Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.
ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3
thats the thing though, I would never retaliate unless you were corrupt
also, there is a factor you arent considering, and i wasnt too but i just had an aha! moment. if you are a level one, you might not be fighting level one nodes in my node, and the monsters will kill you. i dont even have to do it myself ahha. i could also just mob drop you :P
Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.
ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3
thats the thing though, I would never retaliate unless you were corrupt
also, there is a factor you arent considering, and i wasnt too but i just had an aha! moment. if you are a level one, you might not be fighting level one nodes in my node, and the monsters will kill you. i dont even have to do it myself ahha. i could also just mob drop you :P
I already said I could be max level or mid level in the scenario, I would just remain unaffiliated on the character when it comes to nodes and guilds.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
1
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
You waste your time.
A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain).
Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
You waste your time.
A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain).
Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
Time isn't wasted if the goal is achieved. And you have no idea what will have the bigger impact. But from my guess, you wont have caravans if you have no raw materials to gather.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
You waste your time.
A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain).
Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
Time isn't wasted if the goal is achieved. And you have no idea what will have the bigger impact. But from my guess, you wont have caravans if you have no raw materials to gather.
True but you cannot achieve the goal because Steven wants to not be achievable.
That's why you try to change the rules.
You want a different game than Steven wants to make.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."
If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
no what i mean is, you gonna makea level 1 and start gathering, but you gonna have high level mobs in the area..maybe resources too.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
You waste your time.
A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain).
Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
Time isn't wasted if the goal is achieved. And you have no idea what will have the bigger impact. But from my guess, you wont have caravans if you have no raw materials to gather.
True but you cannot achieve the goal because Steven wants to not be achievable.
That's why you try to change the rules.
You want a different game than Steven wants to make.
How so? With the current rules I can absolutely achieve destroying environmental.management of enemy nodes without any reprocussions. Im even friends among several sizeable guilds I play with that would jump at the chance to do it as well. As it is currently designed, I can potentially ruin nodes and not have a single bad result for myself.
And between the 2 of us @Raven016 , only one of us has openly admitted to wanting to change the game. Everything I have advocated for so far in this discussion has been done with Steven's Pillars and words in mind. If I gave into my bias, corruption wouldn't even be the system I would utilize, but Steven wants it, has explained its purpose, and now I am trying to help make it the best design it can be to serve that purpose.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
And between the 2 of us @Raven016 , only one of us has openly admitted to wanting to change the game. Everything I have advocated for so far in this discussion has been done with Steven's Pillars and words in mind. If I gave into my bias, corruption wouldn't even be the system I would utilize, but Steven wants it, has explained its purpose, and now I am trying to help make it the best design it can be to serve that purpose.
Yes, I will listen to Dygz and amplify his opinions because he seems to understand better certain issues.
We will defeat you and get the game we want
And between the 2 of us @Raven016 , only one of us has openly admitted to wanting to change the game. Everything I have advocated for so far in this discussion has been done with Steven's Pillars and words in mind. If I gave into my bias, corruption wouldn't even be the system I would utilize, but Steven wants it, has explained its purpose, and now I am trying to help make it the best design it can be to serve that purpose.
Yes, I will listen to Dygz and amplify his opinions because he seems to understand better certain issues.
We will defeat you and get the game we want
You can have dygz. Luckily Steven seems to love risk vs reward and enforcing it with PvP. I'd much rather have that guy in my corner.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
Aren't nodes levelling by the activities (XPs) done within them?
So by going gathering in an enemy's node, aren't you helping them progress faster?
Insert Haggrid's famous quote here
Yes.
"Citizen and non-citizen player activity (questing, gathering, raiding, etc.) within a node's ZOI counts toward that particular node's advancement (progression) to a higher node stage.[47][3]"
Aren't nodes levelling by the activities (XPs) done within them?
So by going gathering in an enemy's node, aren't you helping them progress faster?
