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

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

This should not be a hard concept to grasp.

Then what about holding a boss hostage from a guild for a very long time? Would that be considered harassment too? .

That would be a case for Intrepid to decide, as it is less clear cut.

However, all suggestions of activities around freeholds in this thread are completely clear.

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

TheClimbTo1 wrote: »

If you are harvesting on your land and I kill you and take some stuff - that is legitimate PvP. If i then hang around for hours while you do nothing, waiting for another chance to attack you, that is harassment.

Obviously is not harassment!

Why the dead player stayed for hours in the same spot? What a npc, what a bot!

Are the victims the only people in the server who have the right to stay in the same spot for hours?

In AoC, harassment will only come through chat and through PvE. In Pvp there will no be harassment, since there's only sanctioned PvP and ganking will pretty much only hurt the PK.

By the way, all spawn campers get killed too, they too always got killed in every possible game.

I dont think you read the scenario properly.

The person being harassed is on their land. They have every reason to be there.

The person harassing them has no reason to be there other than to harass said player.

That is very clearly harassment, as the harassing player has nothing to gain and no reason to be there.

The same situation but away from anyone freehold would not constitute harassment at all - which seems to me to be what you assumed the scenario was.

Arya_Yeshe

Noaani wrote: »

I dont think you read the scenario properly.

The person being harassed is on their land. They have every reason to be there.

The person harassing them has no reason to be there other than to harass said player.

That is very clearly harassment, as the harassing player has nothing to gain and no reason to be there.

The same situation but away from anyone freehold would not constitute harassment at all - which seems to me to be what you assumed the scenario was.

That's just competition,

No one is entitled to anything, even entitled for harvesting their stuff in their yard

In AoC you don't have real rights on anything, if the node gets destroyed, people go to a freehold and destroy it... problem solved, now you don't have a freehold to stay in and bitch about being "harassed"

You people take things for granted, this is why games are bad these days

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I dont think you read the scenario properly.

The person being harassed is on their land. They have every reason to be there.

The person harassing them has no reason to be there other than to harass said player.

That is very clearly harassment, as the harassing player has nothing to gain and no reason to be there.

The same situation but away from anyone freehold would not constitute harassment at all - which seems to me to be what you assumed the scenario was.

That's just competition,

No one is entitled to anything, even entitled for harvesting their stuff in their yard

In AoC you don't have real rights on anything, if the node gets destroyed, people go to a freehold and destroy it... problem solved, now you don't have a freehold to stay in and bitch about being "harassed"

You people take things for granted, this is why games are bad these days

No, Intrepid have been very clear about harassment and what they will do to those that harass others.

PvP actions are absolutely included. They literally gave the example of spawn camping players as being just one example of when they will take action.

Feel free to go in to Ashes when live and play the way you are talking about above. Your account will not last long

Arya_Yeshe

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I dont think you read the scenario properly.

The person being harassed is on their land. They have every reason to be there.

The person harassing them has no reason to be there other than to harass said player.

That is very clearly harassment, as the harassing player has nothing to gain and no reason to be there.

The same situation but away from anyone freehold would not constitute harassment at all - which seems to me to be what you assumed the scenario was.

That's just competition,

No one is entitled to anything, even entitled for harvesting their stuff in their yard

In AoC you don't have real rights on anything, if the node gets destroyed, people go to a freehold and destroy it... problem solved, now you don't have a freehold to stay in and bitch about being "harassed"

You people take things for granted, this is why games are bad these days

No, Intrepid have been very clear about harassment and what they will do to those that harass others.

PvP actions are absolutely included. They literally gave the example of spawn camping players as being just one example of when they will take action.

Feel free to go in to Ashes when live and play the way you are talking about above. Your account will not last long

No one will be banned fr that, ever

Simply because the corruption penalty is overpowered, other than that then you will be a war target and war targets have to die

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I dont think you read the scenario properly.

The person being harassed is on their land. They have every reason to be there.

The person harassing them has no reason to be there other than to harass said player.

That is very clearly harassment, as the harassing player has nothing to gain and no reason to be there.

The same situation but away from anyone freehold would not constitute harassment at all - which seems to me to be what you assumed the scenario was.

That's just competition,

No one is entitled to anything, even entitled for harvesting their stuff in their yard

In AoC you don't have real rights on anything, if the node gets destroyed, people go to a freehold and destroy it... problem solved, now you don't have a freehold to stay in and bitch about being "harassed"

You people take things for granted, this is why games are bad these days

No, Intrepid have been very clear about harassment and what they will do to those that harass others.

