a safe haven. Not greens, not purples, not citizens and not raiders. Of course, you can't be harmed when at your market stall or in your freehold but your freehold can be destroyed for a period after a siege. There are exceptions to the rules which I stated, but, the rules are to prevent murder rampages.
It's an interesting idea (especially if you're looking at it from a RP perspective) but I just don't think there is a fluid way to integrate it without bounty hunters just camping it all day and keeping corrupted players from even getting to it. I do agree with other comments here for the most part though, it's very 'have your cake and eat it too' because the whole corruption setup is to encourage a funnel into other honorable pvp scenarios and slow down griefing and make it less appealing. So griefing will still happen but it will only be if that griefer decides the risk vs reward is high enough to possibly lose all their loot/gear over killing innocent players.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited February 2021
I don`t believe in any Safe Haven, where safe means untouchable, merely various areas on the map that provide map anonymity.
But as for the caravans, seiges etc channeling the pvp aspect of the game, I only see the safe pvp fueling retribution, revenge, opportunity, power plays, power struggles, that will spill out into the field between those sessions. All dependent on actually how hard the penalities turn out to be.
The following were the kind of political plays and activities that clans / alliances went through that filled the L2 days:
Clan A want to take over a castle for the reward/tax income, but cannot do alone so reaches out and seeks help from Clan B, C, D...
Clan B will help but first Clan B wants help to end their war with Clan Z, so Clan A goes on a pk spree to convince the Clan Z leader to cease fire.
Clan C wants to raid x boss but Clan X is always taking over the boss first.. so Clan A, B pk clan X so they back off from the raids the regularly monopolize. Clan A & C do the raid, Clan C is paid out, and then willingly aligns with Clan A in the siege.
Clan D has been losing stuff in caravans mostly to Clan Y members, so Clan A roughs them up a bit with a few pks until Clan Y leader instructs their members to back off and to keep their trade route free. (adlib here)
Clan A wants to be the sole owner of x mats dropping from an area, so pay off Clan B,C,D to pk anyone that enters that area with promises to reward them from the taxes the may from their takeover.
My interpretation was that there will be those that let bygones be bygones in any of the structured / safe pvp events and those that go that bit further and get their hands dirty to prosper.
Toxic elitist attitude will do you no good. It will only show people how bigoted and aggressive AoC community is.
As these forums resident toxic elitist, I take exception to this comment being made in my absence.
It isn't toxic nor elitism to point out to someone they are wrong. It is,however elitism to assume you are right when someone more knowledgable poi ts out to you that you are not.
It is also toxic to accuse others of toxicity when all they are doing is correcting you.
Many people, myself and Wrath included, don't like seeing incorrect information or incorrect assumptions being left uncorrected here. When this happens, others come along, read them, and have every reason to assume they are correct.
Because of this, if something posted is incorrect, it will be corrected. This isn't elitism, this is simply people wanting to spread fact as opposed to allowing incorrect information to spread.
In this case, you should be happy. There was a system in the game you didn't like, but it turns out your reasons for not liking it were based on incorrect information on your part. That means the thing you didnt like about the game won't happen.
3
Options
BirdieModerator, Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Or the Gulag, we could do that instead. You're safe for literal days, still incur stat and xp loss at max, but at least you get to keep the items....you just don't get to play on that character for however long (probably days) until you work off your corruption. But they won't want that either.
Funny how people are hating on people that like PK in Pvp/Pvx mmorpg... You don't have alot of only Pve mmorpgs already?
Sick of seeing making fun or hating on people that like to have some open world pvp, this is looking new world foruns... PVE Only/Solo players just fill devs with ideas and turned the game from sandbox to a theme park that will be dead in one year...
Funny how people are hating on people that like PK in and Pvp/Pvx mmorpg... You don't have alot of Pve mmorpgs already?
I've explained before that the game is a very niche game for the western market. We have people claiming they will monopolise the bosses, we have people claiming they will monopolise the market and we have people claiming they will monopolise the equipment. Sometimes I wonder if these people have played a PvX Game before.
Also, the die hard PvP Players will most likely not enjoy the corruption system. There will be no escape from the corruption system because there won't be dedicated PvP and PvE Servers. Fortunately, we have a core of players who understand the game systems and can't wait to play the game.
It really is about: Is it worth it? Because sometimes the answer will be "yes" - but most of the time "no"
I found some people just like killing others just to do it and listen to the crying they do after. They don't care about the loot, just the fact they can kill you outright. True there are others that do it for the loot, or they just want to play the role of being the villain. But I have come across a handful they only kill just for the sport of it.
