PvP - Corrupted/Corruption

Hello everyone,

I couldn't find a recent post about pvp and corruption, so I'm reopening the subject.
L2 is my reference mmo, and I've done several "open pvp" mmo looking for its replacement, without success.

The A2 "approaching"

I'm updating, the pvp being an important point for me, I "discovered" the malus of being pk (killed under corruption).

To start the exchange, I'll simply say that if the pk is too restrictive, players will switch to the T mode, T for Train....

And the T system, in view of the death panalty even on non-combatants, will turn into alt char that will be made solely to train players... because the nice players won't be able to pk it and if they do there might be the train master nearby waiting for the pk...

In short, pk is both a problem that needs to be "controlled" and a means of protection.

And in general, the malus on skills in the event of death will make the game slower and less reactive.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Enigmatic Sage

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc.

But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.

yes and no.

if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.

the player can have only one citizenship / server

Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[3][9][10][11]

Your account is bound to one declared citizenship per server, which means that if you have two alts and your main character on one server you may only be a citizen of one node between those three... If you have an alt on a different server, it could be a citizen of a node as well.[11] – Steven Sharif

@daveywavey knows for sure this detail as he got the wiki link as his signature

I'm well aware of it too.

The wording does not specify that each alt is an official citizen but that just the one you declare with as a citizen is. It means you cannot be a citizen to multiple nodes on multiple characters of the same server but doesn't force you to be a citizen on all your alts either to the same node.

Grammar matters and Steven's quotes can be quite vague, outdated and sometimes incorrect regardless of subject to change.

It doesn't change the fact that you be a citizen on your main, switch to alt who is not a citizen and raid your allies caravans like a bitch. Very turn coat meta to have an anonymous alt that steals from your allies to feed your personal goals.

Ok but raiding your allies caravans has the same consequences weather you are a citizen or not as long as you have a citizenship on your main.
You basically work against the node. Those alts will loot goods and glint and could also have advantages of being citizens. People will not know anyway that a certain bandit is the alt of another character.

that's the thing. raiding them is raiding them. Just doesn't tarnish your main's reputation as you're doing it on an alt with 0 repercussions especially if no one knows it or a bunch of players are in on it. All characters should be tied together for that server including their citizenship and reputation for specific reasons.

Otherwise, what's the purpose of the whole game design if players can just bypass the games purpose? seems pointless objectively.

Anyways. Said my part about it. No point reiterating to multiple people over and over again that enter the thread.

The mechanic will be as Steven wants.
And in 7 years it didn't surfaced into the wiki any hint that he would want the corruption to be account wide.
The purpose of the whole game design is to allow players to undermine the node from within if they cannot defeat it through a siege.
Against huge guilds who control the most important farming spots there might be no other option as a small guild. And resource scarcity (which is also part of the design) will reveal human nature.

Cool I guess? Still makes the main purpose of the game pointless then. At least other mmorpg's have pointless gear scores to obtain seasonally with content. Guess we just gear up multiple toons and just pretend the purpose of the game matters?

When you find people you trust, you will play with them every day because you need them and they need you.
Other games are solo friendly. Those who want a solo experience will prefer other mmos.
Maybe the most valuable stuff will drop in the deep ocean area where we have no corruption at all.

So I am pay a monthly subscription to attack local caravans on an alt to sell the corrupted loot and glint for money so I can gear my main without repercussions using in-game currency through crafters/crafting. PvE for loot and gear? Then what? we just pretend the node sieges matters because we can just gut the system internally? arena for loot? level more alts once my character is relatively maxed? pretend guild wars matter?

Once a majority of gamers/guilds realise this, it will be meta and the game is just essentially that which is posted above because repercussions don't matter on alt because choices dont matter.

Sorry dude. It has nothing to do with "trust".

Hollowed Purpose.

When somebody attacks a caravan, it will not act alone. To be efficient, attackers need to cooperate and be in a guild to get the guild buffs.
Guilds will be responsible to take care who they recruit and to keep important caravan transports secret and known only to core members.

Players will pay attention not only to citizenship but also to guild name when they move in the world.
The guild name will be noticed and guild wars start.
Those characters (alts or main) will have a hard time moving around while there is a guild war.
Some players like this kind of environment and they will pay multiple subscriptions even.

Still hollow.

Ever wonder what the actual purpose of the game is or any MMORPG for that matter?
monthly subscription retention? profits? they all seem to be similarly designed.