Insert Haggrid's famous quote here
The spawn rate of resources in a given area is influenced by how players are interacting with those resources.[37][35]
Drawing excessive amounts of resources may have a deleterious effect on the land health value for that area.[37][35]
Actions like ridding an area of invasive species or performing crop rotations on freehold farms may have a positive effect on that area's land health value.[37]
Defeating certain world bosses or mobs can positively impact the respawn rates of resources and animals in their vicinity.[38]
It could be could be positive or negative, or both simultaneously. So the land health value ties into the health of a specific ecosystem; and the ecosystem can kind of scale with different segment sizes of the world, or the world itself: A biome, maybe a node, maybe the player's freehold. And the things that a player does in those areas will contribute to health in a positive or negative way. So doing something like rotating your crops might increase the health of the land because that's considered something good to do; and maybe apprehending or removing poachers that are over hunting a certain species could be helpful to the health of the land. Maybe the mayor puts out a request for players to try and get rid of invasive species that are plants- maybe they're overgrowing weed and it's stopping other valuable plants from growing.[37] – Kory Rice
The spatial inventory system is intended to mitigate the potential for players to diminish land management scores by stripping resources from particular zones.[39]
There's a particular reason for why that inventory system is intended to exist within Ashes; and part of that is from the aspect of everything in the world is gatherable and there is a land management system that exists behind those gatherable things. The land management system takes into account how players are interacting with the environment: how many of the resources they're withdrawing from the world; and that decreases the spawn rate within certain localities as those things go too high. So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[39] – Steven Sharif
The only "detterent" for anti-land management is how inventory works. But if your goal isn't resources, that's as simple as throwing them away and continuing on harvesting.
Yes, you contribute to a nodes progression when gathering, but that's only relevant in a servers infancy. Once you have nodes leveled up, you're only able to progress so much before other nodes need to be taken out. So the whole environment management thing becomes even more of a pain at that point.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Aren't nodes levelling by the activities (XPs) done within them?
So by going gathering in an enemy's node, aren't you helping them progress faster?
Yes. It's not only relevant during a server's infancy. Especially because Cities rise and fall.
But... we will have to test how Land Management works before we can weigh in meaningfully.
We might learn something useful in the Nodes demo.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
Risk vs reward will auto calibrate itself.
Makes no sense to kill a player to take his bunch of sticks.
In areas with rare resources you will find it worth killing a gatherer but only if you are somewhat sure they have a full inventory. In those places NPC levels might also be high enough to start cleaning your corruption while avoiding other players.
Also if you see somebody picking up an epic tier resource then you will have a good reason to attack and kill.
So low risk areas will exist if corruption works as intended. Those will not attract many PvE players anyway as they are the lowest quality PvE possible. Are closer to gathering, farming, grinding activities than good PvE. But will retain players who like doing such mindless jobs.
With your OP change request, you would manage to kill more greens if they would dare to try to chase you away from the spot you use to clear your corruption. And they wouldn't dare if they come one by one because with your changes, they would know that you get no additional corruption if they are defeated. That would be a bad thing, to discourage a green to enter combat against a corrupt player.
Greens must have incentive to enter combat against both purple and red, not only against purple.
I think it is unecessary to diminish the power output of a corrupted player. But i would think that the corrupted player could take double damage from players and even double time in stuns, snares and other ccs.
But to negate damage output is very boring indeed.
Maybe good punishment like:
- Double Damage Received
- Double Time in CCs
- Can't use AoE Spells
- Can't targetted spells (so since it is tab + action maybe will need to rely in action combat and aim your target manually, dont really know, something in between could be nice).
- Drop Everything if die
- +% drop in xp
- 15 minutes longer time to logout the game (then 60 seconds)
- more harder to remove corruption and player kill count
i would accept all punishment above at same time and more... Then having my damage reduced as a corrupted player.
And prolly can add... damage reduced to 90% against non combatant IF they dont retaliate if they retaliate then damage back to 100% or something while their damage would be doubled against us. And the combatant vs corrupted we attack would work accordingly from the get go corrupted 100% damage and getting doubled against the purple, and if corrupted vs corrupted xD just double damage vs double damage or just normal damage vs normal damage w/e.
Just trying to say there are more ways then just flat out reduce damage to avoid pk abusing.
Which yes pk abusing low level is bad and also boring i won't kill any low level for fun and never did.
So hope Steven can flesh and polish out better ideas in alpha 2 about this punishment, because i myself, just because it is open world i would love to be a corrupted player (who goes for same lvl or higher) and always be on edge for other high levels i encounter in the big world and start a fight because they want to kill me, it is a fun way of living and has so many unpredictable events and always adapting to new encounters and strategies, and improving.
And liking or not there will always be abusing/griefing be it pvp or pve i am sure to see high levels griefing low levels pve killing mobs and not letting low levels to do their pve stuff, how that will be countered?
Lets try to some limitation and mitigate it without just negating at all possibilities.
I think it is unecessary to diminish the power output of a corrupted player. But i would think that the corrupted player could take double damage from players and even double time in stuns, snares and other ccs.
