...
A person rolls in your area, with his friend waiting aside. The first person comes and hits the same mobs you are hitting, waiting to see if you PK him or not. You either leave, annoyed, or you pk.
...
You need to be more respectful,
I apologize for losing my patience a bit.
Is good to have better weapon and kill mobs faster. Have a weapon with max durability for such cases, to max your damage.
If you pk someone, you deal with the consequences. The ganked one too. Ganking is expected to happen in AoC, according to Steven.
Would be nice if the fuck around and fight out connection applied and we could murder nuisances as they appear, but as the corruption stands on the wiki, someone can bait you into attacking them all day, but they wont flag up for the sole reason of giving you corruption.
This is why you should always - ALWAYS - have a few Pals.
One or Two or Three of you can kill the "Nuisance-Players" if those would choose for whatever the Reason to exist, (lol)
and then your remaining Friends kill the Crap out of you afterwards, to bring you down to normal again.
They should make legendary gear just like in Guild Wars 2. A permanent piece of equipment that you can change stats when out of combat and has its unique appearance, but it is only achievable by a ton of achievements, exploration, boss kills, gathering, etc. And at the end you have to craft it so crafters will have lots of job. Plus a little more power than the gear tier below. (Ex.: 3%)
In GW2, the achievements are time gated, so it takes minimum 1 to 2 month to get a single piece
I think the bigger issue is if it's generally worth it to try and bait somebody into PKing you. People have different "thresholds" for when they think the other guy finally deserves getting PK'd. One-off PKs shouldn't screw you over so much that the other guy would feel like they can exploit that.
And I totally support a proper ramp up to gear loss. It could be smth like 0.5% chance to lose a gear piece on your first PK, but a 10% chance on your 5th and a 25% on your 10th.
We still don't know if Steven's "equipped gear" quote means that you can only lose what you have equipped directly on your character, rather than what's in your inventory as a whole. We don't know the current chances to lose gear. We don't know whether it'll change to a threshold value of the PK count or will remain "from your very first PK".
OP's whole argument is built on the fear that you'll lose your gear 100% if you die, so it's better to make that fear count.
My argument would be to instead have more smalltime PKers that could still be potentially caught by BHs and just a few big time PKers who're getting absolutely fucked by the system itself, rather than a random spook of "omg you'll lose your gear".
In other words, once again, make the corruption system balanced better than mess with the gearing system. If George just came out and said "I want to fuck over any skilled player, so let's have gear at 80% of player power" - this would be a whole different discussion. But he instead hides behind of scarecrow of "omg the PKers will use cheaper gear oooooooh" and thinks that this works as a valid argument for his goal.
"I am the one who knocks"
I dont hide behind any scarecrows.
Then just come out and say that you know you'll be ahead of other people in terms of gearing and you're too scared of losing that lead to skilled people
I think you are at a dead end and you are being provocative. You keep repeating the same taunts.
Nah, I just met you at that dead end You haven't provided a proper reason for having gear at 80% of player power. And you haven't refuted my argument of "80% would still not prevent the thing you fear".
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
We (my group) have incredibly strong opinions against Brackets.
Fully support some probably-too-complex systems to grant specific damage reduction values to lower levels for a duration if attacked while Green (technically for everyone, but like I said, complex). But brackets are abusable, and lead to less interaction and PvP when they aren't being abused.
Weaker players should stay in their lane, stronger players should stay in theirs. All we need is anything that makes people tell the other person to go back to their lane before the fighting breaks out. Anything else is just 'playing the game'.
I got no damn clue what this even means Dafuck are brackets?
Level 40 player can't even attack level 30 player unless they submit to Level Scaling.
They don't even WORK anyway because the level 40 player has more options for style definition and tweaking. Sure, you'll find that one player with the obnoxious lower level build or style that the Devs can't afford to overlook or balance fully in that situation, but it ruins the rest of the gameplay so that someone can feel smart about lording it over players with more 'actual'/'effective' skill.
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
But brackets are abusable, and lead to less interaction and PvP when they aren't being abused.
Level 40 player can't even attack level 30 player unless they submit to Level Scaling.
I can see good and bad Points about that being the Case.
In most games, absolutely. Great design, no sarc, it helps if you limit some areas in some specific ways too.
In Ashes? I'd gladly argue (in another thread perhaps) that it's only bad.
In all arrogance, I've been thinking about how to make Ashes' corruption work better for two years, and the best I could come up with, with lots of help, is something too complicated to be good to implement. But while doing that, I can yammer on for pages on why Brackets would suck in Ashes in nearly every implementation (outside of the Event system, which could probably use them fine).
