Chicago wrote: » Guys relax lol, idc if its a sandbox, themepark, themebox or any other sort of box, i just want to pvp without limitations
Chicago wrote: » id like to see what everyone's opinions are on this topic, as this is a forum for feedback etc here is mine, i understand there needs to be measurements in place to prevent constant ganking, however the corruption system is already extremely heavy as it is, i think making it so greens cant be CCd is not a good idea at all, preventing you from using your tool kit and abilities makes no sense at all and even further how would this tie into any lore whatso ever, it is an open world sandbox style game so things like this should not be prevented, obviously i may be biased as i am planning on doing alot of pvp but this is just my opinion and i would like to hear yours!
Azherae wrote: » I don't really know what people mean by 'story centered gameplay' or not, therefore. I know 'I could do this, it gives me the option of a goal, and I can also ignore it'.
Azherae wrote: » And, to tie that back, I guess, it would actually be reasonable/fair for a Sandbox game to never let you be safe because the Story is minimal or personal and there is no targeted progression path that you can just be 'locked out of', whereas this type would need some protections to stop the psychos from 'sitting at the entrance point to the Level 30 cap mission and slaughtering any group who approach wanting to enter the instance'.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » AoC is a themebox, balanced mostly in the themepark genre than being sandbox. It is important adressing this because I have seen too many people saying AoC is a sandbox
daveywavey wrote: » Do you really need to be able to CC greens? If they don't fight back, you don't need to CC them at all. If they do fight back, they're no longer green and so can be CC'ed. I'm not sure I get what the problem is.
Noaani wrote: » The "problem" is that people can't open fights against unsuspecting opponents with CC. Like you (I assume), I don't see this as an issue at all. All things aside, I don't believe combat should be able to begin with CC anyway.
Kilion wrote: » They really need to add a poll feature to the forum and announce important polls in the livestream to get some data on peoples opinion, ideally filtered by status of that players (member, active since Alpha 1, Kickstarter and so on). That would be a reasonable allocation to put the marketing funds to use now, understand what their future player base is currently expecting and then address it in the next stream.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » No, sounds like handicap features that are not necessary especially with corruption already in place.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » No, sounds like handicap features that are not necessary especially with corruption already in place. I guess technically it is a handicap feature. What it does is give the player that is attacked an option though. They can signal their unwillingness to fight by simply leaving, and their attacker is unable to stop them doing so. They could follow and continue the attack, but cant CC them to prevent them leaving. This aspect of it isnt a handicap. The other thing it does is give the player that was attacked the first shot at CC in the fight. The attacker gets first attack, but the attacked player is then able to reply with CC. This aspect of it is indeed a handicap (leveling the playing field out). In my opinion though, this is a good thing. Every MMO I have played with open world PvP has been overly skewed towards the attacker winning. This levels that out some. In a game like Ashes, the fact that the green has the option of first CC will encourage more players to fight back - it's a much easier decision to make when you have a valid tactic to win over being CC'd and unable to do anything until you are already half dead. Players wanting to play as a rogue and open with a stun and such still have the ability to do that, they just need to attack reds and purples, rather than greens.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » No, sounds like handicap features that are not necessary especially with corruption already in place. I guess technically it is a handicap feature. What it does is give the player that is attacked an option though. They can signal their unwillingness to fight by simply leaving, and their attacker is unable to stop them doing so. They could follow and continue the attack, but cant CC them to prevent them leaving. This aspect of it isnt a handicap. The other thing it does is give the player that was attacked the first shot at CC in the fight. The attacker gets first attack, but the attacked player is then able to reply with CC. This aspect of it is indeed a handicap (leveling the playing field out). In my opinion though, this is a good thing. Every MMO I have played with open world PvP has been overly skewed towards the attacker winning. This levels that out some. In a game like Ashes, the fact that the green has the option of first CC will encourage more players to fight back - it's a much easier decision to make when you have a valid tactic to win over being CC'd and unable to do anything until you are already half dead. Players wanting to play as a rogue and open with a stun and such still have the ability to do that, they just need to attack reds and purples, rather than greens. my response is still no, couldn't care any less.
Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » No, sounds like handicap features that are not necessary especially with corruption already in place. I guess technically it is a handicap feature. What it does is give the player that is attacked an option though. They can signal their unwillingness to fight by simply leaving, and their attacker is unable to stop them doing so. They could follow and continue the attack, but cant CC them to prevent them leaving. This aspect of it isnt a handicap. The other thing it does is give the player that was attacked the first shot at CC in the fight. The attacker gets first attack, but the attacked player is then able to reply with CC. This aspect of it is indeed a handicap (leveling the playing field out). In my opinion though, this is a good thing. Every MMO I have played with open world PvP has been overly skewed towards the attacker winning. This levels that out some. In a game like Ashes, the fact that the green has the option of first CC will encourage more players to fight back - it's a much easier decision to make when you have a valid tactic to win over being CC'd and unable to do anything until you are already half dead. Players wanting to play as a rogue and open with a stun and such still have the ability to do that, they just need to attack reds and purples, rather than greens. my response is still no, couldn't care any less. I assume you know that this makes you appear as if you just want to sneak up behind unsuspecting players and attempt to CC lock them. Since it would seem Intrepids plan for this mechanic is to stop players being able to do this, those that want to do it saying they dont like the mechanic simply tells Intrepid they are on the right track.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » how disappointing. I guess the rumors are true then. I expected more from you.
Okeydoke wrote: » Enigmatic Sage wrote: » how disappointing. I guess the rumors are true then. I expected more from you. Don't get caught up in rumors about people. Noaani is just a person on the forum, like you and like me. Rumors are started by people, and spread by other people. This tells me you are a part of some kind of community or group of like-minded people as yourself. Get THOSE people to come to the forums and give their opinions on topics. They don't need to fight with anyone or get into big drawn out arguments, just tell them to come give their opinions on things on the forum. This forum is suffering a dire shortage of common sense lately. That's kind of subjective of course. But if you know people who are looking at Ashes, but sitting on the sidelines as far as giving feedback, tell them to get INVOLVED. As far as the CC thing, it's unlikely to change. Yeah it's kind of silly in a way. But there is some merit to not allowing greens to be CC'd in some situations. It avoids several different griefy/trolly situations. But there's also merit to the notion that a red who is being actively attacked by a green, should be able to CC that green. These types of common sense solutions are the things we need people like you and yours arguing for. You can hold on to your idea that all greens should be CC'able always. It's a valid opinion. I'm just telling you it's unlikely you're going to get exactly what you want there. And there are other aspects of it to argue for, as well as other entire issues. Get your people involved.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » lol?