PvP actions are absolutely included. They literally gave the example of spawn camping players as being just one example of when they will take action.

Feel free to go in to Ashes when live and play the way you are talking about above. Your account will not last long

No one will be banned fr that, ever

Simply because the corruption penalty is overpowered, other than that then you will be a war target and war targets have to die

People may indeed never be banned for it, but only because they will never do it.

Archeage had an issue with people blocking bridges preventing commerce. Trion one day decided doing that was a ban-able offence, and the action stopped over night.

No one was ever banned for blocking bridges, but the fact that the ban was in place meant it performed it's intended function.

Since spawn camping (in the right circumstances) will be a ban-able offense, I dont expect to see it happen.

Same with freehold camping.

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Since spawn camping (in the right circumstances) will be a ban-able offense, I dont expect to see it happen.

Same with freehold camping.

It would be so much easier to literally not let pvp happen in the freehold. This is exactly why I found this change baffling. There's no logical reason to make it.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Since spawn camping (in the right circumstances) will be a ban-able offense, I dont expect to see it happen.

Same with freehold camping.

It would so much easier to literally not let pvp happen in the freehold. This is exactly why I found this change baffling. There's no logical reason to make it.

I mean, we went over this at the start of the thread.

Keep in mind, there is a difference between killing someone on their freehold (allowed) and freehold camping (not going to be allowed).

Ludullu

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, there is a difference between killing someone on their freehold (allowed) and freehold camping (not going to be allowed).

Unless Intrepid literally says "you're allowed 3 kills per day on a freehold, but anything more will be considered harassment" - people will just keep killing. Maybe even use alts to do that. I know you don't believe this will happen, but we've got different gaming experiences. Guess AA was less pvpey than L2 back in the day.

Noaani

NiKr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Keep in mind, there is a difference between killing someone on their freehold (allowed) and freehold camping (not going to be allowed).

Unless Intrepid literally says "you're allowed 3 kills per day on a freehold, but anything more will be considered harassment" - people will just keep killing. Maybe even use alts to do that. I know you don't believe this will happen, but we've got different gaming experiences. Guess AA was less pvpey than L2 back in the day.

I would fully expect people to do that - I would probably do that myself if that was the wording of their rules.

However, Intrepid are unlikely to ever say anything like that.

This is why any good rules system is about intent, not action.

If your rules say you cant perform actions with the intent of needlessly preventing another player from having access to the game as they want, then the above action would clearly be against it- because our intent is to do exactly that.

I know the above isnt a rule as you would want it, and with that in mind I'll point out that in my experience, people that *want* specifity in rules want it so they can go against the intention of said rule, while still being within the specifics of it.

Fantmx

The goal should be player acquisition and retention regardless of what is harassment and what isn't. This decision will not make that goal easy to obtain.

Arya_Yeshe

Fantmx wrote: »

The goal should be player acquisition and retention regardless of what is harassment and what isn't. This decision will not make that goal easy to obtain.

Even tough I understand your point, I don't think people will leave the game because of this.

Green players can literally walk from their yard into their homes since they can't be CCed, so I don't think we will have an epidemic of people camping gardens around other people's yards.

Rednuts

Let the owner of the freehold decide what they want. We have a open world where PVP is allowed along with all the various other avenues available for PVP content. If someone really wants the items from a freehold they can siege the node and go down that route.

I would hate to be the owner of a tavern or shop and have some griefing party sitting out the front of the place killing any customers who are trying to get in because they can and lets be honest people will. Allow the owner of the freehold to set what they want.

Arya_Yeshe

Rednuts wrote: »

Let the owner of the freehold decide what they want. We have a open world where PVP is allowed along with all the various other avenues available for PVP content. If someone really wants the items from a freehold they can siege the node and go down that route.

I would hate to be the owner of a tavern or shop and have some griefing party sitting out the front of the place killing any customers who are trying to get in because they can and lets be honest people will. Allow the owner of the freehold to set what they want.

BE A BETTER PLAYER!

Pay some real men to do the job for you, if you don't have what it takes!

mimimimimimimimi "griefing!!! i need systems to protect me"

Sexy_Fufu

Rednuts wrote: »

Let the owner of the freehold decide what they want. We have a open world where PVP is allowed along with all the various other avenues available for PVP content. If someone really wants the items from a freehold they can siege the node and go down that route.