But to negate damage output is very boring indeed.
Maybe good punishment like:
- Double Damage Received
- Double Time in CCs
- Can't use AoE Spells
- Can't targetted spells (so since it is tab + action maybe will need to rely in action combat and aim your target manually, dont really know, something in between could be nice).
- Drop Everything if die
- +% drop in xp
- 15 minutes longer time to logout the game (then 60 seconds)
- more harder to remove corruption and player kill count
i would accept all punishment above at same time and more... Then having my damage reduced as a corrupted player.
And prolly can add... damage reduced to 90% against non combatant IF they dont retaliate if they retaliate then damage back to 100% or something while their damage would be doubled against us. And the combatant vs corrupted we attack would work accordingly from the get go corrupted 100% damage and getting doubled against the purple, and if corrupted vs corrupted xD just double damage vs double damage or just normal damage vs normal damage w/e.
Just trying to say there are more ways then just flat out reduce damage to avoid pk abusing.
Which yes pk abusing low level is bad and also boring i won't kill any low level for fun and never did.
So hope Steven can flesh and polish out better ideas in alpha 2 about this punishment, because i myself, just because it is open world i would love to be a corrupted player (who goes for same lvl or higher) and always be on edge for other high levels i encounter in the big world and start a fight because they want to kill me, it is a fun way of living and has so many unpredictable events and always adapting to new encounters and strategies, and improving.
And liking or not there will always be abusing/griefing be it pvp or pve i am sure to see high levels griefing low levels pve killing mobs and not letting low levels to do their pve stuff, how that will be countered?
Lets try to some limitation and mitigate it without just negating at all possibilities.
So you want even stricter more punishing corruption. Yea nah, stat dampening is enough. What you propose is to become absolutely helpless upon corruption. Griefing is the only thing that needs punished, not PKing. With such strict punishments like you listed, everybody would be scared of even attempting a fight.
Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
Risk vs reward will auto calibrate itself.
Makes no sense to kill a player to take his bunch of sticks.
In areas with rare resources you will find it worth killing a gatherer but only if you are somewhat sure they have a full inventory. In those places NPC levels might also be high enough to start cleaning your corruption while avoiding other players.
Also if you see somebody picking up an epic tier resource then you will have a good reason to attack and kill.
So low risk areas will exist if corruption works as intended. Those will not attract many PvE players anyway as they are the lowest quality PvE possible. Are closer to gathering, farming, grinding activities than good PvE. But will retain players who like doing such mindless jobs.
With your OP change request, you would manage to kill more greens if they would dare to try to chase you away from the spot you use to clear your corruption. And they wouldn't dare if they come one by one because with your changes, they would know that you get no additional corruption if they are defeated. That would be a bad thing, to discourage a green to enter combat against a corrupt player.
Greens must have incentive to enter combat against both purple and red, not only against purple.
Part of the risk is not knowing if a player has loot you want. Greens incentive is to try to get their loot back. And the change focuses on punishing griefing, not PvP that is willingly engaged
My confidence isn't as high as it used to be, but I still have high confidence that Steven won't let his game and the systems within it become a meme.
When the time comes I intend to vigorously test and vigorously debate. For now I'm mostly just chillin. But I do know what you're talking about with a lot of things said in this thread.
How dare you not intensely argue about the deep specifics of a game system that nobody has seen or tested yet?!
The only "detterent" for anti-land management is how inventory works. But if your goal isn't resources, that's as simple as throwing them away and continuing on harvesting.
Yes, you contribute to a nodes progression when gathering, but that's only relevant in a servers infancy. Once you have nodes leveled up, you're only able to progress so much before other nodes need to be taken out. So the whole environment management thing becomes even more of a pain at that point.
Hihi, no offence, but it reminds me so much of the kind of silly, and often convoluted, plans put forth by cartoon villains. The kind of scheming and shenanigans that bring them down in the end of the episode.
Comments
also, there is a factor you arent considering, and i wasnt too but i just had an aha! moment. if you are a level one, you might not be fighting level one nodes in my node, and the monsters will kill you. i dont even have to do it myself ahha. i could also just mob drop you :P
I already said I could be max level or mid level in the scenario, I would just remain unaffiliated on the character when it comes to nodes and guilds.
unless you just start gathering on a lonely, unoccupied level 1 node that no one cares about
I know what you mean, but I can have a max level alt just as easily, and do the same exact thing. I'd give less corruption, but just like before, no matter how much I die I will still succeed because I can just continue to gather while you either gain even more corruption, or have to work it off. There is no negative as a gatherer who is purposely destroying an environment
yes, I have tried to make this point as well.
