Ethanh37 wrote: » @Azherae have you watched this vid.https://youtu.be/hzK_EAdCFEU what his point seems to be is that the servers are watching the data at all time, in real time so that if they move a respawn its done with the latest data. this is what I meant when I say that ashes devs better have worked out the wheel. and why I believe ashes to be a new breed of MMO. but we have yet to see any of it play out in a game setting.... Alpha 2 has a lot of expectation riding on it.
Azherae wrote: » Moving just two respawn points near certain PoI could be the equivalent of 'something boosting a single economic sector so that their earnings actually go up, giving the algorithms something to focus on other than this (quite frankly frustrating) period model. Except that Ashes has to consider respawn point locations for every possible configuration of the nodes around the PoI as well, and if we go so far as to have different respawn points lock or unlock based on changes to the node or PoI, it then relies on testing that would take about a week, equivalently
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Moving just two respawn points near certain PoI could be the equivalent of 'something boosting a single economic sector so that their earnings actually go up, giving the algorithms something to focus on other than this (quite frankly frustrating) period model. Except that Ashes has to consider respawn point locations for every possible configuration of the nodes around the PoI as well, and if we go so far as to have different respawn points lock or unlock based on changes to the node or PoI, it then relies on testing that would take about a week, equivalently What if we went backwards? Balance and tune corruption points of the mobs in those locations, based on the pre-established respawn points (the basic ones being "at the location's entrance", "in the geographical center of the node" and "another local PoI chosen by the player beforehand"). The "entrance" point would be the main one to balance around, cause majority of people would want to get back asap. The "geo center" would be for those who're afraid to spawn too close (either cause of potential enemies at the entrance or maybe if friends are coming from that direction). And other poi would be for those who're trying to escape a chaser. I'd imagine the algorithm would have an easier way of tracking "how fast can a person remove corruption vs how fast can a person run from a point to the PKer". Also, the geo center would most likely be the town itself, so that choice would have to have the highest limits/penalties on it, so as to avoid the most obvious abuse of "fast travel with loot". My kneejerk limit/penalty would be "can't use if flagged" and "death penalty gets doubled". Obviously wouldn't directly prevent TPing with loot, but would deter majority of players I think (given that the base death penalty is non-negligible). There's still the obvious party abuse of "we put all loot on one person, feed them to mobs and our loot is safely in town, and we can boost them back up easily afterwards", but I'm not sure if this kind of action is truly avoidable even if the only respawn option is "location entrance". 1-2 extra minutes of travel (and even less if mounted) would still be nothing in the grand scheme of things. This abuse would also be somewhat curbed by bags, though it could be inversely enabled by them if a person can have a ton of bags on them. In other words, this kind of option would probably be the hardest to properly address, if it were in fact an option.
Azherae wrote: » "How fast can a person move from a point to the PKer." This not only should differ by class/archetype, it will be autobiased in data collection because people who do not think they can will not try.
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "How fast can a person move from a point to the PKer." This not only should differ by class/archetype, it will be autobiased in data collection because people who do not think they can will not try. I know this is once again a naïve assumption, but do we even need the victims to run there? We'd just need a median time for "booking it to the end of the dungeon". To me, every other variable is simply a part of the risk/reward equation for the players, rather than a balancing act for the devs. Of course some classes will be faster, but that's just a part of what the players will need to consider when becoming a PKer in any given point of the dungeon or letting the attacker become a PKer in hopes of returning there in time. And median time could be tracked by simply telling testers to run till the end of the dungeon w/o touching mobs. Any aggro mob-related effects could also be ignored, because the dungeon is either full of people and the mobs wouldn't aggro onto the runner or the burden of calculation would be once again on the player. Of course I'm putting a ton of burden on the player here, but considering the context (a PKer and a player who's willing to enact revenge themselves) - I'd imagine the players who'd participate in this activity would be more inclined to consider these things by default, due to how the game will work overall.
NiKr wrote: » When you say this was a common thing, do you mean "every gaming session"? More/less often?
NiKr wrote: » I dunno about the other games you listed, but afaik WoW had "pvp" locations where the chances of the other race seeing you were higher. Are you talking about those places or just "I was minding my business in my own race's location and then a dude started chasing me"?
NiKr wrote: » Cause the former is closer to what I expect in Ashes, while the latter is just the product of having faction-based penalty-less PKing. And while both situations will definitely happen in Ashes, the former will mostly happen in highly contested high value areas, while the latter will be a rare occurrence for any unguilded green player.
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I have 0 interest in player character "guards". Not players and not "guards". I was talking about literal npc-guards.
Dygz wrote: » I have 0 interest in player character "guards".
Dygz wrote: » As I see it, this would be a player-controlled TL-like system. There'll be nodes that are very good for pvers, but the system itself doesn't remove the possibility of being killed at least once. The economic macro-competition is still present in the form of mayoral actions (and any influence on them by other players), node wars/sieges (wars could have a goal of "destroy the guard post in the node", which disables it for several days) and caravan attacks to prevent the Guards from knowing the latest info about PKCH.