After thinking a bit more, I see why AoC doesn't use the brackets. I'll not make a thread for this.
( Edit: the reason is that content is limited and can be unlocked either by leveling your char (anywhere on map) or in AoC by leveling a node then destroying it and leveling another one differently. Both needs a lot more content. )
But I still not see a good way to have much vertical progression in a game with caravans and sieges. Maybe I have to go and read again the arguments in the longer leveling thread George made.
But I still not see a good way to have much vertical progression in a game with caravans and sieges.
I don't quite see the relation between the two. Should I, once again, post a video from L2 where people in ~3 tiers of gear managed to enjoy a siege just fine?
As long as that vertical progression is scaled properly and there's also smth to do for the weakest on the field (i.e. siege weapons) - people of all progression stages can enjoy sieges and/or caravans.
This is basically a progression/preperation vs combat skill topic. These systems tie into each other by being factors in determining the winner of a fight, but how much should each of these factors be weighted to create the best proportionaility between these?
Obviously, gear/level should provide an advantage in order to make it relevant in terms of rewarding build strategies, and progression- But gear/level shouldn't provide so much of an advantage that its not possible to win a fight, or isn't skillfull/fun to fight, against someone of a higher level/better gear than you. This ultimately depends on tuning and testing for an exact percentage.
It comes down to the fact that once you have any kind of advantage, you simply have an advantage, which inherently makes things not perfectly balanced- so I think the gear/level should be a minimal percentage of overall effectiveness (with skill being main factor), in order to allow for progression/gear to still be relevant and provide that edge in combat when there is a difference between player power levels, but without ruining the combat experience.
There is no reason to push it any further than this (like over 50% of effectiveness), because it can already be relevant and important without undermining combat skill too much.
[
Weaker players should stay in their lane, stronger players should stay in theirs. All we need is anything that makes people tell the other person to go back to their lane before the fighting breaks out. Anything else is just 'playing the game'.
But I still not see a good way to have much vertical progression in a game with caravans and sieges.
I don't quite see the relation between the two. Should I, once again, post a video from L2 where people in ~3 tiers of gear managed to enjoy a siege just fine?
As long as that vertical progression is scaled properly and there's also smth to do for the weakest on the field (i.e. siege weapons) - people of all progression stages can enjoy sieges and/or caravans.
This is also precisely why I'm against the OP.
I cannot say if everyone will enjoy being in a support position. I need to try the AoC sieges to have a feeling myself.
As you said, vertical progression must be scaled properly. Two months of leveling will allow players to observe while helping but eventually all players must become fit to play in direct combat too, if that's what they prefer.
In caravans I don't know if they can be useful before reaching a decent level.
What I meant, and my understanding of the OP, is that a lvl 45 char with some lvl 25 or 30 or so gear shouldn't be able to kill a properly at least geared lv50 char.
A rogue in L2 could kill most of his targets with the starting dagger. All it'd take was some crit and other vital spot procs. That is a matter of few more seconds. When combined in a force of let's say 10 or 20 people they could do a considerable amount of dmg to enemy forces.
I've seen spots getting defended entirely by pk parties of extremely low equipment high lvl characters for hours. You've played L2. I'm sure u have seen such things as well.
were the daggers using C grade armor and jwels? because if so, they die in 3 hits from S grade weapons.
was this after element was added? if so, they die in 1 hit...
this only works when the enemies go in one by one. why? because there are other characters with high level gear ready to kill you if you flag. so if oyu dont fight back, you get pked. and if you tr to kill the alt, you get killed by the high levels.
this wont work in ashes because of stat dampening. also, dont go in 1 by 1. go with your full clan
This is basically a progression/preperation vs combat skill topic. These systems tie into each other by being factors in determining the winner of a fight, but how much should each of these factors be weighted to create the best proportionaility between these?
Obviously, gear/level should provide an advantage in order to make it relevant in terms of rewarding build strategies, and progression- But gear/level shouldn't provide so much of an advantage that its not possible to win a fight, or isn't skillfull/fun to fight, against someone of a higher level/better gear than you. This ultimately depends on tuning and testing for an exact percentage.
It comes down to the fact that once you have any kind of advantage, you simply have an advantage, which inherently makes things not perfectly balanced- so I think the gear/level should be a minimal percentage of overall effectiveness (with skill being main factor), in order to allow for progression/gear to still be relevant and provide that edge in combat when there is a difference between player power levels, but without ruining the combat experience.
