NO PVP on the Freehold Please!

Steven mentioned that only your house will be safe from PVP on the Freehold. I believe the Whole Freehold should be a safe haven. I don't want to be attacked while I'm harvesting my crops, only to lose them in my front yard. Processing Resources, Animal Husbandry, Player Stores, Shrines, Fish Pond Production and Bard Entertainment Halls should not be interrupted by PVP. I don't want players waiting outside my door blocking me from harvesting my crops or interrupting my genetic manipulation of the latest mount that I just acquired. Please expand the SAFE AREA to the WHOLE FREEHOLD. Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

So, given people know there is no reason to attack you in the first place, why would anyone be getting people to camp you? You are not a valuable target, you will never be a valuable target, and other people out in the game world could well be high value targets.

Unless those players are specifically after *YOU* for what ever reason, they have literally no reason at all to even look at you as a viable target. The most logical thing for them to do is to not even

The value comes from the fun that the attackers get from just annoying someone. That's it. Some others will even PK, just to have fun with the BHers. And trying to PK a loner on his freehold would be easier than attacking someone who's around other people or are in a group, especially if that loner wasn't prepared for the attack cause they were concentrated on their freehold.

L2 provided nothing to the PKers yet we still had a few who would just PK for their own fun rather than with any kind of purpose. Obviously due to AoC's harsher penalties there'll be fewer PKers, but they could also get something from the kill, which might entice more people to try and PK. There'll also be more people on each server, so purely in terms of numbers there'd be more PKers in Ashes.

TheClimbTo1

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

And sure, it would suck to be killed on your freehold, but imo that is no where near as bad as being attacked while trying to take on an actual difficult top end boss with your guild. These two situations are honestly not even in the same league in terms of how much each one would suck.

Well, to you, obviously that would be worse. But to any player who wants to go as hardcore into artisanry as you go into pve - they'd be as pissed off at getting attacked while doing that as you'd be when attacked on a boss.

And again, even if we assume that everyone will always afk in their house, even if they put as much stuff as possible inside their house - there'll still be things that you'll have to put outside and use outside. And now any dickhole can just prevent you from doing that content.

You have some rare plants growing? The attacker will keep your nameplate at the lowest decay state and as soon as you even touch those plants - they kill you and loot you. You have some animals that you want to tend to? Attacked and killed and prevented from doing anything. Have some processing building outside that you gotta execute an intricate action to properly use? Killed.

And I forgot the main damn point. Green deaths come with the normal penalties. All that a shitty person would need to do is just get a few alts to the same freehold location, PK the freehold owner over and over and over again until your PK alts can no longer even damage them. Your alts wouldn't have any valuable at all too, so you'd lose literally nothing, while you'd shit on a unsuspecting artisan player. And to just reinforce your shittiness, you bring a friend who'll be ready to pvp the artisan player if they ever decide to fight back against your PK alt.

This change is so fucking abusable that I can't even believe they've made it.

Exactly this. We are going to have things that are not 'in the house', like Animal Husbandry.

Just make Freeholds off limits. If the rule is 'as long as the City stands', then there is still the risk of losing your stuff. I'm fine with that, because it makes everyone in the City Limits with the Freeholds NEED to help keep the City standing. So that's fine.

But on the day to day... entire Freehold should be safe. It's just much simpler all around.

There is a whole world out there where PVP is open. You get everything needed for a Freehold, that should be a little piece of peace, a little respite.

TheClimbTo1

Noaani wrote: »

Voxtrium wrote: »

6

Noaani wrote: »

Voxtrium wrote: »

Uhm ok basic logic, who the fudge cakes would implement a multi tiered processing system that exist solely indoors after designing a freehold system?

Literally any sane developer anywhere in the world. Every game I have ever played that has had housing that has been able to hold crafting equipment has been able to have it indoors.

There is literally no reason at all that this would reduce freehold customization at all, I have literally no idea at all what it is you are assuming that has led you to believe all of this.

Yeah there will probably be SOME processing in doors but EVEN IF they did have processing indoors which I would bet money that some processing was required to be outside that still leaves, farming, animal husbandry, etc are these not requiring mats all of the sudden?

Yeah, but with all of these things, you only need to not be attacked while harvesting and bring the materials to your storage. Someone attacking you while you are tending to your crops/animals isn't going to get anything from you.

As I have said in the past few posts, the owner of the freehold literally has 100% control over this. They can simply opt to not harvest their materials when there is a threat nearby.

