In-game harrassment. MMO Drama

Mag7spy wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is a pvp game

Here is a false accusation against AoC
It is not a PvP game, it is a game about the dynamic high fantasy world of Verra, it has PvE and some forms of limited PvP...

PvP is not limited, unsure why you are making weird view points. Clearly the game is PvX, but PvP is what guides the change of content with the destruction of nodes based on player interaction.

False accusation if the fact you are assuming its limited pvp when pvp is the main change of the world content based on their systems. You are no helping the game, you simply would be giving the wrong message to purely pve players lol.

I can meme on this comment by simply saying let me show you limited pvp in the ocean.

You are judging others poorly, never gain call AoC a PvP game and never again imply that others understand the game less than you. You are very very mistaken

The PvP is limited and here is proof:

it takes scrolls to declare wars
takes scrolls to declare siege
slave nodes can't revolt against their masters
you can't kill people inside the city for no reason
you can't gank people repeatedly because the penalties will make the character very dampened
alliances have a limit of 3 guilds
you can't declare sieges out of nowhere against anyone
you can't squeeze yourself into a house and kill it's residents
you can't backstab and kill your guild
you can't have permanent wars
there's death penalties
cc effects don't apply to greens
greens can attack reds without changing their flags to purple
there's no war aid for the defenders in sight
there's no way to use node's gold as payment for player militias fighting for the node
bounty hunters hunt corrupted only
only gatherables and materials will drop, not even consumables will drop
penalties in most cases do not apply to objective-based PvP
duels allowed only inside a freehold or node
in sactioned wars there are no loot drops, not even in the hunting grounds
you can't remove corruption by killing the other reds
Steven repeated himself many times that there is no reward for non sactioned Pvp

So the pvp is all over the game, but this pvp feeds the dynamic world of Verra, this pvp exist in a meaningful way for the Verra experience

This is not a PvP sandbox, not a PvP game, it has pvp and it serves a purpose within the world, the game is not about PvP

PvP doesn't direct the game, what directs the game is mostly PvE and it's systems around the node, almost everything is related to the node and the people interacting with the node

Mag7spy

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is a pvp game

Here is a false accusation against AoC
It is not a PvP game, it is a game about the dynamic high fantasy world of Verra, it has PvE and some forms of limited PvP...

PvP is not limited, unsure why you are making weird view points. Clearly the game is PvX, but PvP is what guides the change of content with the destruction of nodes based on player interaction.

False accusation if the fact you are assuming its limited pvp when pvp is the main change of the world content based on their systems. You are no helping the game, you simply would be giving the wrong message to purely pve players lol.

I can meme on this comment by simply saying let me show you limited pvp in the ocean.

You are judging others poorly, never gain call AoC a PvP game and never again imply that others understand the game less than you. You are very very mistaken

The PvP is limited and here is proof:
it takes scrolls to declare wars

takes scrolls to declare siege

slave nodes can't revolt against their masters

you can't kill people inside the city for no reason

you can't gank people repeatedly because the penalties will make the character very dampened

alliances have a limit of 3 guilds

you can't declare sieges out of nowhere against anyone

you can't squeeze yourself into a house and kill it's residents

you can't backstab and kill your guild

you can't have permanent wars

there's death penalties

cc effects don't apply to greens

greens can attack reds without changing their flags to purple

there's no war aid for the defenders in sight

there's no way to use node's gold as payment for player militias fighting for the node

bounty hunters hunt corrupted only

only gatherables and materials will drop, not even consumables will drop

penalties in most cases do not apply to objective-based PvP

duels allowed only inside a freehold or node

in sactioned wars there are no loot drops, not even in the hunting grounds

you can't remove corruption by killing the other reds

Steven repeated himself many times that there is no reward for non sactioned Pvp

So the pvp is all over the game, but this pvp feeds the dynamic world of Verra, this pvp exist in a meaningful way for the Verra experience