Even if they did what I suggested... other than levelling and gearing out characters...

what's the goal and purpose of this game?

- collect mounts?
- collect transmogrifications?
- grind dungeons/raids?
- craft?
- hollow warfare between guilds or nodes?
- node and vassal empires that just help us get more resources and money?
- arena for more loot?
- personal metrics that only mean anything to those that care?
- large battles?

What are we as the players trying to achieve? is that the sandbox part? log on, level up and do all these things to get our moneys worth with other players (the MMO part of it?)

Seems like we just gear ourselves out to just have that edge on the content we choose that has no real goal..

Hollowed Goals and Purposes.

Knowing the answer to such questions will make you a Wise Sage

I do know the answer haha

It's just not the game they're envisioning, so I generally give feedback on the direction they're aiming for even if it doesn't always appeal to me personally. The demographics in the genre are quite....comfortable in this type of design goal which unfortunately for myself means boring gaming in this genre for another decade. It's not that I believe it will not be successful in its own way or anything.

Enigmatic Sage

Veritus wrote: »

Well, what would you suggest? The whole purpose of MMOs, in my opinion, is to achieve goals with friends - whether that be PvE content, PvP content, or whatever. The content you choose to do is dependent on what you enjoy. Some people like collecting mounts and transmogs. Some people like PvE content. Some people like the PvP content.

At the end of the day, the content that a player enjoys is the content that isn't "hollow" to that player. You don't seem to like PvE, or PvP or anything that is associated with any game, not just MMOs.

Still wrong.

Wont deny that players enjoy those things though.

Even if I told you (which I wont), it would just set the game back another year if they wanted to do it which probably wont matter because it seems like no one has even noticed yet. It just doesn't fit their design goal and target audience anymore.

Taleof2Cities

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

It just doesn't fit their design goal and target audience anymore.

Their design goal or your design goal?

There’s a lot of testing to be done still (including the approaching Alpha 2) … not much is set in stone yet except for mechanics directly tied to the game’s core pillars.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

The demographics in the genre are quite....comfortable in this type of design goal which unfortunately for myself means boring gaming in this genre for another decade.

I’m sure you’ve seen it posted already, but it’s worth revisiting:

Ashes won’t be the game for everyone.

Enigmatic Sage

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

It just doesn't fit their design goal and target audience anymore.

Their design goal or your design goal?

There’s a lot of testing to be done still (including the approaching Alpha 2) … not much is set in stone yet except for mechanics directly tied to the game’s core pillars.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

The demographics in the genre are quite....comfortable in this type of design goal which unfortunately for myself means boring gaming in this genre for another decade.

I’m sure you’ve seen it posted already, but it’s worth revisiting:

Ashes won’t be the game for everyone.

Theirs. They even decided to not do it and announced it in a live stream. Not to say it's an exact design I would have done but that's their choices. It's their choice and their target audience lol. That implies they intended the game to be like that originally. They seem to do a lot of that.

Funny about the "ashes wont be for everyone" when they make statements about designing a game that is
"fun for everyone" lol.

Dygz

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So I am paying a monthly subscription to attack local caravans on an alt to sell the corrupted loot and glint for money so I can gear my main without repercussions using in-game currency through crafters/crafting. PvE for loot and gear? Then what? we just pretend the node sieges matters because we can just gut the system internally? arena for loot? level more alts once my character is relatively maxed? pretend guild wars matter?

Once a majority of gamers/guilds realise this, it will be meta and the game is just essentially that which is posted above because repercussions don't matter on alt because choices dont matter.

Sorry dude. It has nothing to do with "trust".

Hollowed Purpose.

Typically, choosing to Attack or Defend causes the player to become a Purple Combatant. No Corruption.
What is the advantage of having alts try to steal the loot off the allies of your main?
And where is the evidence that your alts will successfully win the attack and loot the Caravan(s)?

Allies can already help gear your main.
I don't understand how attacking Caravans on an alt will help sell Corrupted Loot and Glint.
Pretty sure that Corrupted alts cannot trade loot.

There is a Bandit system that gives perks for successfully raiding Caravans.
Especially successfully raiding the Caravans of rival Nodes, so... I dunno why you would be trying to avoid the positive repercussions of successfully raiding Caravans.
Raiding Caravans associated with rival Nodes helps support the progress of the Nodes you like while preventing the progress of rival Nodes - which means you will continue to support the avilablity of the specific content/items/mobs you like.

