Percimes wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » .
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others.
Percimes wrote: » Stop twirling your moustache, Dolyem! Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Everyone is green by default. Unless on a battleground, everyone return to green less than 2 minutes after an engagement.
Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)
Vissox wrote: » Percimes wrote: » A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks... I prefer your simpler solution. (If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange) A green who attacks a red and dies probably deserves it, as red players gain a debuff that saps some stats, stacking with the people they kill.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Dolyem wrote: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » 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 Not knowing the type of loot could be applied to caravans too. But for some reason the caravans have an indicator to show if they carry valuable cargo. You keep mentioning griefing but becoming corrupt is the first step of becoming a griefer yourself. You didn't mentioned the griefing part in the OP. Just that you do not want to get more corruption. The thing is that once you kill a green, it will be reasonable to not kill a 2nd one to avoid corruption increase. So you will be in control at maintaining a low corruption and stay invisible to bounty hunters while killing constantly other players:Players with a high enough corruption score will be visible on the world and mini maps. And you will also not run away because you will never attack. You will stay near a spot and farm NPCs and clean the corruption. With the current mechanics players at NPC spawns will just try to lower each other's health and let the NPC deal the killing blow. But mistakes can happen and the corrupt player will have to flee. Else as soon as a new player comes, he has to kill him. But with your change, you don't care. You can just stay and farm. Whoever wants to chase you away is killed (in self defense) and you continue killing NPCs. But that seems to be against Steven's wish:The penalties are intended to be severe enough to deter any type of spawn camping.[53]
Dolyem wrote: » I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something. Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.
hleV wrote: » How dare you not intensely argue about the deep specifics of a game system that nobody has seen or tested yet?!
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken.
Dolyem wrote: » I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something. Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you. The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.
Liniker wrote: » I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking.
Vaknar wrote: » Liniker wrote: » I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change, We look forward to seeing players interact with all of the systems! Flagging, in particular, is exciting since there wasn't much testing of it in Alpha One!
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet.
Dolyem wrote: »
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » . You're making an assumption that greens aren't PvPers. Green is just a color and a mechanic in the game that can be used against others. Yes, I was presenting cases about more peaceful players because it makes no sense a good PvPer to stand still and let himself killed. Also Dolyem mentioned he is concerned that owPvP and ganking might become impractical. But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? The case I was mainly focusing was a ganker killing the mule of another player / group and becomes corrupt. But is hard to find a reason why the player(s) would not enter combat. The only reasons a player should not fight back in this system is because they are out-leveled, clearly outmatched, or out-numbered. You shouldn't be encouraged or rewarded for laying down and letting yourself die. Thats the reason why combatants drop less materials in the first place, it encourages players to fight back. You can be a peaceful player and still fight back when threatened. The points I have been arguing are flaws which allow the system to interfere with PvP that is encouraged, as opposed to griefing defined by steven which is discouraged. You may want to word the 2nd paragraph better. I'm not sure what you're trying to explain there. If you are utilizing a mule, you should probably be ready for PvP. Any time you are moving goods, there is a risk of them being taken. The 2nd paragraph But I was constantly thinking if there are cases where a group could let one of them killed to use the existing game mechanics to gain an advantage. But then the attacker would also be aware of whatever strategy the others have and stop attacking. Isn't it? I meant why would 5 non combatants not fight back and let the mule die or one if them die, and put corruption onto the attacker, in the context of corruption rules we have currently on wiki? I was telling Solvryn that I was considering in my mind also the case where they are experienced PvPers and want to take advantage of game mechanics. Those game mechanics include the inability of the corrupt player to CC and the added corruption if he kills more green. And in that case, the attacker would be aware of them too and not kill in the first place, to become corrupt. Maybe the mule is a bait and the greens were hiding nearby. Or maybe they hope the attacker will stop. The only way to signal your desire to not fight is to really look to the attacker or maybe run away. Or they could start buffing eachother to signal readiness to fight if the mule is killed. As it is now, the wiki has many small pieces of information added over the years bit by bit. I am not sure if everything is still applicable because many were mentioned before the deep sea PvP area was added. To me it would make more sense to have a gradual transition from safety to full PvP rather than a sudden transition. That way we would be certain there is an area where ganking is easier. The corruption encourage PvP but rewards it only if both agree, by becoming combatants. If one side doesn't, then PvP is not encouraged anymore. It is not a ganking friendly game for small gain. Only when cleaning the corruption takes less time than the time to obtain that loot, is worth ganking. I don't see much reason for concern over the mule example. You either choose to defend it or you dont. And I could see an issue where the meta is to run in groups and only attack once one of the party has been killed as a non-combatant and then everyone fights the corrupted players after that instead of fighting as combatants on even terms, that would lead to some lame gameplay. And once you start trying to have any systems discourage PvP as opposed to just focusing on discouraging griefing, you'll end up with an opt-in PvP game. Ganking is fine, camping is not. And there are several reasons to do it, loot being an added bonus. I could gank to claim an areas resources, gank for a mob, gank to protect the node in several ways, gank because I hate certain classes, gank because the player is a tulnar, etc. All of those are fine, just as long as I don't camp their body and do it 10 times. And even with your claims that doing this solo is irrelevant, it's still just as relevant as a group fighting other groups. I have difficulties to estimate how many people accept that ganking is not griefing. I searched the forum for 'ganking' and 2nd link I see was posted by @Vaknar himselfhttps://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/53243/wwyd-ganking-a-player/p1 The comments are interesting unknownsystemerror wrote: » Well done. 4 plus years of Steven telling the community that Ashes won't be a gankbox to be undone by one tweet. Dolyem wrote: » I think you like ganking as a gameplay style and you are worried that it might not happen. Truth is we cannot predict how Steven will balance the game. And if he wants it to be popular or niche.