I would hate to be the owner of a tavern or shop and have some griefing party sitting out the front of the place killing any customers who are trying to get in because they can and lets be honest people will. Allow the owner of the freehold to set what they want.

I agree with you.

If we will play on the same server and I'll be nearby and available, you can ask me for help if you have such trouble, and it will be my pleasure to help you. You see, getting more PvP practice is always welcome, otherwise my abilities will get rusty. Also, I love to PvP. Teaching some bullies a lesson or two, while being at it, will be nice.

If the situation gets hairy, we can always request some dudes.

I'm pretty sure that unless a node is full with red name players that are helping each other, if someone starts to pk green players and becomes corrupted because of that, lots of players will be willing to pk the corrupted players, for a chance to receive a piece of their gear. And there are bounty hunters as well.

Pk'ing green name players left and right, won't be a thing imo, because of the solid PvP flagging system.
Sure they can try, but it won't be viable. Risking a piece of your gear will hurt a lot and it just won't be worth it. There's plenty of PvP content as well, without risking to become corrupted.

Also, joining a guild will help as well. Enjoying the game with the right people is great!

BaSkA_9x2

I don't care if there are no safe zones at all, not even inside your freehold house: I don't have any intentions of owning one and I'll enjoy attacking people inside them. If people want their freeholds to be safe let them find a way.

With that said, Ashes is not yet a PvP game because of the corruption system. It is difficult to tell if the corruption system works before testing it, so I really hope that all these recent "anti-carebear" changes were deemed necessary for the game to be successful because the original PvP design wasn't good enough. However, after the recent philosophy changes regarding PvP, I wouldn't be surprised if the corruption system was removed altogether in the future (maybe it already has) and was replaced by something else (or not). Basically the boiling frog strategy where you slowly announce things so that they are more easily digestible.

What worries me, and I believe it should worry more people too, is how the carebear player base that Ashes probably will need to thrive is being pushed away. Actual carebears would never consider playing Ashes in the first place because those people usually completely abhor taking risks. So really when I say carebears or PvE players I mean people who want to play Ashes despite the risks. Are these changes really necessary? Are these changes hurting the player base? Doesn't Ashes need PvE players? Don't PvP players need PvE players?

Lastly, I believe that the PvP cult and its members ought to consider the possibility of only PvP players not being enough people for an MMORPG the size of Ashes to survive: we might also need the carebears' money. Maybe Ashes doesn't need them, but what if you're wrong?

Ludullu

BaSkA_9x2 wrote: »

Lastly, I believe that the PvP cult and its members ought to consider the possibility of only PvP players not being enough people for an MMORPG the size of Ashes to survive: we might also need the carebears' money. Maybe Ashes doesn't need them, but what if you're wrong?

It doesn't really matter what pvpers consider, because it's about Steven's decisions. If he wanted to attract the
crowd that hates pvp - he could've just removed pvp from his initial design.

And if they do remove owpvp from the game, they'll alienate quite a big chunk of their current audience an consumers, cause people followed the game for that pvp (at least some did).

Myosotys

horendis wrote: »

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.

Please don't ruin the game by turning it into a PvE game...

Arya_Yeshe

There's a difference between a real player and a carebear.

A real player realizes that when he walks around his yard at the freehold, he will be holding maybe zero materials, maybe a handful and from this handful he will lose half of it while green and if he is purple he will lose half of the half from this hanful of materials.

A carebear can't see this, carebears can't admit human interaction, the cebear goes to a dungeon and literally dies 40 times in a row and he is fine with it.... but if an evil man in the woods touches the carebear while he is picking his fowers... OH SHIT

Terrifying_Truth

NiKr wrote: »

BaSkA_9x2 wrote: »

Lastly, I believe that the PvP cult and its members ought to consider the possibility of only PvP players not being enough people for an MMORPG the size of Ashes to survive: we might also need the carebears' money. Maybe Ashes doesn't need them, but what if you're wrong?

It doesn't really matter what pvpers consider, because it's about Steven's decisions. If he wanted to attract the
crowd that hates pvp - he could've just removed pvp from his initial design.

And if they do remove owpvp from the game, they'll alienate quite a big chunk of their current audience an consumers, cause people followed the game for that pvp (at least some did).

I am new around here, did Intrepid conduct any opinion poll at all? Do they even know what the player base thinks?

Child Item