Why would you attack the Caravans of allies just for monetary gain when they will still need those resources to be able to Craft and Enchant the items you like. And those resources help support the progress of the Nodes you like and those Nodes providing the specific content/items/mobs you like?

The negative repercussions of stealing resources from the allies of your main is that rival nodes will be the ones creating their form of content - which will very likely not be the type of content/items/mobs you like - since you are, for some reason, having your main undermine the progress of your main's allies.

The primary focus of Ashes is massive 250+ vs 250+ PvP Node Sieges.

Mag7spy

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc.

But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.

yes and no.

if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.

the player can have only one citizenship / server

Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[3][9][10][11]

Your account is bound to one declared citizenship per server, which means that if you have two alts and your main character on one server you may only be a citizen of one node between those three... If you have an alt on a different server, it could be a citizen of a node as well.[11] – Steven Sharif

@daveywavey knows for sure this detail as he got the wiki link as his signature

I'm well aware of it too.

The wording does not specify that each alt is an official citizen but that just the one you declare with as a citizen is. It means you cannot be a citizen to multiple nodes on multiple characters of the same server but doesn't force you to be a citizen on all your alts either to the same node.

Grammar matters and Steven's quotes can be quite vague, outdated and sometimes incorrect regardless of subject to change.

It doesn't change the fact that you be a citizen on your main, switch to alt who is not a citizen and raid your allies caravans like a bitch. Very turn coat meta to have an anonymous alt that steals from your allies to feed your personal goals.

Ok but raiding your allies caravans has the same consequences weather you are a citizen or not as long as you have a citizenship on your main.
You basically work against the node. Those alts will loot goods and glint and could also have advantages of being citizens. People will not know anyway that a certain bandit is the alt of another character.

that's the thing. raiding them is raiding them. Just doesn't tarnish your main's reputation as you're doing it on an alt with 0 repercussions especially if no one knows it or a bunch of players are in on it. All characters should be tied together for that server including their citizenship and reputation for specific reasons.

Otherwise, what's the purpose of the whole game design if players can just bypass the games purpose? seems pointless objectively.

Anyways. Said my part about it. No point reiterating to multiple people over and over again that enter the thread.

The mechanic will be as Steven wants.
And in 7 years it didn't surfaced into the wiki any hint that he would want the corruption to be account wide.
The purpose of the whole game design is to allow players to undermine the node from within if they cannot defeat it through a siege.
Against huge guilds who control the most important farming spots there might be no other option as a small guild. And resource scarcity (which is also part of the design) will reveal human nature.

I really don't think the intent is to undermine a node from within in the term you are thinking. There is a difference using politics and than using character in a node to bypass gameplay mechanics and make it toxic.

Enigmatic Sage

Dygz wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So I am paying a monthly subscription to attack local caravans on an alt to sell the corrupted loot and glint for money so I can gear my main without repercussions using in-game currency through crafters/crafting. PvE for loot and gear? Then what? we just pretend the node sieges matters because we can just gut the system internally? arena for loot? level more alts once my character is relatively maxed? pretend guild wars matter?

Once a majority of gamers/guilds realise this, it will be meta and the game is just essentially that which is posted above because repercussions don't matter on alt because choices dont matter.

Sorry dude. It has nothing to do with "trust".

Hollowed Purpose.

Typically, choosing to Attack or Defend causes the player to become a Purple Combatant. No Corruption.
What is the advantage of having alts try to steal the loot off the allies of your main?
And where is the evidence that your alts will successfully win the attack and loot the Caravan(s)?

Allies can already help gear your main.
I don't understand how attacking Caravans on an alt will help sell Corrupted Loot and Glint.
Pretty sure that Corrupted alts cannot trade loot.

There is a Bandit system that gives perks for successfully raiding Caravans.
Especially successfully raiding the Caravans of rival Nodes, so... I dunno why you would be trying to avoid the positive repercussions of successfully raiding Caravans.
Raiding Caravans associated with rival Nodes helps support the progress of the Nodes you like while preventing the progress of rival Nodes - which means you will continue to support the avilablity of the specific content/items/mobs you like.

Why would you attack the Caravans of allies just for monetary gain when they will still need those resources to be able to Craft and Enchant the items you like. And those resources help support the progress of the Nodes you like and those Nodes providing the specific content/items/mobs you like?