This is not a PvP sandbox, not a PvP game, it has pvp and it serves a purpose within the world, the game is not about PvP

PvP doesn't direct the game, what directs the game is mostly PvE and it's systems around the node, almost everything is related to the node and the people interacting with the node

im just going to go over your entire post with actual logic

[*] it takes scrolls to declare wars
[*] takes scrolls to declare siege
[*] slave nodes can't revolt against their masters

That is how games work in this kind of setting, just because you need to push towards an objective does not mean it limits PvP. It is called a balance that is needed, people don't need to be warring every second when the changes are giant to the server. This does not mean pvp is limited as there are other forms of pvp besides the end game raid scene...

you can't kill people inside the city for no reason

don't remember cities being a safe zone (though they should) ganking in a city is not pvp. I have to question if you are even a pvper to begin with if that is your view point.

[*] you can't gank people repeatedly because the penalties will make the character very dampened

You have a guild war and you gank them it is not that difficult. Also killing someone over and over again with corruption gain is just griefing you aren't getting anything. Again if this si your view on pvp I have to question if you have played pvp in mmorpgs games or survival games...

[*] alliances have a limit of 3 guilds
[*] you can't declare sieges out of nowhere against anyone
[*] you can't squeeze yourself into a house and kill it's residents
[*] you can't backstab and kill your guild
[*] there's death penalties
[*] cc effects don't apply to greens
[*] greens can attack reds without changing their flags to purple
[*] bounty hunters hunt corrupted only
[*] only gatherables and materials will drop, not even consumables will drop
[*] penalties in most cases do not apply to objective-based PvP
[*] duels allowed only inside a freehold or node
[*] in sactioned wars there are no loot drops, not even in the hunting grounds
[*] you can't remove corruption by killing the other reds
[*] Steven repeated himself many times that there is no reward for non sactioned Pvp

This has nothing to do with limited pvp you you understand what I mean when I say this is a PvP mmorpg? If a mmorpg is PvX Ill also say its a pvp mmorpg if it has actual pvp elements...

Because they have balance in the game to create meaningful pvp and prevent griefers like you from ruining it, doesn't mean the pvp is limited, pvp is a huge factor in the game. What is limited is a true griefs attempt to ruin the game for all people. Anyone wanting to have meaningful pvp with have content 24/7 to take part in with enough searching.

@Mag7spy since you started like this "im just going to go over your entire post with actual logic"

I won't even read, because the point of PvP in AoC is a PvP that is meaningful to the world, it fits this high fantasy dynamic world and it has many counter balances within the sanctioned pvp

This is no gank box game, you are doing a disservice calling it a PvP game, saying that will deceive pvpers and pvers

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

This is no gank box game, you are doing a disservice calling it a PvP game, saying that will deceive pvpers and pvers

And you are doing a disservice to all self-respecting pvpers out there by confusing PKing for PvPing

So yes, Ashes is not a PKing game, even if it does let you PK people.

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

This is no gank box game, you are doing a disservice calling it a PvP game, saying that will deceive pvpers and pvers

And you are doing a disservice to all self-respecting pvpers out there by confusing PKing for PvPing So yes, Ashes is not a PKing game, even if it does let you PK people.

pk is pvp and depending on the game is assymetrical pvp

a kill is a kill

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

pk is pvp and depending on the game is assymetrical pvp

a kill is a kill

There is no second "P", if your target player doesn't even respond to your attacks. It's literally worse than pveing, because there the mobs at least fight back. PKing is the weakest form of player interaction with the game's world. PKing is the ultimate carebear activity, because only carebears would want to fight a target that doesn't fight back

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

pk is pvp and depending on the game is assymetrical pvp

a kill is a kill

There is no second "P", if your target player doesn't even respond to your attacks. It's literally worse than pveing, because there the mobs at least fight back. PKing is the weakest form of player interaction with the game's world. PKing is the ultimate carebear activity, because only carebears would want to fight a target that doesn't fight back

I call those people gank bears, when the target fights back these gankers start whinning
I love when people fight back, even if i die

NiKr wrote: »

And you are doing a disservice to all self-respecting pvpers out there by confusing PKing for PvPing So yes, Ashes is not a PKing game, even if it does let you PK people.