I, for one, would love to see a form of this idea.
A travelling caravan that changes location every so often. A "neutral" town that doesn't outright kill corrupted players, but is also unkillable by the uncorrupted.
But...also...a giant and glorious steaming beacon of reward-fueled bounties for anyone (like me) that might be a member of the bount-hunting organization and looking for easy money.
"Hey.....HEY GUYS!! Get. over. here. NOW!!! I found the pay day caravan! There are at least 12 red dots on my map at the new location by the lake. I run in as soon as I have 10 people with me!"
Yup...I think I would love a place for corrupted poops to circle the drain before my pals and I flush em.
^.^
I think you're understanding the idea more than a few others on here. Thank you.
You know I find it funny how people have no issue with pirates on the open seas. Where do they go after taking down a few ships? Do they go to ports that have guards and soldiers, or do they go to a hidden location, one that has a lot of outlaws and black markets? Same with bandits on the open road. You will have riads on caravans, and people will be killed on these riads. Is this so much different from a Pker who attacks alone player or group of players outside of town, all in the name of taking what they have or just killing to kill. At the end of the day, it's all still PK, and my idea was to add to the RP of the role, vs having a pure safe area to hideout in.
In my mind, OUTLAW towns would be a place for:
1. Black markets
2. A place to plan raids on shipping/ caravans
3. A hideaway for those wanted for their crimes
4. A place that can be raided by guilds, or a group of bounty hunters.
5. High-priced local markets, and at times a place to find hidden quests.
6. Mercs can also work from these towns.
7. If left too long untouched, can spawn a large raiding party on local nodes. ( I figured why not, It would be an NPC raiding party, One that the local bartends would start rumors about, then if not acted on they would come calling. This of course would expose the hideout, and flag it for an attack. Just an expanded idea. )
No
Why ?
You can do it the right way , pk all peopels around a node and make the place to your place.
if you cant do it like this , you just want protektion. Pvp needs risks.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Funny how people are hating on people that like PK in Pvp/Pvx mmorpg... You don't have alot of only Pve mmorpgs already?
Sick of seeing making fun or hating on people that like to have some open world pvp, this is looking new world foruns... PVE Only/Solo players just fill devs with ideas and turned the game from sandbox to a theme park that will be dead in one year...
People are "hating on" those who want unrestrained PvP without consequences. That's not what Ashes of Creation is about, and whoever wants to play the game expecting that playstyle is going to find this isn't the game for them.
Your post seems woefully ignorant. I suggest you check out Ashes 101 which has a ton of great information about the game, including how PvP will work. This game isn't New World. In case you're unaware, New World was started with the idea of having unrestrained PvP, and turned into a total crapfest, so much that the naive game developers panicked and went from restrained PvP to no PvP. The developers of Ashes, on the other hand, are going into this with open eyes and some actual knowledge about what works and doesn't work for a PvX game. Your fears are completely groundless. Again, I suggest you do some reading, hopefully you'll come away with some appreciation for what they're making.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Suggesting players have suggested to implement unrestrained PvP without consequence might appear to bolster the argument against but nobody has asked for that.
In fact, I haven`t interpreted anybody`s suggestion to create unrestrained PvP and/or delete consequence at all.
What I interpret is some players, including self, have suggested is to provide an and/or some areas that have various levels of reprieve for those that have partaken in non-consentual pvp.
A quick read of some of the pvp discussions will show that there is quite wide interpretations of what might constitute a reason some players might enter into non-consentual pvp quite a few of which would be moot if acceptable behaviour or not.
Funny how people are hating on people that like PK in Pvp/Pvx mmorpg... You don't have alot of only Pve mmorpgs already?
Sick of seeing making fun or hating on people that like to have some open world pvp, this is looking new world foruns... PVE Only/Solo players just fill devs with ideas and turned the game from sandbox to a theme park that will be dead in one year...
People are "hating on" those who want unrestrained PvP without consequences. That's not what Ashes of Creation is about, and whoever wants to play the game expecting that playstyle is going to find this isn't the game for them.
Your post seems woefully ignorant. I suggest you check out Ashes 101 which has a ton of great information about the game, including how PvP will work. This game isn't New World. In case you're unaware, New World was started with the idea of having unrestrained PvP, and turned into a total crapfest, so much that the naive game developers panicked and went from restrained PvP to no PvP. The developers of Ashes, on the other hand, are going into this with open eyes and some actual knowledge about what works and doesn't work for a PvX game. Your fears are completely groundless. Again, I suggest you do some reading, hopefully you'll come away with some appreciation for what they're making.