There is no reason to push it any further than this (lke over 50% of effectiveness), because it can already be relevant and important without undermining combat skill too much.
I assume 50% is a player with legendary gear vs a player with poor gear.
That means 3 players with poor gear might defeat two players with legendary gear.
Most players will have at least some uncommon and rare gear while top gear will be epic.
The difference between players caused by gear might be 20%.
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
No brackets, they would be weird in ashes. But I could see larger disparity between the two combatants giving increased corruption penalty... If someone max level and high end gear is dunking on a level 10 player in starting gear I feel like they should be more heavily penalized.
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
No brackets, they would be weird in ashes. But I could see larger disparity between the two combatants giving increased corruption penalty... If someone max level and high end gear is dunking on a level 10 player in starting gear I feel like they should be more heavily penalized.
They are that is how the system works, and lose power based on corruption penalty.
yes, there is corruption rule sets for different flagging. I'm still opposed to non-combatants being immune to CC considering how CC works with build up regardless of 1vs1 or 1vs10
unless I am mistaken on what we're referring to brackets as.
In Ashes? I'd gladly argue (in another thread perhaps) that it's only bad.
I imagine it as bad if you can't attack Players who might possibly "greatly exploit/work off/seize" Ore that for Example your own Node could need,
only because those Players are a noticeably or great bit weaker than yourself.
Whoops ? You are not as much of a Noob or Rookie than them ?? And levelled your Character diligently ??
Welp, to bad for You. " Humpty and Dumpty " (lol) from another Node OR EVEN ENEMY NODE are 10 Level or more below You. You can't lay a Finger on them to stop them from working off your Nodes Ores in close Proximity to your Node. 😂 . 😂 . 😂
I can imagine such a thing to be good though, to prevent ganking of Lowlevel Players by People who are just Griefplayers and A~holes and have no more Motivation than to pester someone else just for the sake of it.
If Steven would add brackets to prevent PvP interaction between players more than X levels apart, then I could see many levels and powerful gear twinks at each specific level interesting.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
No brackets, they would be weird in ashes. But I could see larger disparity between the two combatants giving increased corruption penalty... If someone max level and high end gear is dunking on a level 10 player in starting gear I feel like they should be more heavily penalized.
They are that is how the system works, and lose power based on corruption penalty.
I know they've said this for level, but to bring it back to the topic of this OP, they could add gear to the equation. Instead of just level difference, have overall player power from any source play into it. If nothing else it pushes people towards at least fighting in their weight class not steamrolling over under geared underleveled people.
Comments
Is good to have better weapon and kill mobs faster. Have a weapon with max durability for such cases, to max your damage.
If you pk someone, you deal with the consequences. The ganked one too. Ganking is expected to happen in AoC, according to Steven.
This is why you should always - ALWAYS - have a few Pals.
One or Two or Three of you can kill the "Nuisance-Players" if those would choose for whatever the Reason to exist, (lol)
and then your remaining Friends kill the Crap out of you afterwards, to bring you down to normal again.
In GW2, the achievements are time gated, so it takes minimum 1 to 2 month to get a single piece
We still don't know if Steven's "equipped gear" quote means that you can only lose what you have equipped directly on your character, rather than what's in your inventory as a whole. We don't know the current chances to lose gear. We don't know whether it'll change to a threshold value of the PK count or will remain "from your very first PK".
OP's whole argument is built on the fear that you'll lose your gear 100% if you die, so it's better to make that fear count.
My argument would be to instead have more smalltime PKers that could still be potentially caught by BHs and just a few big time PKers who're getting absolutely fucked by the system itself, rather than a random spook of "omg you'll lose your gear".
In other words, once again, make the corruption system balanced better than mess with the gearing system. If George just came out and said "I want to fuck over any skilled player, so let's have gear at 80% of player power" - this would be a whole different discussion. But he instead hides behind of scarecrow of "omg the PKers will use cheaper gear oooooooh" and thinks that this works as a valid argument for his goal.
I dont hide behind any scarecrows.
Sorry but i don't see a world where you are ahead of the curve, your mind set is too one sided. Best case you try to trial and join a top guild.
As it is now, the game and leveling is not meant to attract and satisfy players who like leveling but to deter players to have every weekend a different alt.
Do people have strong oppinions against brackets?
We (my group) have incredibly strong opinions against Brackets.
Fully support some probably-too-complex systems to grant specific damage reduction values to lower levels for a duration if attacked while Green (technically for everyone, but like I said, complex). But brackets are abusable, and lead to less interaction and PvP when they aren't being abused.