For the most part, people will very quickly realize that someone on their own freehold (or even near it) is likely to have basically no materials on them, as they are right beside their own bulk storage. People will VERY quickly learn that this is not the time to attack players for profit.

I mean, imagine you are a train robber and you are going to rob, well, a train full of money. Do you attack it when it is full, or when it is empty? For the most part, players on their freehold will be empty, so anyone looking to attack someone for profit is going to be hanging out around resources where players will want to load up their inventory and head back to their storage, not around people that can gather two or three things and then empty it in to their storage.

Quite honestly, all people need to do is apply some logic to the situation. Work out what both sides will do given the systems as we know them. You aren't going to sit on your freehold, right next to your storage, with a full inventory.

If you know a player is able to do that, do you have any actual motivation to attack them and risk corruption for potentially a single resource of the type they are harvesting?

"Isn't going to get anything."

I mean you say hey for the horses, water... what if I have a nice farm of "Goldweave"? If I have those nice Top Tier Plants. Now THESE have value.

So if you let a person farm up their field and then kill them... you might get carrots, sure. Or you might get one of the most expensive mats in the game. And you should likely be able to know this going in, since you see what they are harvesting.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Are we sure it is though?

A permissions system will enable an owner to grant access to specific parts of their housing.[67][68][69]

Ability to open the door and enter the home.[70][68][69]
Access to crops.[68]
Ability to deposit or withdraw items from storage containers.[71][70][68][72][73]
Permission to use furniture or crafting stations.[70]
A property has a single owner.[67]

Fairly sure.

As for "being sieged" by players - absolute top end materials won't be able to be grown on a freehold - that is what content is for.

Even if we ignore that though, anything that can be grown on a freehold can be bought. In order for it to be worth it to some people to camp a freehold (the notion of which is just humorous to me), the potential gains need to be worth as much or more than what they could earn in the time they spend on the endeavor. Since the owner of the freehold has literally no reason to harvest the resource while danger is present, that time needed simply would never be worth it.

All a camp on a freehold could do is make it so the owner of the freehold won't gather. Which again, only people that specifically want to piss you off would do, as there is nothing in it for them.

Keep in mind, in the same way that people have thought they have found issues with the corruption system and people have said "it's fine, it's the same system from L2, it's been tested", we are all also able to say "this is the same farming system as Archeage, it's been tested".

Noaani

TheClimbTo1 wrote: »

I mean you say hey for the horses, water... what if I have a nice farm of "Goldweave"? If I have those nice Top Tier Plants. Now THESE have value.

The reason people aren't going to get anything is because people are generally not stupid enough to farm resources when there is imminent danger.

If you standing within striking distance of a rival player and opt to harvest some rare resource that said rival player is literally unable to harvest, you deserve to lose said resource.

Noaani

Zainox wrote: »

Sorry, maybe i'm not explaining myself 100% properly to get my view across. My bad.
I don't mean a risk of losing anything on a property for the PVP'ers gain. But more of becoming an annoyance of players floating around a freehold off/on and the risk of players losing valuables being there so they have to avoid such activities on their freeholds instead.

Put yourself in the shoes of a would be attacker.

You are on your way to a currently hot resource location in order to fight some people and take their stuff.

Along the way, you come across a freehold with a random person just working away at it.

Why would you opt to attack this player, risk gaining corruption and thus likely slow down your desired activity?

I mean, the guy is on his freehold, right next to his storage. The resources he would have on him would be minimal, potentially even literally none at all. Yet you still stand to gain the same amount of corruption if he doesn't fight back.

Keep in mind, there are already a number of people on these forums claiming the risk vs reward for attacking a player out in open PvP simply isn't worth it. Attacking a player on their freehold still has the same risks, but the potential rewards are significantly lower.

There really isn't a reason for people to do it - unless the target is you and not your resources.

As I said in a post to you above, you are working from the base position of "players on freeholds will be attacked", I am working on the notion of "why would anyone attack a player on a freehold at all?". You are just assuming the attacks will happen, I am questioning why they would happen in the first place.

I am sure you would agree that if the attacks simply do not happen, your concerns are unwarranted.

And again, if we ignore my question of why anyone would attack a player on a freehold, your points are all perfectly valid. If we just assume that people will be attacked on freeholds by people looking for some profit, then yeah, it would suck.

The thing is, that isn't what will happen. People will very quickly (as in, during beta) learn that it isn't worth it to attack a player on their freehold. There are better targets to spend your time on.