The negative repercussions of stealing resources from the allies of your main is that rival nodes will be the ones creating their form of content - which will very likely not be the type of content/items/mobs you like - since you are, for some reason, having your main undermine the progress of your main's allies.

The primary focus of Ashes is massive 250+ vs 250+ PvP Node Sieges.

It'll happen because they're allowed to regardless of the interesting micro features they're planning.
It unfortunately doesn't change the primary issue of Ashes let alone MMORPG'S in general. I'm not saying this because I do not like Ashes of Creation per se or if they change it that it will make me more invested in it. It's just how they make MMORPG'S now. Even decades ago they had a bit of it but chose to not do it. Look at the average gamer in the genre now. Level of expectations from features, graphics, content, why they log on to play etc.

Raven016

Mag7spy wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc.

But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.

yes and no.

if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.

the player can have only one citizenship / server

Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[3][9][10][11]

Your account is bound to one declared citizenship per server, which means that if you have two alts and your main character on one server you may only be a citizen of one node between those three... If you have an alt on a different server, it could be a citizen of a node as well.[11] – Steven Sharif

@daveywavey knows for sure this detail as he got the wiki link as his signature

I'm well aware of it too.

The wording does not specify that each alt is an official citizen but that just the one you declare with as a citizen is. It means you cannot be a citizen to multiple nodes on multiple characters of the same server but doesn't force you to be a citizen on all your alts either to the same node.

Grammar matters and Steven's quotes can be quite vague, outdated and sometimes incorrect regardless of subject to change.

It doesn't change the fact that you be a citizen on your main, switch to alt who is not a citizen and raid your allies caravans like a bitch. Very turn coat meta to have an anonymous alt that steals from your allies to feed your personal goals.

Ok but raiding your allies caravans has the same consequences weather you are a citizen or not as long as you have a citizenship on your main.
You basically work against the node. Those alts will loot goods and glint and could also have advantages of being citizens. People will not know anyway that a certain bandit is the alt of another character.

that's the thing. raiding them is raiding them. Just doesn't tarnish your main's reputation as you're doing it on an alt with 0 repercussions especially if no one knows it or a bunch of players are in on it. All characters should be tied together for that server including their citizenship and reputation for specific reasons.

Otherwise, what's the purpose of the whole game design if players can just bypass the games purpose? seems pointless objectively.

Anyways. Said my part about it. No point reiterating to multiple people over and over again that enter the thread.

The mechanic will be as Steven wants.
And in 7 years it didn't surfaced into the wiki any hint that he would want the corruption to be account wide.
The purpose of the whole game design is to allow players to undermine the node from within if they cannot defeat it through a siege.
Against huge guilds who control the most important farming spots there might be no other option as a small guild. And resource scarcity (which is also part of the design) will reveal human nature.

I really don't think the intent is to undermine a node from within in the term you are thinking. There is a difference using politics and than using character in a node to bypass gameplay mechanics and make it toxic.

The game will give an advantage to players who cooperate.
But will allow the possibility to not cooperate rather than enforcing cooperation with hard rules. The choice will be on players side and they will also feel rewarded by choosing to cooperate.
Because the game opens ways to not cooperate, it must give the tools to reveal and oppose bad actors.

If a metro nation has a war with another metro nation, it can send small mercenary guilds to become citizens in the nodes of the other nation.
- they can become mayors.
- they can harvest resources to reduce their spawn rate. Steven said: "So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources."

Relocating into a metropolis might be expensive
But small guilds will have more impact on small nodes and metro nations depend on their vassals.
Vassals cannot attack the parent nodes (game rule) because it could be triggered by such a mayor working for the enemy but if a smaller node becomes overrun by enemy guilds, it can be attacked by the parent node
Another game rule is "Citizens of the node or provincial nodes being attacked are automatically registered as defenders.[31]". So if a vassal has citizens coming from the enemy metro nation, they will still be defenders if a parent node is besieged.
But there is no rule that you cannot attack caravans of fellow citizens. Guilds will try to drive other guilds out from the node either because they come from enemy nodes or to increase their control and their chance to set a mayor.