Weaker players should stay in their lane, stronger players should stay in theirs. All we need is anything that makes people tell the other person to go back to their lane before the fighting breaks out. Anything else is just 'playing the game'.
Level 40 player can't even attack level 30 player unless they submit to Level Scaling.
They don't even WORK anyway because the level 40 player has more options for style definition and tweaking. Sure, you'll find that one player with the obnoxious lower level build or style that the Devs can't afford to overlook or balance fully in that situation, but it ruins the rest of the gameplay so that someone can feel smart about lording it over players with more 'actual'/'effective' skill.
I can see good and bad Points about that being the Case.
In most games, absolutely. Great design, no sarc, it helps if you limit some areas in some specific ways too.
In Ashes? I'd gladly argue (in another thread perhaps) that it's only bad.
In all arrogance, I've been thinking about how to make Ashes' corruption work better for two years, and the best I could come up with, with lots of help, is something too complicated to be good to implement. But while doing that, I can yammer on for pages on why Brackets would suck in Ashes in nearly every implementation (outside of the Event system, which could probably use them fine).
( Edit: the reason is that content is limited and can be unlocked either by leveling your char (anywhere on map) or in AoC by leveling a node then destroying it and leveling another one differently. Both needs a lot more content. )
But I still not see a good way to have much vertical progression in a game with caravans and sieges. Maybe I have to go and read again the arguments in the longer leveling thread George made.
As long as that vertical progression is scaled properly and there's also smth to do for the weakest on the field (i.e. siege weapons) - people of all progression stages can enjoy sieges and/or caravans.
This is also precisely why I'm against the OP.
Obviously, gear/level should provide an advantage in order to make it relevant in terms of rewarding build strategies, and progression- But gear/level shouldn't provide so much of an advantage that its not possible to win a fight, or isn't skillfull/fun to fight, against someone of a higher level/better gear than you. This ultimately depends on tuning and testing for an exact percentage.
It comes down to the fact that once you have any kind of advantage, you simply have an advantage, which inherently makes things not perfectly balanced- so I think the gear/level should be a minimal percentage of overall effectiveness (with skill being main factor), in order to allow for progression/gear to still be relevant and provide that edge in combat when there is a difference between player power levels, but without ruining the combat experience.
There is no reason to push it any further than this (like over 50% of effectiveness), because it can already be relevant and important without undermining combat skill too much.
Pretty much, hard agree here.
As you said, vertical progression must be scaled properly. Two months of leveling will allow players to observe while helping but eventually all players must become fit to play in direct combat too, if that's what they prefer.
In caravans I don't know if they can be useful before reaching a decent level.
were the daggers using C grade armor and jwels? because if so, they die in 3 hits from S grade weapons.
was this after element was added? if so, they die in 1 hit...
this only works when the enemies go in one by one. why? because there are other characters with high level gear ready to kill you if you flag. so if oyu dont fight back, you get pked. and if you tr to kill the alt, you get killed by the high levels.
this wont work in ashes because of stat dampening. also, dont go in 1 by 1. go with your full clan
I assume 50% is a player with legendary gear vs a player with poor gear.
That means 3 players with poor gear might defeat two players with legendary gear.
Most players will have at least some uncommon and rare gear while top gear will be epic.
The difference between players caused by gear might be 20%.
No brackets, they would be weird in ashes. But I could see larger disparity between the two combatants giving increased corruption penalty... If someone max level and high end gear is dunking on a level 10 player in starting gear I feel like they should be more heavily penalized.
They are that is how the system works, and lose power based on corruption penalty.
unless I am mistaken on what we're referring to brackets as.
I imagine it as bad if you can't attack Players who might possibly "greatly exploit/work off/seize" Ore that for Example your own Node could need,
only because those Players are a noticeably or great bit weaker than yourself.
Whoops ? You are not as much of a Noob or Rookie than them ?? And levelled your Character diligently ??
Welp, to bad for You. " Humpty and Dumpty " (lol) from another Node OR EVEN ENEMY NODE are 10 Level or more below You. You can't lay a Finger on them to stop them from working off your Nodes Ores in close Proximity to your Node. 😂 . 😂 . 😂
I can imagine such a thing to be good though, to prevent ganking of Lowlevel Players by People who are just Griefplayers and A~holes and have no more Motivation than to pester someone else just for the sake of it.
I know they've said this for level, but to bring it back to the topic of this OP, they could add gear to the equation. Instead of just level difference, have overall player power from any source play into it. If nothing else it pushes people towards at least fighting in their weight class not steamrolling over under geared underleveled people.