Okeydoke wrote: » I don't know what the rumors are. They could be true. Reckon it's possible.
NiKr wrote: » I think Sage is just trolling Don't feed it.
Enigmatic Sage wrote: » 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. how disappointing. I guess the rumors are true then. I expected more from you.
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: » 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: » 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: » No, sounds like handicap features that are not necessary especially with corruption already in place.
Mag7spy wrote: » 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. Pools would just be manipulated and not give a full picture do to the small amount of players that interact on forums. In-game surveys would be more reliable.
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.
Sathrago wrote: » hm, seems like if greens will be CC immune at all times the meta will be using npcs to get them low and swoop in to finish them off before they can use any escapes. We trade one form of toxicity for another. Lol
Diamaht wrote: » I don't think we'll know how any of this plays out until we are in it. Alpha/Beta will be when we can see it and experience it live. I'm honestly fine with not thinking about/worrying about any of the pk stuff until then. At that stage we will have concrete experiences with what they are setting up to tell us if its actually working or not.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Imagine a green comes around and just starts walking through your party's AoE...imagine he comes naked so he can die faster People only think "griefing" comes from gankers, I say griefing comes only from PvE an ganking is plain PvP and intended gameplay. It doesn't matter if the other guy kills you 1000 times in the spawn, it's just PvP and dev incompetence True griefing will come from the green horde
daveywavey wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Imagine a green comes around and just starts walking through your party's AoE...imagine he comes naked so he can die faster People only think "griefing" comes from gankers, I say griefing comes only from PvE an ganking is plain PvP and intended gameplay. It doesn't matter if the other guy kills you 1000 times in the spawn, it's just PvP and dev incompetence True griefing will come from the green horde Are you using the Force Attack option? If not, the green can wander through there all day. If you're choosing to force your attacks to hit them, then that's on you. "Q: In the open-world PvP system, will there be a "prevent attacking innocent" option that when turned on will prevent me from accidentally attacking a non-corrupted player? A: The open-world flagging PvP system requires what we call the "Force function" in order to initiate an attack against another player, and by default that's even against players who are already flagged, though not against players who are corrupt; and they're in the settings. You will have options by which you can persist that force function if you wish through another keystroke input. And then additionally you can set your AoEs so that if you initiate an AoE attack against a location and there are flagged players there, you will either- you can set it so that you can automatically hit those flagged players, but by default it doesn't. So, those are options in your in your settings that you will have access to and be able to adjust.[6] – Steven Sharif"
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption)
NiKr wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption) Because the game needs limitations if it wants to have owpvp that won't just devolve into "everyone kills everyone w/o any repercussions". We all know that you'd love to just have ffa pvp with no corruption and everyone just killing any carebear-looking player, but quite a lot of us don't want that Also, if a ganker is fine with corruption penalties they're free to force attack everything, greens included. But I doubt there'll be dumb people like that. Though I could definitely see someone enabling that and them coming onto forums to whine about karmabombing and that kind of shit.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption) Because the game needs limitations if it wants to have owpvp that won't just devolve into "everyone kills everyone w/o any repercussions". We all know that you'd love to just have ffa pvp with no corruption and everyone just killing any carebear-looking player, but quite a lot of us don't want that Also, if a ganker is fine with corruption penalties they're free to force attack everything, greens included. But I doubt there'll be dumb people like that. Though I could definitely see someone enabling that and them coming onto forums to whine about karmabombing and that kind of shit. I never said without repercussions or other things, I am a strong believer in repercussions... I love FFA, but things should happen
Azherae wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption) Because the game needs limitations if it wants to have owpvp that won't just devolve into "everyone kills everyone w/o any repercussions". We all know that you'd love to just have ffa pvp with no corruption and everyone just killing any carebear-looking player, but quite a lot of us don't want that Also, if a ganker is fine with corruption penalties they're free to force attack everything, greens included. But I doubt there'll be dumb people like that. Though I could definitely see someone enabling that and them coming onto forums to whine about karmabombing and that kind of shit. I never said without repercussions or other things, I am a strong believer in repercussions... I love FFA, but things should happen The problem is that you sometimes champion solutions/repercussions that only work en masse if the game is either PermaDeath or Full Loot (and sometimes not even this one) while calling anyone who disagrees with those (in that specific case) a carebear who isn't listening. The impression you give is that you're the worst type of person for us 'carebears' to play with, and that you'd prefer we just didn't play at all or had to be functionally subservient to anyone with 'strength'. It's a perspective that should probably be considered, but it's hard to get people I know to take you as anything but a murderhobo, even amongst the strifelords, edgelords and bandits around here (and even my friends who are those things consider you extreme). I'm not saying to change your stance, but maybe try less hard to make your points.