Again, this is just an idea, I understand the system they want to use. But I am tossing out an idea to expand on the current system. Its not meant to be a safe place to hide, but at the same time its a place they can go to hide. Meaning people the live to play the role of a PKer. One thing I will never understand, is the fact people treat what is said by the DEVs team as set in stone, but are quick to give up on adding new ideas to what is being planned. My idea is just that, an idea, and like it or not, its meant to give people something to discuss. If you like it cool, if not that's still ok. But instead of saying what can't or won't work. Lets talk it out and maybe we can come to an agreement to making this PK system a little better. Yes, I know, it has a punishment for doing it. Heck why not toss them in jail while you're at it, and let them escape the prison. It's been done in other games to some level. Even something like that would be a welcome addition to this game if done right. So, lets all try to find a common ground on the topic, and talk about how it can work, and expand what we currently see on the board. After all the game isn't gold yet, and I way I see it, we still have so much to can be added before it does.
Sick of seeing making fun or hating on people that like to have some open world pvp, this is looking new world foruns... PVE Only/Solo players just fill devs with ideas and turned the game from sandbox to a theme park that will be dead in one year...
People are "hating on" those who want unrestrained PvP without consequences. That's not what Ashes of Creation is about, and whoever wants to play the game expecting that playstyle is going to find this isn't the game for them.
Your post seems woefully ignorant. I suggest you check out Ashes 101 which has a ton of great information about the game, including how PvP will work. This game isn't New World. In case you're unaware, New World was started with the idea of having unrestrained PvP, and turned into a total crapfest, so much that the naive game developers panicked and went from restrained PvP to no PvP. The developers of Ashes, on the other hand, are going into this with open eyes and some actual knowledge about what works and doesn't work for a PvX game. Your fears are completely groundless. Again, I suggest you do some reading, hopefully you'll come away with some appreciation for what they're making.
First of all i have read everything about ashes i have followed the game for 2 years,
Second i m not talking about "unrestained Pvp Without consequences" i m talking about how people treats someone when talking about Pk systems
Third i don´t know if you have played New world alphas, i have played both and for me the game was much better before.
Was like an sandbox/light survival something refreshing, yes they had many failures about how they designed pvp, but there was many options to thing about to restraint more pvp , but they chose the easy way, removed completely pvp and drops on dead...
Now you have a themepark with almost every pvp instanced and very limited, weak pve open world, zero open world pvp and coming more instanced pve, broken economy because everyone will be very fast at max lvl and gear without any risk of losing nothing, just reward over reward...
About pk i think there is many situations where shouldn´t be so punished , for example killing a guy from other alliance or guild that are gathering resources in the area of influence of my node... What many people are pointing is that should have some benefices and different rules for pk in different situations...
What many people are pointing is that should have some benefices and different rules for pk in different situations...
There are.
There are rules for open PvP, there are rules for caravans there are rules for guild wars, there are rules for node wars and there are rules for sieges.
If a rival is harvesting resources in an area you consider yours, they will likely need to transport those materials via caravan.
Attack them then, problem solved.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Third i don´t know if you have played New world alphas, i have played both and for me the game was much better before.
Was like an sandbox/light survival something refreshing, yes they had many failures about how they designed pvp, but there was many options to thing about to restraint more pvp , but they chose the easy way, removed completely pvp and drops on dead...
Now you have a themepark with almost every pvp instanced and very limited, weak pve open world, zero open world pvp and coming more instanced pve, broken economy because everyone will be very fast at max lvl and gear without any risk of losing nothing, just reward over reward...
About pk i think there is many situations where shouldn´t be so punished , for example killing a guy from other alliance or guild that are gathering resources in the area of influence of my node... What many people are pointing is that should have some benefices and different rules for pk in different situations...
No question they blew it in New World. But the issue with that game was that there was insufficient restraint on PvP and when people got toxic they were caught by surprise. They had no freaking idea what they were doing and they overreacted by shutting off all PvP. If you’ve really followed this game then your concern that the Ashes developers might do the same must be either badly-portrayed sarcasm, or trolling, or a very poor grasp on sanity.
You need to be careful how you explain things. “PK” means different things to different people. Usually on this board it references killing a green player.