A level 1 will not be very efficient and will also die killed by mobs.
You mentioned before the possibility to bring NPCs and let them attack.the greens. You can do that.
Corruption or not, there is zero negative to griefing as a gatherer.
I agree with the healthy ammount.
Just when we get into details problems start. Because you want your healthy level everywhere instead of you going into the deep sea or to caravan tracks to get your healthy ammount and let gatherers have their healthy ammount too.
You waste your time.
A high level would help and have a bigger impact destroying caravans (river) instead on trying to stop the gathers (rain).
Who will collect resources for your node in the sea, if not your high level warior?
Time isn't wasted if the goal is achieved. And you have no idea what will have the bigger impact. But from my guess, you wont have caravans if you have no raw materials to gather.
PvX. It's all supposed to be intertwined. Open ocean will have potentially greater PvE rewards but with greater risk due to unchecked PvP.
Having that does not mean there should ever be a safe zone for gatherers. This would be an opt-out of PvP, and as a result not a PvX feature. Not to mention, not enough risk for your rewards
True but you cannot achieve the goal because Steven wants to not be achievable.
That's why you try to change the rules.
You want a different game than Steven wants to make.
How so? With the current rules I can absolutely achieve destroying environmental.management of enemy nodes without any reprocussions. Im even friends among several sizeable guilds I play with that would jump at the chance to do it as well. As it is currently designed, I can potentially ruin nodes and not have a single bad result for myself.
I dissagree that every activity must have PvP. You cannot change my pov. But I don't even ask now, here, for a safe activity for gatherers. They'll have PvP too, in a clumsy way between them, if they notice one grabbed a rare material before the other. The anger and greed Steven mentioned will kick in.
But if you go involve youself in their clumsy PvP, you risk getting corrupt and be hunted by Bounty Hunters or killed by the gatherers themselves if you cannot defeat all of them. You being killed by more of them is a good balancing. Go mind your business where you can make a difference.
And here is where you misinterpret the purpose of corruption. It is to deter griefing, not ganking a player once for loot you want. You've already seen Steven's definition for griefing, and his purpose for corruption. You just don't want PvP to occur. You should play a PvE game.
Yes, I will listen to Dygz and amplify his opinions because he seems to understand better certain issues.
We will defeat you and get the game we want
You can have dygz. Luckily Steven seems to love risk vs reward and enforcing it with PvP. I'd much rather have that guy in my corner.
You are wrong. I want PvP but I also want a healthy amount of players. Otherwise Steven might have to create one worldwide server for all of us. Which would also be OK for me as a player. Then he should drop the prime time and do some changes to how events are planned.
If I spend my time in the sea, I don't mind others having less PvP while cutting wood. Also need of PvP fluctuates. If I am tired I might go cut wood too. Or tame creatures. You can go and kill them before I manage tame them if that makes you happy. It is a valid mechanic but worth doing it only if it happens you are passing by and not stay and roam the woods. If I see you there, I'll go back to the sea and spend my time more efficiently while you think you are useful.
What you ask for is separation of the playstyles. In true PvX, you are required to deal with PvP just as much as PvE. Risk vs Reward at its finest. Risking PvP to be rewarded through PvE.
You can argue for your out of place pseudo-PvE safehaven, but I'll be here reminding you of Steven's antithetical design to your own.
So by going gathering in an enemy's node, aren't you helping them progress faster?
Insert Haggrid's famous quote here
Yes.