I think I get what you're saying Nikr. That picking on people weaker than you, certainly doing it repeatedly, is kind of "low" in many contexts. Certainly when the pker is doing it for that exact reason and no other. No argument there. The types of people who do stuff like this are usually identified pretty early on in the games I've played. And meme'd on in various ways.

But PKing is pvp in general. I've been pk'd. Many times. There's this funny thing that happens. The more full your inventory gets, the less you want to pvp. It's like magic. Some kind of magical force that just makes it work out like that.

But I've been attacked in open world pvp games built on concepts of risk vs reward and contesting of resources. I've been attacked before, as the pvper I am, where in that instance I made the decision I'm not taking this fight. I thought I had a better chance of protecting my inventory by trying to get away. Countless times things like this have happened over 25 years of my gaming. I might have thought I could reach city limits before being killed, or a friendly grouping of players, or just a random grouping of players that my attacker wouldn't pursue me near. But I was wrong, didn't make it, probably should have fought back. Got pk'd.

It's pvp. A player vs player struggle. My goal was to get away. His goal was to stop me from doing so and kill me. Both sides of this struggle takes skill. There's people that are very skilled on both sides of the equation. And I've been on both sides of this equation. Thousands of times. It was all pvp. Just because I didn't fight back doesn't mean it wasn't pvp.

Okeydoke wrote: »

But I've been attacked in open world pvp games built on concepts of risk vs reward and contesting of resources. I've been attacked before, as the pvper I am, where in that instance I made the decision I'm not taking this fight. I thought I had a better chance of protecting my inventory by trying to get away. Countless times things like this have happened over 25 years of my gaming. I might have thought I could reach city limits before being killed, or a friendly grouping of players, or just a random grouping of players that my attacker wouldn't pursue me near. But I was wrong, didn't make it, probably should have fought back. Got pk'd.

And this is why we have the "flagged people drop 50% less stuff". Fighting back is encouraged, so, at the very least, more people will try it.

Okeydoke wrote: »

It's pvp. A player vs player struggle. My goal was to get away. His goal was to stop me from doing so and kill me. Both sides of this struggle takes skill. There's people that are very skilled on both sides of the equation. And I've been on both sides of this equation. Thousands of times. It was all pvp. Just because I didn't fight back doesn't mean it wasn't pvp.

This is where our experience differ widely enough where I can't agree. I haven't played "resources drop on death" games, so I never saw a reason to chase someone for a long time just to kill them (well, unless they were a PKer who's been terrorizing a location with weaker people).

Maybe Ashes will change my outlook on pvp, if it somehow keeps the currently planned design (which I kinda doubt at this point).

Well I'll put it in another context for you. Cyrodiil in ESO. No loot drop. I've come into visual range of people while I'm solo, usually just 1, sometimes a duo, maybe even a few times a trio. But I've come into visual range of them and they took one look at me and Xbox 360'd (lol) the other way. This is something that happened a fair bit.

And I slaughtered them. They thought they could get back to their keep before I got to them. Or back to their zerg a few hundred yards away. Whatever the case, they thought they could get away. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. Clearly they didn't want to fight. But they're in the pvp end game zone of ESO, where that's exactly what you do...fight. Should I have let them go? Because what I was about to do might not be considered pvp by some people.

Well sometimes I did let them go. I mean you're getting killed at least once. But there were certain people that when I'd see them again on the battlefield, I found the way they acted kind of cute and charming. They'd emote, cry emote, and I'd give them a pass. I'm not going to repeatedly kill, or at least not focus on killing, someone who just wants to get out and experience Cyrodiil. These were generally max levels, same as me, but I was clearly in a different weight class, whether by gearing or skill. So I'd make decisions like that to give passes to people. Others might not.