Raven016

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So I am paying a monthly subscription to attack local caravans on an alt to sell the corrupted loot and glint for money so I can gear my main without repercussions using in-game currency through crafters/crafting. PvE for loot and gear? Then what? we just pretend the node sieges matters because we can just gut the system internally? arena for loot? level more alts once my character is relatively maxed? pretend guild wars matter?

Once a majority of gamers/guilds realise this, it will be meta and the game is just essentially that which is posted above because repercussions don't matter on alt because choices dont matter.

Sorry dude. It has nothing to do with "trust".

Hollowed Purpose.

Typically, choosing to Attack or Defend causes the player to become a Purple Combatant. No Corruption.
What is the advantage of having alts try to steal the loot off the allies of your main?
And where is the evidence that your alts will successfully win the attack and loot the Caravan(s)?

Allies can already help gear your main.
I don't understand how attacking Caravans on an alt will help sell Corrupted Loot and Glint.
Pretty sure that Corrupted alts cannot trade loot.

There is a Bandit system that gives perks for successfully raiding Caravans.
Especially successfully raiding the Caravans of rival Nodes, so... I dunno why you would be trying to avoid the positive repercussions of successfully raiding Caravans.
Raiding Caravans associated with rival Nodes helps support the progress of the Nodes you like while preventing the progress of rival Nodes - which means you will continue to support the avilablity of the specific content/items/mobs you like.

Why would you attack the Caravans of allies just for monetary gain when they will still need those resources to be able to Craft and Enchant the items you like. And those resources help support the progress of the Nodes you like and those Nodes providing the specific content/items/mobs you like?

The negative repercussions of stealing resources from the allies of your main is that rival nodes will be the ones creating their form of content - which will very likely not be the type of content/items/mobs you like - since you are, for some reason, having your main undermine the progress of your main's allies.

The primary focus of Ashes is massive 250+ vs 250+ PvP Node Sieges.

It'll happen because they're allowed to regardless of the interesting micro features they're planning.
It unfortunately doesn't change the primary issue of Ashes let alone MMORPG'S in general. I'm not saying this because I do not like Ashes of Creation per se or if they change it that it will make me more invested in it. It's just how they make MMORPG'S now. Even decades ago they had a bit of it but chose to not do it. Look at the average gamer in the genre now. Level of expectations from features, graphics, content, why they log on to play etc.

Now they make mmos to be free to play with stores where you can buy cosmetics and convenience things like in-game currency, level boost, inventory space, get more alts... They give you group finder tools and fast teleport because players have no patience to wait until the team is complete. Which makes team members easily replaceable.
Is that what you mean?

Enigmatic Sage

Raven016 wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

So I am paying a monthly subscription to attack local caravans on an alt to sell the corrupted loot and glint for money so I can gear my main without repercussions using in-game currency through crafters/crafting. PvE for loot and gear? Then what? we just pretend the node sieges matters because we can just gut the system internally? arena for loot? level more alts once my character is relatively maxed? pretend guild wars matter?

Once a majority of gamers/guilds realise this, it will be meta and the game is just essentially that which is posted above because repercussions don't matter on alt because choices dont matter.

Sorry dude. It has nothing to do with "trust".

Hollowed Purpose.

Typically, choosing to Attack or Defend causes the player to become a Purple Combatant. No Corruption.
What is the advantage of having alts try to steal the loot off the allies of your main?
And where is the evidence that your alts will successfully win the attack and loot the Caravan(s)?

Allies can already help gear your main.
I don't understand how attacking Caravans on an alt will help sell Corrupted Loot and Glint.
Pretty sure that Corrupted alts cannot trade loot.

There is a Bandit system that gives perks for successfully raiding Caravans.
Especially successfully raiding the Caravans of rival Nodes, so... I dunno why you would be trying to avoid the positive repercussions of successfully raiding Caravans.
Raiding Caravans associated with rival Nodes helps support the progress of the Nodes you like while preventing the progress of rival Nodes - which means you will continue to support the avilablity of the specific content/items/mobs you like.

Why would you attack the Caravans of allies just for monetary gain when they will still need those resources to be able to Craft and Enchant the items you like. And those resources help support the progress of the Nodes you like and those Nodes providing the specific content/items/mobs you like?

The negative repercussions of stealing resources from the allies of your main is that rival nodes will be the ones creating their form of content - which will very likely not be the type of content/items/mobs you like - since you are, for some reason, having your main undermine the progress of your main's allies.

The primary focus of Ashes is massive 250+ vs 250+ PvP Node Sieges.