But again, you’re portraying some of the lunacy common to people whining about corruption. Players are not going to be able to “own” things like natural resources or mobs. So many times immature players insist that they have a right to such things like a toddler crying “mine” and then get a defensive lip quiver when they find out that they aren’t allowed to enforce that non-existent privilege. So no, you don’t get to mindlessly gank people because you are a citizen of a node, A guild isn’t going to be able to control a node, nor will an alliance. Nodes are way too big.
There will be many, many situations where you will get to sate your appetite for PvP. Caravans, sieges, guild wars. Nobody can participate in those things and be green. And to be honest, the game is really going to discourage people from being green because dying to a player while green causes you to lose so much.
The game will be very PvP friendly. It won’t be PK friendly. And it’s not going to satisfy people who never want to PvP. Carebears and griefers are going to find it rough. The game will be mostly for the people in between those extremes.
My experience of a “safe haven” for corrupted was no safe haven at all. It turned into a hub for PVP as reds were able to access their bank box, but all could attend. It was a party almost 24/7.
Here's a spin-off idea. Not really well thought through but I think it would bring depth and lore to the game if there were some kind of Alcatraz Island for grievers where they get send to if they've grieved too many times within certain time period. This as an extra penalty, but also bring extra depth/lore. They wouldn't be able to just teleport/travel out, but have to complete some quest-line that inspires the 'honorable' within. And maybe have to reach some kind of rank or exp. in 1-vs-1 colloseum pvp. Players/grievers that would be at risk being send to the island would be warned one time before being send away. Curious what you guys think...
I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island.
If PKing is a viable play style, I think the pk town would have to be player made. Either by developing a node which would give you real benefits or by placing freeholds in an area together which might give you some safety in numbers, or might just make you an easy target.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here's a spin-off idea. Not really well thought through but I think it would bring depth and lore to the game if there were some kind of Alcatraz Island for grievers where they get send to if they've grieved too many times within certain time period. This as an extra penalty, but also bring extra depth/lore. They wouldn't be able to just teleport/travel out, but have to complete some quest-line that inspires the 'honorable' within. And maybe have to reach some kind of rank or exp. in 1-vs-1 colloseum pvp. Players/grievers that would be at risk being send to the island would be warned one time before being send away. Curious what you guys think...
I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island.
The state where I live has a place like that in real life.
In general, I love the idea of a single location that caters to corrupted players. But it would need to be very separate from every other node, not have many node benefits other than basic stuff, and really just be for aesthetic and a sort of zone for people on the run to take a breather more than anything else.
Realistically, it really doesn't fit with the design goals of the game. Corruption is meant to be a limiter for PKing. So promoting PKing in this way doesn't really make sense. Especially when you can go out to sea and be a pirate without worry of corruption.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Always pondered how the idea would play out, if towns that managed a certain level of diplomacy / protection from adjacent nodes could raise their ZoI (or equivalent) pk penalty and those towns that were at the opposite end were also opposite
Based on my time in the game UO, aka Ultima Online, where you had a PKer system where you went from grey to red. Grey being your open to attacks cause you killed someone or stole from someone, too red where you are just a killer, and you can enter any towns without being killed by guards.
Not sure if this topic was talked about, but I was thinking, why not have a town for the killers?
If not a town, then a caravan type, one they can be setup in hidden locations, and can grown to a level 2 or 3 only. This town needs to be one that can be taken down, and could be relocated to a different hidden location. One only known by a few PKers. A safe place for them to call home, and where they can sell or buy goods as needed.
Think of it as an outlaw town, one that could be moved after a day or two. A few tents and shacks and this can be a nice place for the villain type players. What do you think? Of course these type of camp towns wouldn't be allowed to be setup close to regular ones.
This is just a though, one I am floating out there, to see if others like it or not.
So what do you think? Please express yourself.
Outlaw towns already exist, they float and are called galleons.
I still think mayors of nodes should have an option of close boarder policy where everyone not part of the node is flagged when there in that node zone of influence so the option is there it come with drawbacks aswell since less caravans and trade cming to your city, but being a bit like japan back in the day where they would accept anyone pretty much i think could be an interesting aspect and if civililians dont like it they can overthrow the govermenet next electing cycle and put somone else it to get rid of it.
im also not against some nodes having a unique pirate policy that flags everyone who lives there as combatant and rewards some kind of extra bonus for destroying/pilage other players naval vessels these would only be available to some coastal/island nodes
Comments
It's an interesting idea (especially if you're looking at it from a RP perspective) but I just don't think there is a fluid way to integrate it without bounty hunters just camping it all day and keeping corrupted players from even getting to it. I do agree with other comments here for the most part though, it's very 'have your cake and eat it too' because the whole corruption setup is to encourage a funnel into other honorable pvp scenarios and slow down griefing and make it less appealing. So griefing will still happen but it will only be if that griefer decides the risk vs reward is high enough to possibly lose all their loot/gear over killing innocent players.