I mean it's all pvp. I and my faction have chased down retreating enemy faction armies in ESO. A retreating army that is trying to make it to a keep that my faction is currently sieging. If they make it to the keep, they become defenders of that keep, making it that much harder to take that keep, perhaps even impossible.

But I've chased armies down like this. People who were not fighting back at all, just mercilessly slaughtered. Was that pvp? Of course it was. I was usually part of a very skilled splinter group doing this. You had to stop reinforcements from getting inside the actual keep, because once they were inside, that keep became much harder to take. Our skill in chasing these people down turned the tide of many keep sieges.

Whether or not someone fights back or not is an incredibly low bar of what pvp is or isn't.

Okeydoke wrote: »

But I've chased armies down like this. People who were not fighting back at all, just mercilessly slaughtered. Was that pvp? Of course it was. I was usually part of a very skilled splinter group doing this. You had to stop reinforcements from getting inside the actual keep, because once they were inside, that keep became much harder to take. Our skill in chasing these people down turned the tide of many keep sieges.

So you had an actual good reason to chase them in a specialized pvp zone that they entered willingly?

I think I should've been more specific. I was talking about the attacks on people minding their business, on randos farming their stuff but instead of taking their spot you just keep chasing them, and other stuff like that.

Arya's list shows that the majority of AoC's pvp is based on goals and meaningful requirements to begin the encounter. But to Arya this list implies that the game is not a pvp one, which in turn implies to me that the only "pvp" in Arya's eyes is the gankbox shit where you go unpunished for killing hundreds of people in whatever way you want (I know that Arya has said that they want consequences to actions). I personally don't consider that pvp, even if 2 players are involved in the process.

I've chased my fair share of guild war enemies too, but even there it was usually to completely remove them from the premises of some farming location or to kill their spies before a siege or a big guild event.

But like I said, maybe Ashes will change my outlook on things, cause there'd be the additional pressure of resources dropping either from my target or from me. Though with how harsh the corruption balancing will seemingly be and with the 50% flagged design, I somehow doubt that it'll ever come down to endlessly hunting people or PKing a ton of players in a short amount of time.

NiKr wrote: »

So you had an actual good reason to chase them in a specialized pvp zone that they entered willingly?

Yes. In the same way that when I willingly played games with open pvp, loot drop rulesets, I was pk'd at times by other people who also had good reason to kill me. Loot. In a game where resources are contested, loot is a good reason. When I made the decision to not fight back, to retreat or hide, that is a tactical decision on my part. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The retreating armies in ESO also made a tactical decision to not stop and fight, instead to bullrush the keep they were trying to get to. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Ashes, even in it's original vision, was always going to be very softcore compared to some of the other games I've played. And that's part of the attraction to me. Hardcore full loot, no consequences pvp etc, I mean it has it's place, but yeah not so much for me anymore. Not at my age. And it never really was 100% for me. I played Mortal Online and Darkfall for much less time than I played other mmos. But they were fun for awhile. A lot of fun at times, but very taxing. It's taxing to be in that kind of environment for hours and hours a day, every day.

So in the case of Ashes, what used to look like it'd be a moderately dangerous world at best, probably more so moderately light dangerous, now looks like it'll be mostly safe zone. Effectively safe zone. So maybe like a 0.1-0.5% chance of actually being killed in the world. You know, who knows, we'll just have to see.

But whatever "chance" it ends up being, if/when you get Pk'd, you got pvp'd. It might not have been fair. Good luck searching for always fair open world pvp. It is the very fact that it's NOT always fair that makes it appealing.

I had planned on popping a bottle of wine the first time I get pk'd in Ashes. This of course would be after I made the decision to not fight back because I thought I had a better chance getting away. So there I'd be, trying to get away and failing, probably inventory full of loot. Which yes btw, I signed up for this by registering on Ashes' website, submitting my credit card and signing the EULA, installing the game, pressing the login button. Multiple steps where I agreed to this and still had an option to turn back, maybe hit up WoW, see what's going on there.