Fantmx

Noaani wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

If accurate this is a terrible decision for player growth and retention. Yes some crafting skills will be in doors but what about the farming, fishing and animal husbandry folks.

I have to think this has more to do with freehold density in specific areas than anything else. If freeholds are dense enough and all are exempt from PvP I could see where that would make the world feel very choppy to the PvP crowd.

But this is a terrible way to compromise.

Freehold density qont be that much if a thing in Ashes. They will all be a fairly good distance apart.

As to farmers and such on their freehold, why would anyone attack you?

I mean, they *could* attack you, but they dont really stand to gain all that much if they do. You are right at your storage chests, so there is no reason for you to have much in your inventory.

As such, there is no real reason for anyone to attack anyone on their freehold. The only time someone will be attacked on their freehold (once people realize there is no profit in doing so), is I'd the owner of the freehold was specifically the target.

If there is no reason for anyone to attack a crafter on their freehold then there is no reason to allow pvp on their freehold.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Fairly sure.

I was also fairly sure that we couldn't be attacked on our freehold's footprint

The "access to crops" quote literally states "this is all subject to change" (as they always do). And with this new change to freeholds I'd assume there's a pretty high chance of other changes as well.

Noaani wrote: »

As for "being sieged" by players - absolute top end materials won't be able to be grown on a freehold - that is what content is for.

I would expect top lvl farming to produce top lvl items. Otherwise why the fuck would people even choose that profession?

Noaani wrote: »

All a camp on a freehold could do is make it so the owner of the freehold won't gather. Which again, only people that specifically want to piss you off would do, as there is nothing in it for them.

Yes, and as I said, for some PKers the "value" comes from preventing someone else from doing smth, not from just picking up their loot. You seem to be avoiding this point, because even in your argument below you keep saying

Noaani wrote: »

Put yourself in the shoes of a would be attacker.

You are on your way to a currently hot resource location in order to fight some people and take their stuff.

Along the way, you come across a freehold with a random person just working away at it.

Why would you opt to attack this player, risk gaining corruption and thus likely slow down your desired activity?

But the desired activity that I'm (and maybe others) talking about IS the attack on someone's freehold, rather than that attack being a sidetrack.

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, in the same way that people have thought they have found issues with the corruption system and people have said "it's fine, it's the same system from L2, it's been tested", we are all also able to say "this is the same farming system as Archeage, it's been tested".

Good point. How did AA address this? Was their land off limits or were others free to attack you on it? What about crops?

If Steven decided to just copy AA's flagging system (in the context of housing) - so be it. I'll dislike it, but if it worked in AA, I can live with it.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

If Steven decided to just copy AA's flagging system (in the context of housing) - so be it. I'll dislike it, but if it worked in AA, I can live with it.

Everything I find indicates that this didn't actually 'work' in AA.

It's moreso that the concepts and perspectives on motivations are linked to what a player considers a valuable/important part of the game. Some players won't naturally agree that even behaviour that causes a specific type of 'problem' is actually a real design problem, if they don't care about the experience involved.

(and that's why we defer to you for PvP incentive discussions)

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Everything I find indicates that this didn't actually 'work' in AA.

Yeah, I haven't gone deep into AA's info, but a glance at a farming video implied that there were non-pvp areas and pvp-areas. And majority of people filled up the non-pvp areas first, until they were completely full and later on players had to go to the pvp areas to set up their farms.

So if Intrepid has pvp on farms at all times, then it's even more hardcore than AA was in this respect. Which, if true, would just confuse me, considering all the things we've heard from Steven (not like this would be the first time though

TheClimbTo1

Noaani wrote: »

TheClimbTo1 wrote: »

I mean you say hey for the horses, water... what if I have a nice farm of "Goldweave"? If I have those nice Top Tier Plants. Now THESE have value.

The reason people aren't going to get anything is because people are generally not stupid enough to farm resources when there is imminent danger.

If you standing within striking distance of a rival player and opt to harvest some rare resource that said rival player is literally unable to harvest, you deserve to lose said resource.

Bow from a distance. Fireball from a distance. Rogue that is invisible. You shouldn't know the danger is imminent until the attack is on it's way, if they are doing it right.

TheClimbTo1

Noaani wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Are we sure it is though?