It'll happen because they're allowed to regardless of the interesting micro features they're planning.
It unfortunately doesn't change the primary issue of Ashes let alone MMORPG'S in general. I'm not saying this because I do not like Ashes of Creation per se or if they change it that it will make me more invested in it. It's just how they make MMORPG'S now. Even decades ago they had a bit of it but chose to not do it. Look at the average gamer in the genre now. Level of expectations from features, graphics, content, why they log on to play etc.

Now they make mmos to be free to play with stores where you can buy cosmetics and convenience things like in-game currency, level boost, inventory space, get more alts... They give you group finder tools and fast teleport because players have no patience to wait until the team is complete. Which makes team members easily replaceable.
Is that what you mean?

Those are definitely design choices and company philosophies that have some roles to play in tangential issues but not directly the issue in general.

Aszkalon

Mistiti wrote: »

And in general, the malus on skills in the event of death will make the game slower and less reactive.

Why do i have the huge Impression that Everyone is underestimating of how many Players will actually "fight back" before being killed,

meaning both Attacker and Victim get flagged "Purple" and no Corruption for the Playerkiller will arise ?!

Of Course, that is not necessarily the Case as always. But honestly when You see for Example Someone who is dismantling and salvaging a Group of Ore-Ressources or Tree's that You wanted to farm the same,

and then You bloody MURDER (lol) that Person one time -> get flagged -> and then hide away for awhile so that Node-Cityguards won't attack You,

and You immediately search for another Place to to farm - until your Corruption has worn off and you can safely return to your Node without the City Guards attacking You,

then where should possibly be the Problem ? 😁 . 😅

I think the "flagging"(?) with Corruption is only intended to hinder and disturb Players who engage in repeated Playerkilling over and over and over and OVER again - and not Someone who just happens to get rid off some Competition for a Moment.

And the Extent of being able to lose for Example even your finest or legendary Gear when being slain as a Corrupted, i think ONLY applies when you seriously stacked Corruption Levels above each other. This is how i understood it, until now.

Aszkalon

daveywavey wrote: »

If it's not your caravan, why should you not want to attack it? Sure, it's someone else's in the same node, but it's not yours. It's fair game.

Is it weird when i say, that i personally am very reluctant to attack ANY Caravan that might be from my own Node ? Could be that Carvans are mainly designed so that even Players of the "same City" can rob each other,

but it feels weird, to say the least. Usually we would need Everyone from our own Node as a Team, in Case another Node try's to punch us down to level up their own Node, right ?

Just think about it. Can we really afford to anger our Team Mates ?

. 😁

Depraved

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mistiti wrote: »

And in general, the malus on skills in the event of death will make the game slower and less reactive.

Why do i have the huge Impression that Everyone is underestimating of how many Players will actually "fight back" before being killed,

meaning both Attacker and Victim get flagged "Purple" and no Corruption for the Playerkiller will arise ?!

Of Course, that is not necessarily the Case as always. But honestly when You see for Example Someone who is dismantling and salvaging a Group of Ore-Ressources or Tree's that You wanted to farm the same,

and then You bloody MURDER (lol) that Person one time -> get flagged -> and then hide away for awhile so that Node-Cityguards won't attack You,

and You immediately search for another Place to to farm - until your Corruption has worn off and you can safely return to your Node without the City Guards attacking You,

then where should possibly be the Problem ? 😁 . 😅

I think the "flagging"(?) with Corruption is only intended to hinder and disturb Players who engage in repeated Playerkilling over and over and over and OVER again - and not Someone who just happens to get rid off some Competition for a Moment. .

And the Extent of being able to lose for Example even your finest or legendary Gear when being slain as a Corrupted, i think ONLY applies when you seriously stacked Corruption Levels above each other. This is how i understood it, until now.

you can still drop gear on one corrupted kill. i believe there should be a safe amount of kills before you start dropping gear. 2-3 kills seems reasonable but ill be happy with just 1. and of course, ways to lower that number back to 0

a quest maybe or something like that.

Aszkalon wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

If it's not your caravan, why should you not want to attack it? Sure, it's someone else's in the same node, but it's not yours. It's fair game.

Is it weird when i say, that i personally am very reluctant to attack ANY Caravan that might be from my own Node ? Could be that Carvans are mainly designed so that even Players of the "same City" can rob each other,

but it feels weird, to say the least. Usually we would need Everyone from our own Node as a Team, in Case another Node try's to punch us down to level up their own Node, right ?