But as for the caravans, seiges etc channeling the pvp aspect of the game, I only see the safe pvp fueling retribution, revenge, opportunity, power plays, power struggles, that will spill out into the field between those sessions. All dependent on actually how hard the penalities turn out to be.
The following were the kind of political plays and activities that clans / alliances went through that filled the L2 days:
My interpretation was that there will be those that let bygones be bygones in any of the structured / safe pvp events and those that go that bit further and get their hands dirty to prosper.
As these forums resident toxic elitist, I take exception to this comment being made in my absence.
It isn't toxic nor elitism to point out to someone they are wrong. It is,however elitism to assume you are right when someone more knowledgable poi ts out to you that you are not.
It is also toxic to accuse others of toxicity when all they are doing is correcting you.
Many people, myself and Wrath included, don't like seeing incorrect information or incorrect assumptions being left uncorrected here. When this happens, others come along, read them, and have every reason to assume they are correct.
Because of this, if something posted is incorrect, it will be corrected. This isn't elitism, this is simply people wanting to spread fact as opposed to allowing incorrect information to spread.
In this case, you should be happy. There was a system in the game you didn't like, but it turns out your reasons for not liking it were based on incorrect information on your part. That means the thing you didnt like about the game won't happen.
Or the Gulag, we could do that instead. You're safe for literal days, still incur stat and xp loss at max, but at least you get to keep the items....you just don't get to play on that character for however long (probably days) until you work off your corruption. But they won't want that either.
Sick of seeing making fun or hating on people that like to have some open world pvp, this is looking new world foruns... PVE Only/Solo players just fill devs with ideas and turned the game from sandbox to a theme park that will be dead in one year...
I've explained before that the game is a very niche game for the western market. We have people claiming they will monopolise the bosses, we have people claiming they will monopolise the market and we have people claiming they will monopolise the equipment. Sometimes I wonder if these people have played a PvX Game before.
Also, the die hard PvP Players will most likely not enjoy the corruption system. There will be no escape from the corruption system because there won't be dedicated PvP and PvE Servers. Fortunately, we have a core of players who understand the game systems and can't wait to play the game.
Edit: Spelling Mistakes.
No what? Please expand a little.
I found some people just like killing others just to do it and listen to the crying they do after. They don't care about the loot, just the fact they can kill you outright. True there are others that do it for the loot, or they just want to play the role of being the villain. But I have come across a handful they only kill just for the sport of it.
I think you're understanding the idea more than a few others on here. Thank you.
In my mind, OUTLAW towns would be a place for:
1. Black markets
2. A place to plan raids on shipping/ caravans
3. A hideaway for those wanted for their crimes
4. A place that can be raided by guilds, or a group of bounty hunters.
5. High-priced local markets, and at times a place to find hidden quests.
6. Mercs can also work from these towns.
7. If left too long untouched, can spawn a large raiding party on local nodes. ( I figured why not, It would be an NPC raiding party, One that the local bartends would start rumors about, then if not acted on they would come calling. This of course would expose the hideout, and flag it for an attack. Just an expanded idea. )
Why ?
You can do it the right way , pk all peopels around a node and make the place to your place.
if you cant do it like this , you just want protektion. Pvp needs risks.
People are "hating on" those who want unrestrained PvP without consequences. That's not what Ashes of Creation is about, and whoever wants to play the game expecting that playstyle is going to find this isn't the game for them.
Your post seems woefully ignorant. I suggest you check out Ashes 101 which has a ton of great information about the game, including how PvP will work. This game isn't New World. In case you're unaware, New World was started with the idea of having unrestrained PvP, and turned into a total crapfest, so much that the naive game developers panicked and went from restrained PvP to no PvP. The developers of Ashes, on the other hand, are going into this with open eyes and some actual knowledge about what works and doesn't work for a PvX game. Your fears are completely groundless. Again, I suggest you do some reading, hopefully you'll come away with some appreciation for what they're making.
In fact, I haven`t interpreted anybody`s suggestion to create unrestrained PvP and/or delete consequence at all.
What I interpret is some players, including self, have suggested is to provide an and/or some areas that have various levels of reprieve for those that have partaken in non-consentual pvp.