Maybe I won't get pk'd at all at this rate. But if it does happen, I got pvp'd. I'm a big enough man to admit that. Now I dunno anything about what Arya said. I don't read all his posts. I've read some, I kind of agree conceptually with him on a lot of things, not talking in this thread. I haven't read any of his posts in this thread lol. It was your post that caught me, skimming through. But he's much more hardcore than I am. Like overwhelmingly hardcore in some cases. But I do like the memories he's brought back to me when I see him talk about UO. And seems like a nice guy. I like him. I just don't vouch for everything he says.

The proof that this is not a PvP game in a high level explanation:

Intrepid tends to prioritize Verra over PvP in clashes between the two. PvP is only chosen by Intrepid when it does not conflict with Verra's sense of peril, meaning that even when PvP is selected, it is ultimately in service of Verra's overarching goals

The high fantasy dynamic reactive living world of Verra is above everything, everything is in service of it

I REST MY CASE

Liniker

I like drama in mmos, makes things interesting

Noaani

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

only carebears ask devs to change the game so they can be even more safe

So says the carebear wanting Intrepid to make freeholds safe.

Mag7spy

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

The proof that this is not a PvP game in a high level explanation:

Intrepid tends to prioritize Verra over PvP in clashes between the two. PvP is only chosen by Intrepid when it does not conflict with Verra's sense of peril, meaning that even when PvP is selected, it is ultimately in service of Verra's overarching goals

The high fantasy dynamic reactive living world of Verra is above everything, everything is in service of it

I REST MY CASE

I feel you say a lot of things and don't think it through.

NiKr wrote: »

I think I should've been more specific. I was talking about the attacks on people minding their business, on randos farming their stuff but instead of taking their spot you just keep chasing them, and other stuff like that.

Yeah I think I know who you're talking about, and I tried to acknowledge that in my first post. But I'll be a little more specific. I think everyone knows of "this" guy. You're talking about that guy that's never picked a fair fight in his life. Always someone low on health, or distracted, or obviously weaker than him. He's good at picking targets I guess, knows how to get in and out without getting himself killed. But when that guy is confronted with a fair fight with an equal opponent, he instantly flops. Dead. Doing what he normally does, he does alright though.

On the other hand, I've known guys that were absolute beasts mechanically in pvp, ya know pressing their buttons and stuff, just beasts, very good pvpers. I wouldn't wanna fuck with em. But then you see them in a mass pvp situation, and they just charge in and get themselves overwhelmed and killed instantly. No concept of timing, deception, positioning, opportunism.

And so you can see how those are two different pvp skillsets. I guess my point is that in an open world pvp system built around actually contesting resources (which Ashes may only loosely be now), it's all fair game. It's all pvp, and takes different types of skills. The same tactics that that pker uses are the same tactics that PvPPowerGuild1 is going to use against PvPPowerGuild2 when Guild 1 comes in to contest the world boss that Guild 2 is killing. Guild 1 isn't coming in and bowing and waiting for a countdown timer by the ref. They're going to hit Guild 2 at it's absolute weakest point if possible, and use every "underhanded" tactic they can think of.

But anyway, I know what you mean. The wussy guys, yeah not exactly at the top of the pvp hierarchy.

Solvryn

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

This is no gank box game, you are doing a disservice calling it a PvP game, saying that will deceive pvpers and pvers

And you are doing a disservice to all self-respecting pvpers out there by confusing PKing for PvPing So yes, Ashes is not a PKing game, even if it does let you PK people.

I'm an honor PK mate. PK =/= Griefing no matter how many times some of the plebs try to manipulate the language for their own ends.

PK just means you come up from full loot, PvP just means PK-lite or training wheels PKing.

Hinotori

Personally I draw the line at RL threats/online stalking.

If it's anything shy of that just sort it out in the with a few well placed spells to their face.

Overmoderation is terrible.