Just think about it. Can we really afford to anger our Team Mates ? . 😁

doesnt matter. attack their caravans anyways. they will still fight and defend the node when the time comes.

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

and of course, ways to lower that number back to 0 a quest maybe or something like that.

They should announce that on April 1st and let people wonder if is joke or not

Endowed

Cadac wrote: »

@NiKr I hear you.
The zerg issue is a big deal.

Huge. It's dominated many pvp mmos over the past 20 years. And

Steven himself has been involved heavily in at least two of those offerings. He has mentioned offset measures being implemented for this issue, but I have no idea of anything in that regards as of yet.

How do you impede/stop a community based game, from being hyper-communal?

Dygz

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

It'll happen because they're allowed to regardless of the interesting micro features they're planning.
It unfortunately doesn't change the primary issue of Ashes let alone MMORPG'S in general. I'm not saying this because I do not like Ashes of Creation per se or if they change it that it will make me more invested in it. It's just how they make MMORPG'S now. Even decades ago they had a bit of it but chose to not do it. Look at the average gamer in the genre now. Level of expectations from features, graphics, content, why they log on to play etc.

I think you did not answer my question.
And I think you do not understand the Ashes design or the motivations the PvP mechanics promote.

Dygz

Depraved wrote: »

doesnt matter. attack their caravans anyways. they will still fight and defend the node when the time comes.

It does matter because the Node won't have the resources necessary to progress and defend against Sieges if you steal Caravan resources. Also, of course, you also risk being flagged as an Enemy of the State.

Enigmatic Sage

Dygz wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

It'll happen because they're allowed to regardless of the interesting micro features they're planning.
It unfortunately doesn't change the primary issue of Ashes let alone MMORPG'S in general. I'm not saying this because I do not like Ashes of Creation per se or if they change it that it will make me more invested in it. It's just how they make MMORPG'S now. Even decades ago they had a bit of it but chose to not do it. Look at the average gamer in the genre now. Level of expectations from features, graphics, content, why they log on to play etc.

I think you did not answer my question.
And I think you do not understand the Ashes design or the motivations the PvP mechanics promote.

You're wrong about that. Gamers have different reasons to play an MMORPG which I have acknowledged.

Thokan

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc.

But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.

yes and no.

if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.

Thats because you ignore the mechanics in place to counter PKers and the social and emergent gameplay when it comes to PvP.

First, you think youre just gonna log unto one alt and defeat a caravan by yourself? If you do, its on them.

Secondly, why do you ignore there are plenty of ways for the players you attack to counter you? Enemy of the state, War declaration if youre in a guild, or just put on a damned KoS.txt list.

It is not the "integrity" of game design that caravans should not be attacked by whoever is willing.

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

that's the thing. raiding them is raiding them. Just doesn't tarnish your main's reputation as you're doing it on an alt with 0 repercussions especially if no one knows it or a bunch of players are in on it. All characters should be tied together for that server including their citizenship and reputation for specific reasons.

Otherwise, what's the purpose of the whole game design if players can just bypass the games purpose? seems pointless objectively.

Anyways. Said my part about it. No point reiterating to multiple people over and over again that enter the thread.

Too bad the game's purpose is to be able to have different characters, not 5 alts tied to one node and the same gameplay.

You completely ignore the repercussions that are in place.

Otherwise, whats the prupose of the whole game design if players are forced to bypass the games purpose? Seems pointless.

Also, it's more than a little Von Oben to shit on everything, claiming you know better, and not even telling lol. But goodluck not playing the game you hate I guess?

Enigmatic Sage

Thokan wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc.

But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.

yes and no.

if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.

Thats because you ignore the mechanics in place to counter PKers and the social and emergent gameplay when it comes to PvP.

First, you think youre just gonna log unto one alt and defeat a caravan by yourself? If you do, its on them.

Secondly, why do you ignore there are plenty of ways for the players you attack to counter you? Enemy of the state, War declaration if youre in a guild, or just put on a damned KoS.txt list.

It is not the "integrity" of game design that caravans should not be attacked by whoever is willing.

That's definitely an opinion. You're not looking at the bigger picture unfortunately.
Yup.. totally going to solo a caravan.....

Imagine if the game was that poorly "balanced".

Child Item