A quick read of some of the pvp discussions will show that there is quite wide interpretations of what might constitute a reason some players might enter into non-consentual pvp quite a few of which would be moot if acceptable behaviour or not.
Again, this is just an idea, I understand the system they want to use. But I am tossing out an idea to expand on the current system. Its not meant to be a safe place to hide, but at the same time its a place they can go to hide. Meaning people the live to play the role of a PKer. One thing I will never understand, is the fact people treat what is said by the DEVs team as set in stone, but are quick to give up on adding new ideas to what is being planned. My idea is just that, an idea, and like it or not, its meant to give people something to discuss. If you like it cool, if not that's still ok. But instead of saying what can't or won't work. Lets talk it out and maybe we can come to an agreement to making this PK system a little better. Yes, I know, it has a punishment for doing it. Heck why not toss them in jail while you're at it, and let them escape the prison. It's been done in other games to some level. Even something like that would be a welcome addition to this game if done right. So, lets all try to find a common ground on the topic, and talk about how it can work, and expand what we currently see on the board. After all the game isn't gold yet, and I way I see it, we still have so much to can be added before it does.
First of all i have read everything about ashes i have followed the game for 2 years,
Second i m not talking about "unrestained Pvp Without consequences" i m talking about how people treats someone when talking about Pk systems
Third i don´t know if you have played New world alphas, i have played both and for me the game was much better before.
Was like an sandbox/light survival something refreshing, yes they had many failures about how they designed pvp, but there was many options to thing about to restraint more pvp , but they chose the easy way, removed completely pvp and drops on dead...
Now you have a themepark with almost every pvp instanced and very limited, weak pve open world, zero open world pvp and coming more instanced pve, broken economy because everyone will be very fast at max lvl and gear without any risk of losing nothing, just reward over reward...
About pk i think there is many situations where shouldn´t be so punished , for example killing a guy from other alliance or guild that are gathering resources in the area of influence of my node... What many people are pointing is that should have some benefices and different rules for pk in different situations...
That's me, and yes I have.
Before my guild decided to leave the game, we had killed the Kraken every spawn on our Archeage server.
Monopolizing content is no harder in a PvX game than in any other game with open world content.
There are rules for open PvP, there are rules for caravans there are rules for guild wars, there are rules for node wars and there are rules for sieges.
If a rival is harvesting resources in an area you consider yours, they will likely need to transport those materials via caravan.
Attack them then, problem solved.
No question they blew it in New World. But the issue with that game was that there was insufficient restraint on PvP and when people got toxic they were caught by surprise. They had no freaking idea what they were doing and they overreacted by shutting off all PvP. If you’ve really followed this game then your concern that the Ashes developers might do the same must be either badly-portrayed sarcasm, or trolling, or a very poor grasp on sanity.
You need to be careful how you explain things. “PK” means different things to different people. Usually on this board it references killing a green player.
But again, you’re portraying some of the lunacy common to people whining about corruption. Players are not going to be able to “own” things like natural resources or mobs. So many times immature players insist that they have a right to such things like a toddler crying “mine” and then get a defensive lip quiver when they find out that they aren’t allowed to enforce that non-existent privilege. So no, you don’t get to mindlessly gank people because you are a citizen of a node, A guild isn’t going to be able to control a node, nor will an alliance. Nodes are way too big.
There will be many, many situations where you will get to sate your appetite for PvP. Caravans, sieges, guild wars. Nobody can participate in those things and be green. And to be honest, the game is really going to discourage people from being green because dying to a player while green causes you to lose so much.
The game will be very PvP friendly. It won’t be PK friendly. And it’s not going to satisfy people who never want to PvP. Carebears and griefers are going to find it rough. The game will be mostly for the people in between those extremes.
I can imagine lots of players wanting to explore and find out the experience on the island, so it should bring enough penalty to disincentivize hordes of players being drawn too it. Maybe no level progression while being on the island.
The state where I live has a place like that in real life.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/03/dangerous-sex-offenders-mcneil-island-commitment-center
Realistically, it really doesn't fit with the design goals of the game. Corruption is meant to be a limiter for PKing. So promoting PKing in this way doesn't really make sense. Especially when you can go out to sea and be a pirate without worry of corruption.
Outlaw towns already exist, they float and are called galleons.
im also not against some nodes having a unique pirate policy that flags everyone who lives there as combatant and rewards some kind of extra bonus for destroying/pilage other players naval vessels these would only be available to some coastal/island nodes