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption) Because the game needs limitations if it wants to have owpvp that won't just devolve into "everyone kills everyone w/o any repercussions". We all know that you'd love to just have ffa pvp with no corruption and everyone just killing any carebear-looking player, but quite a lot of us don't want that Also, if a ganker is fine with corruption penalties they're free to force attack everything, greens included. But I doubt there'll be dumb people like that. Though I could definitely see someone enabling that and them coming onto forums to whine about karmabombing and that kind of shit. I never said without repercussions or other things, I am a strong believer in repercussions... I love FFA, but things should happen The problem is that you sometimes champion solutions/repercussions that only work en masse if the game is either PermaDeath or Full Loot (and sometimes not even this one) while calling anyone who disagrees with those (in that specific case) a carebear who isn't listening. The impression you give is that you're the worst type of person for us 'carebears' to play with, and that you'd prefer we just didn't play at all or had to be functionally subservient to anyone with 'strength'. It's a perspective that should probably be considered, but it's hard to get people I know to take you as anything but a murderhobo, even amongst the strifelords, edgelords and bandits around here (and even my friends who are those things consider you extreme). I'm not saying to change your stance, but maybe try less hard to make your points. I am definitely not any of that, I'm just a regular PvPer and I like when the systems are fair for everybody. I have no problems with the humans who are carebears, many are my friends for years. I'm just against when there is a big outcry that ends up changing a game, just because of outcry even Ultima Online gained safe areas, even EVE now has personal instances where the player can farm mobs day and night in his personal instance. So, when the outcry is big, devs instead of making things fair, they tend to obey and deliver unfair systems. This is what happens, in this specific order: outcry starts game is changed then the same people complain that the game became just a bunch of chores That's a problem for me, I'm definitely not against people
Azherae wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » NiKr wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » Bandaids everywhere, to fix any kind of problem that was created by the first two bandaids (flagging and corruption) Because the game needs limitations if it wants to have owpvp that won't just devolve into "everyone kills everyone w/o any repercussions". We all know that you'd love to just have ffa pvp with no corruption and everyone just killing any carebear-looking player, but quite a lot of us don't want that Also, if a ganker is fine with corruption penalties they're free to force attack everything, greens included. But I doubt there'll be dumb people like that. Though I could definitely see someone enabling that and them coming onto forums to whine about karmabombing and that kind of shit. I never said without repercussions or other things, I am a strong believer in repercussions... I love FFA, but things should happen The problem is that you sometimes champion solutions/repercussions that only work en masse if the game is either PermaDeath or Full Loot (and sometimes not even this one) while calling anyone who disagrees with those (in that specific case) a carebear who isn't listening. The impression you give is that you're the worst type of person for us 'carebears' to play with, and that you'd prefer we just didn't play at all or had to be functionally subservient to anyone with 'strength'. It's a perspective that should probably be considered, but it's hard to get people I know to take you as anything but a murderhobo, even amongst the strifelords, edgelords and bandits around here (and even my friends who are those things consider you extreme). I'm not saying to change your stance, but maybe try less hard to make your points. I am definitely not any of that, I'm just a regular PvPer and I like when the systems are fair for everybody. I have no problems with the humans who are carebears, many are my friends for years. I'm just against when there is a big outcry that ends up changing a game, just because of outcry even Ultima Online gained safe areas, even EVE now has personal instances where the player can farm mobs day and night in his personal instance. So, when the outcry is big, devs instead of making things fair, they tend to obey and deliver unfair systems. This is what happens, in this specific order: outcry starts game is changed then the same people complain that the game became just a bunch of chores That's a problem for me, I'm definitely not against people Right, and I agree. There's a bunch of abuses from both sides if the systems allow for any loopholes. Anything that can be done 'without repercussions' for either side. But 'green can't be CC'ed' is definitely one of the things where if it exists, the 'loopholes' that greens can use are relatively minor, but it closes huge loopholes that more aggressive players can use, so if one had to choose one of those, you'd choose that one. The other thing is, as NiKr and the other L2 players will tell you, this isn't really a 'change' at all. This is 'how it worked for them' for some time, and therefore it could easily always have been Steven's intention to strongly consider it. The game is really not likely to get worse this way than the other way. The Corruption system itself might have flaws, but the flaws it has are debatable and could easily be 'not flaws' depending on how Steven wants the game to feel. If the game is supposed to feel 'consistent', then sure, it should have instances, and safe areas, and some other stuff. Something's got to give, but Corruption could just as easily be the basis for changes to economy, as the other way around would be.