Dygz wrote: » And this would also enforce pve-based micro-competition on the spots themselves, while not removing a casual PKing as the last resort. In other words, your enforcer might not be able to PK as much as yall might need, but a random person can still use the system for their benefit. Obviously this doesn't prevent your entire party going corrupt one after the other, but this too would only be doable up to a certain extent.
I feel like this system would be a nice way to have a not-as-gamey application of TL's events.
Azherae wrote: » Dygz often explains the stuff PvE-focused players are thinking, clearly, but as has been noted, is a fairly extreme case. Not the case we're looking for here.
So, as a team lead/developer, this is 'red flag territory' for me because in many similar projects, what I find happens is that some system gets entrenched because no one tore it down, and then everything else's form gets warped around that and the original product you were trying to make doesn't materialize. Then someone gets the job of selling the new, changed product to the customer, by providing all the reasons why it 'is better that way', and just handwaving questions about the entrenched system that caused it. It's like if Intrepid came and told us: "We had to lower the TTK to increase the risk of running Caravans, which are the lifeblood of the world." No, in that example it would actually be 'we don't want to remove Glint because itemization is hard, so we incentivized Caravans using it, creating a Gold Faucet, and now we need to manipulate players so that they don't all just form a continent-spanning trade alliance to print money'. But people would be focused on 'oh well I guess if TTK had to be the compromise for a good game, we should accept it', and the 'real problem' (Caravans, technically Glint) wouldn't get resolved.
NiKr wrote: Over 70 comments while I was asleep
NiKr wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Dygz often explains the stuff PvE-focused players are thinking, clearly, but as has been noted, is a fairly extreme case. Not the case we're looking for here. Yeah, I know It's just one of my pastimes, trying to "throw a ball against the wall" in hopes of finding a design that might finally find a middle that even Dygz could agree to. I know this is a futile exercise, but it's these attempts that lead me to design thoughts that have been already implemented in the games you play (while I myself haven't played or even properly researched them)
Azherae wrote: » Right, but you and I want the same game, like, very very explicitly. And therefore, obviously, since this is how I believe MMO design works, you and I could therefore 'sit down for a week and work out the balance of every single aspect of that game on the whiteboard because we know exactly how each piece is supposed to feel when the game is done'. But big studios don't have that luxury. They have to have roundtables, concepts of their audience, etc. In fact, nearly every larger MMO lately has been built from three or more competing perspectives, then had to be retooled (or just faltered due to not unifying). Save us, Jake Song!
NiKr wrote: » Over 70 comments while I was asleep Azherae, what's your party's opinion would be on smth like this setup? The game tracks account-wide PK Count History (i.e. even if your current count is 0, the game would know that you have 10 PKs overall; and the count itself is not account-wide) Military nodes have access to the PKCH of players that have PKd people in the vicinity of allied nodes Other nodes can request the full PKCH list by sending a Mayoral caravan to get it (requires a full back&forth track to do) PKCH info needs to be retaken every month (could be more often) Guards in nodes operate according to the available PKCH Guard power exists on a sliding scale of "can kill a weak mob" to "literally immortal and hits like a truck" (controlled by the mayor choices) Guards are positioned across the node in predetermined places, with a predetermined patrol route Guards aggro onto mobs that enter a certain radius and onto PKers who enter x2 of that radius Guard-killed targets don't drop loot ("killed" here means "Guard did any dmg to the target") and Guards don't aggro onto bosses After a certain PKCH value Guards aggro onto a flagged player with that value If there's been a PK, Guards over a certain lvl (let's say 3/5 minimum) will go to that location and stay there for a certain amount of time Amount of Guards and the duration of their presence in that location is set by the Mayor (debatable) All of the above don't apply to military nodes themselves As I see it, this would be a player-controlled TL-like system. There'll be nodes that are very good for pvers, but the system itself doesn't remove the possibility of being killed at least once. The economic macro-competition is still present in the form of mayoral actions (and any influence on them by other players), node wars/sieges (wars could have a goal of "destroy the guard post in the node", which disables it for several days) and caravan attacks to prevent the Guards from knowing the latest info about PKCH. And this would also enforce pve-based micro-competition on the spots themselves, while not removing a casual PKing as the last resort. In other words, your enforcer might not be able to PK as much as yall might need, but a random person can still use the system for their benefit. Obviously this doesn't prevent your entire party going corrupt one after the other, but this too would only be doable up to a certain extent. I feel like this system would be a nice way to have a not-as-gamey application of TL's events.
daveywavey wrote: » Blackjack and hookers?! Screw the Fighter Preview, I wanna watch that livestream!
Ethanh37 wrote: » Also this has been a really interesting tread so I'm glad you guys are spending the time talking about these issues... i hope when alpha 2 is out that there will be the same level of discussions.
