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.
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
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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
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
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
1
Options
FantmxMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
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.
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.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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.
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"
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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!
Are you looking for an amazing community with lovely people? Join the Aurora Discord now and chat with us!
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?
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).
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...
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
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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?
I saw Steven saying on a stream that in the freehold you can craft the best things in the game, if the entire freehold is safe, this would remove the risk from risk-reward and you would have reward only.
I saw Steven saying on a stream that in the freehold you can craft the best things in the game, if the entire freehold is safe, this would remove the risk from risk-reward and you would have reward only.
That's a terrifying truth for sure!
It just makes sense letting PvP on around the freehold since the good stuff is crafted in the freehold.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
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?
Intrepid have been marketing this game for y or 7 years so far as being a PvP heavy game, but that requires PvE as well.
Since that is what they have marketed as, that is the audience it has attracted (mostly). As such, any poll they take of their community will reflect that the above is what people want - since people that want that came to this game and people that dont want that (mostly) didnt.
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...
To be clear, making the whole of the freehold a PvP free zone isnt going to turn the game in to a PvE game.
While I can appreciate an amount of hyperbole, this is just a bit much.
I saw Steven saying on a stream that in the freehold you can craft the best things in the game, if the entire freehold is safe, this would remove the risk from risk-reward and you would have reward only.
Anything outside of fully crafted items will have to be transferred, which brings the risk with it. And any fully crafted item is always safe, so making it in a pvp-free zone wouldn't make a difference.
The game should have enough content for boths sides of the spectrum. Pretty much the entirety of the game appeals to the pvp side (as long as corruption is well-balanced), so I think that having literally a small square of peace would be completely fine, if it can draw in more of the other side of the spectrum.
Nodes will need XP and markets will need resources. Pvpers will most likely only want to pvp instead of doing all those other things (quite a few pvpers on this forum said as much), so that casual carebear working on his freehold (that's even if he manages to buy one in the first place) will make the pvpers' game better by just existing.
I saw Steven saying on a stream that in the freehold you can craft the best things in the game, if the entire freehold is safe, this would remove the risk from risk-reward and you would have reward only.
Anything outside of fully crafted items will have to be transferred, which brings the risk with it. And any fully crafted item is always safe, so making it in a pvp-free zone wouldn't make a difference.
The game should have enough content for boths sides of the spectrum. Pretty much the entirety of the game appeals to the pvp side (as long as corruption is well-balanced), so I think that having literally a small square of peace would be completely fine, if it can draw in more of the other side of the spectrum.
Nodes will need XP and markets will need resources. Pvpers will most likely only want to pvp instead of doing all those other things (quite a few pvpers on this forum said as much), so that casual carebear working on his freehold (that's even if he manages to buy one in the first place) will make the pvpers' game better by just existing.
So it's fair having PvP around the freehold, because it is the only momment the crafter may lose anything, it would be materials.
But if people are on a mule, the mule will drop everything, right? Including finished items?
The city has PvP off tough, except for guild wars. Thinking carefully about everything, it seems AoC will be very PvP intense if you are in a guild.
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?
Intrepid have been marketing this game for y or 7 years so far as being a PvP heavy game, but that requires PvE as well.
Since that is what they have marketed as, that is the audience it has attracted (mostly). As such, any poll they take of their community will reflect that the above is what people want - since people that want that came to this game and people that dont want that (mostly) didnt.
I understand, but the devs could be willing to attract a certain public and could end up attracting another kind of public. I wonder if they know their current situation, otherwise they could be facing a harsh reality check in the future.
So it's fair having PvP around the freehold, because it is the only momment the crafter may lose anything, it would be materials.
But if people are on a mule, the mule will drop everything, right? Including finished items?
Crafters will need to import and export different materials, at which point they can be attacked. Mule doesn't drop everything. It drops the same ratio of mats as the owner, so a green mule will lose a standard value, a flagged one will lose 50% of that and a red one 400% (currently).
Caravans are the ones that break apart completely, with some portion of good fully sunk so that no one gets them.
The city has PvP off tough, except for guild wars. Thinking carefully about everything, it seems AoC will be very PvP intense if you are in a guild.
Currently the nodes do not have pvp off in them. I doubt that stays in the game, but it is what it is rn. Also, if you're killed in a guild/node war you do not lose any mats, so while there's gonna be a ton of pvp during those events - nothing will be lost.
I understand, but the devs could be willing to attract a certain public and could end up attracting another kind of public. I wonder if they know their current situation, otherwise they could be facing a harsh reality check in the future.
Unless they're so damn stupid that they can't see right in front of their faces or think 1.1 steps ahead - yes they're aware. And they've said as much countless times, with one of the biggest Steven quotes being "this game will not be for everyone".
Comments
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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"
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!
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?
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).
Please don't ruin the game by turning it into a PvE game...
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
I am new around here, did Intrepid conduct any opinion poll at all? Do they even know what the player base thinks?
That's a terrifying truth for sure!
It just makes sense letting PvP on around the freehold since the good stuff is crafted in the freehold.
Intrepid have been marketing this game for y or 7 years so far as being a PvP heavy game, but that requires PvE as well.
Since that is what they have marketed as, that is the audience it has attracted (mostly). As such, any poll they take of their community will reflect that the above is what people want - since people that want that came to this game and people that dont want that (mostly) didnt.
To be clear, making the whole of the freehold a PvP free zone isnt going to turn the game in to a PvE game.
While I can appreciate an amount of hyperbole, this is just a bit much.
Carebear: *drops the flowers*
Evil man in the woods: Something's rising and it ain't the shield hero!
The game should have enough content for boths sides of the spectrum. Pretty much the entirety of the game appeals to the pvp side (as long as corruption is well-balanced), so I think that having literally a small square of peace would be completely fine, if it can draw in more of the other side of the spectrum.
Nodes will need XP and markets will need resources. Pvpers will most likely only want to pvp instead of doing all those other things (quite a few pvpers on this forum said as much), so that casual carebear working on his freehold (that's even if he manages to buy one in the first place) will make the pvpers' game better by just existing.
So it's fair having PvP around the freehold, because it is the only momment the crafter may lose anything, it would be materials.
But if people are on a mule, the mule will drop everything, right? Including finished items?
The city has PvP off tough, except for guild wars. Thinking carefully about everything, it seems AoC will be very PvP intense if you are in a guild.
I understand, but the devs could be willing to attract a certain public and could end up attracting another kind of public. I wonder if they know their current situation, otherwise they could be facing a harsh reality check in the future.
Caravans are the ones that break apart completely, with some portion of good fully sunk so that no one gets them.
Currently the nodes do not have pvp off in them. I doubt that stays in the game, but it is what it is rn. Also, if you're killed in a guild/node war you do not lose any mats, so while there's gonna be a ton of pvp during those events - nothing will be lost.