A permissions system will enable an owner to grant access to specific parts of their housing.[67][68][69]

Ability to open the door and enter the home.[70][68][69]
Access to crops.[68]
Ability to deposit or withdraw items from storage containers.[71][70][68][72][73]
Permission to use furniture or crafting stations.[70]
A property has a single owner.[67]

Fairly sure.

As for "being sieged" by players - absolute top end materials won't be able to be grown on a freehold - that is what content is for.

Even if we ignore that though, anything that can be grown on a freehold can be bought. In order for it to be worth it to some people to camp a freehold (the notion of which is just humorous to me), the potential gains need to be worth as much or more than what they could earn in the time they spend on the endeavor. Since the owner of the freehold has literally no reason to harvest the resource while danger is present, that time needed simply would never be worth it.

All a camp on a freehold could do is make it so the owner of the freehold won't gather. Which again, only people that specifically want to piss you off would do, as there is nothing in it for them.

Keep in mind, in the same way that people have thought they have found issues with the corruption system and people have said "it's fine, it's the same system from L2, it's been tested", we are all also able to say "this is the same farming system as Archeage, it's been tested".

You leave out those PKers that just want to kill and grief people in this explanation.
You keep making it about 'value', but what if the 'value' is controlling another player, stalking them on their freehold? What if THAT is the 'value' to the PvP Player?

You can say they are a bad PVP player, a dumb PVP player, that they won't 'profit'... all fair. But they are getting out of it what THEY want.

Arya_Yeshe

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

Zainox

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

I could see that being a problem. Especially with a first hit from safety. But, they could just make it, as soon as someone initiates combat, Freeholds are no longer a safe point for that player. If someone wants to PVP, they will be getting a first hit out in the world anyway.

Fantmx

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

This is not a valid argument. The vast majority of players will be on freeholds to craft or sell their creations. What you are talking about is a theoretical and an absolute waste of time. Even if this was a thing, isn't this what PvP players want? Engagement?

TheClimbTo1

Zainox wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

I could see that being a problem. Especially with a first hit from safety. But, they could just make it, as soon as someone initiates combat, Freeholds are no longer a safe point for that player. If someone wants to PVP, they will be getting a first hit out in the world anyway.

Don't allow first hits from safety. If you are on the Freehold... you can't Attack, you can't be Attacked.

Zainox

TheClimbTo1 wrote: »

Don't allow first hits from safety. If you are on the Freehold... you can't Attack, you can't be Attacked.

This makes more sense, lol.
Edit: if someone was to attack and then duck back into the freehold. I could see the option of the freehold no longer being safe viable.

Arya_Yeshe

Fantmx wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

This is not a valid argument. The vast majority of players will be on freeholds to craft or sell their creations. What you are talking about is a theoretical and an absolute waste of time. Even if this was a thing, isn't this what PvP players want? Engagement?

The problem is the abuse by the people who have a safe haven vs the people who are traveling.
If people have a safe haven in the yard, that's an overkill, people be step in and out the yard when they can take the fight... people who are travelling don't get to choose this

Fantmx

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Another problem about having PvP off in the freehold yard is giving too much advantage to it's residents. With PvP off, people who live in that freehold can just sit and wait for the perfect targets.

It would be a gross advantage.

This is not a valid argument. The vast majority of players will be on freeholds to craft or sell their creations. What you are talking about is a theoretical and an absolute waste of time. Even if this was a thing, isn't this what PvP players want? Engagement?

The problem is the abuse by the people who have a safe haven vs the people who are traveling.
If people have a safe haven in the yard, that's an overkill, people be step in and out the yard when they can take the fight... people who are travelling don't get to choose this

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. You keep saying people on their freeholds will be looking for PvP from their safe haven. That is a wrong estimation. Freeholds will largely be occupied by PvE players who could care less about fighting some random person.

And, yes, people who are traveling can chose to not go near a freehold.

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

The problem is the abuse by the people who have a safe haven vs the people who are traveling.
If people have a safe haven in the yard, that's an overkill, people be step in and out the yard when they can take the fight... people who are travelling don't get to choose this

As someone whose boarders have been stepped over for no fucking reason - no the absolute majority of people could not fucking care less about random travelers minding their own business. We're not moving our freehold to pvp somewhere, we're just doing our own shit.

The ones who would suffer from freeholder pvp attacks is a traveler who for some dumb reason came right up to the freehold. And even then only the few uber pvpers who just happened to be at their freehold would even think of attacking the traveler.

If you want to attack me on my freehold - you deserve to get sniped by me, while I step in and out of my safe zone.

Child Item