"Citizen and non-citizen player activity (questing, gathering, raiding, etc.) within a node's ZOI counts toward that particular node's advancement (progression) to a higher node stage.[47][3]"
The spawn rate of resources in a given area is influenced by how players are interacting with those resources.[37][35]
Drawing excessive amounts of resources may have a deleterious effect on the land health value for that area.[37][35]
Actions like ridding an area of invasive species or performing crop rotations on freehold farms may have a positive effect on that area's land health value.[37]
Defeating certain world bosses or mobs can positively impact the respawn rates of resources and animals in their vicinity.[38]
It could be could be positive or negative, or both simultaneously. So the land health value ties into the health of a specific ecosystem; and the ecosystem can kind of scale with different segment sizes of the world, or the world itself: A biome, maybe a node, maybe the player's freehold. And the things that a player does in those areas will contribute to health in a positive or negative way. So doing something like rotating your crops might increase the health of the land because that's considered something good to do; and maybe apprehending or removing poachers that are over hunting a certain species could be helpful to the health of the land. Maybe the mayor puts out a request for players to try and get rid of invasive species that are plants- maybe they're overgrowing weed and it's stopping other valuable plants from growing.[37] – Kory Rice
The spatial inventory system is intended to mitigate the potential for players to diminish land management scores by stripping resources from particular zones.[39]
There's a particular reason for why that inventory system is intended to exist within Ashes; and part of that is from the aspect of everything in the world is gatherable and there is a land management system that exists behind those gatherable things. The land management system takes into account how players are interacting with the environment: how many of the resources they're withdrawing from the world; and that decreases the spawn rate within certain localities as those things go too high. So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[39] – Steven Sharif
The only "detterent" for anti-land management is how inventory works. But if your goal isn't resources, that's as simple as throwing them away and continuing on harvesting.
Yes, you contribute to a nodes progression when gathering, but that's only relevant in a servers infancy. Once you have nodes leveled up, you're only able to progress so much before other nodes need to be taken out. So the whole environment management thing becomes even more of a pain at that point.
But... we will have to test how Land Management works before we can weigh in meaningfully.
We might learn something useful in the Nodes demo.
Risk vs reward will auto calibrate itself.
Makes no sense to kill a player to take his bunch of sticks.
In areas with rare resources you will find it worth killing a gatherer but only if you are somewhat sure they have a full inventory. In those places NPC levels might also be high enough to start cleaning your corruption while avoiding other players.
Also if you see somebody picking up an epic tier resource then you will have a good reason to attack and kill.
So low risk areas will exist if corruption works as intended. Those will not attract many PvE players anyway as they are the lowest quality PvE possible. Are closer to gathering, farming, grinding activities than good PvE. But will retain players who like doing such mindless jobs.
With your OP change request, you would manage to kill more greens if they would dare to try to chase you away from the spot you use to clear your corruption. And they wouldn't dare if they come one by one because with your changes, they would know that you get no additional corruption if they are defeated. That would be a bad thing, to discourage a green to enter combat against a corrupt player.
Greens must have incentive to enter combat against both purple and red, not only against purple.
But to negate damage output is very boring indeed.
Maybe good punishment like:
- Double Damage Received
- Double Time in CCs
- Can't use AoE Spells
- Can't targetted spells (so since it is tab + action maybe will need to rely in action combat and aim your target manually, dont really know, something in between could be nice).
- Drop Everything if die
- +% drop in xp
- 15 minutes longer time to logout the game (then 60 seconds)
- more harder to remove corruption and player kill count
i would accept all punishment above at same time and more... Then having my damage reduced as a corrupted player.
And prolly can add... damage reduced to 90% against non combatant IF they dont retaliate if they retaliate then damage back to 100% or something while their damage would be doubled against us. And the combatant vs corrupted we attack would work accordingly from the get go corrupted 100% damage and getting doubled against the purple, and if corrupted vs corrupted xD just double damage vs double damage or just normal damage vs normal damage w/e.
Just trying to say there are more ways then just flat out reduce damage to avoid pk abusing.
Which yes pk abusing low level is bad and also boring i won't kill any low level for fun and never did.
So hope Steven can flesh and polish out better ideas in alpha 2 about this punishment, because i myself, just because it is open world i would love to be a corrupted player (who goes for same lvl or higher) and always be on edge for other high levels i encounter in the big world and start a fight because they want to kill me, it is a fun way of living and has so many unpredictable events and always adapting to new encounters and strategies, and improving.
And liking or not there will always be abusing/griefing be it pvp or pve i am sure to see high levels griefing low levels pve killing mobs and not letting low levels to do their pve stuff, how that will be countered?
Lets try to some limitation and mitigate it without just negating at all possibilities.
So you want even stricter more punishing corruption. Yea nah, stat dampening is enough. What you propose is to become absolutely helpless upon corruption. Griefing is the only thing that needs punished, not PKing. With such strict punishments like you listed, everybody would be scared of even attempting a fight.
Part of the risk is not knowing if a player has loot you want. Greens incentive is to try to get their loot back. And the change focuses on punishing griefing, not PvP that is willingly engaged
Hihi, no offence, but it reminds me so much of the kind of silly, and often convoluted, plans put forth by cartoon villains. The kind of scheming and shenanigans that bring them down in the end of the episode.