Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's not really even about being killed. Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't. Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat. Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals. Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents. does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean. That's called 'bad quest design' though. It applies both ways, I've brought this up to them recently. That Minotaur Stormcaller thing is set up to be miserable in ANY game.
Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's not really even about being killed. Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't. Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat. Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals. Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents. does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.
Dygz wrote: » It's not really even about being killed. Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't. Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat. Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals. Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.
Depraved wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Dygz wrote: » It's not really even about being killed. Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't. Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat. Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals. Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents. does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean. That's called 'bad quest design' though. It applies both ways, I've brought this up to them recently. That Minotaur Stormcaller thing is set up to be miserable in ANY game. how Is that bad quest design? bad or good depends on many factors and what you want with your game.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Otr wrote: » The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely.
blat wrote: » Tbh quest or not the point here is about being in a world where you can't even attack your "enemy". In his example it's about competition for mobs, but it could also be resources, or even enemy factions/nodes/guilds etc. Even if someone absolutely hates PvP, they must agree the rules to prevent it feel very artificial, could even say immersion breaking.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive.
Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design.
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. You do realise the pre-flag suggestion is alongside corruption, yeah? So how would a pre-flag affect that in any way? It wouldn't force anyone to pre-flag, you would go about your day as usual, as a non-combatant, and corruption would do its job for you, as intended.
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV.
Otr wrote: » As I said, it would separate player-base into players who flag themselves and players who don't. That would be a bad thing.
Otr wrote: » The option to flag up in advance helps players who want to feel safer in AoC. Basically I see you pushing the game to become safer for PvE-ers. Is this your intention?
blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised.
Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas.
blat wrote: » ... and it punishes attacks Vs non-combatants
Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. We do not agree. I want the risk part too. Players who flag themselves get the additional agency to do that. The game does not want to give that option in advance. If you have anything to gain by flagging yourself up in advance you should not get it. Also it causes an effect on the entire population behavior, an effect which is detrimental to the game.
Depraved wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » blat wrote: » Otr wrote: » I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk. I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers. Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". There are more aspects to consider. If the attackers want to eliminate fast somebody even accepting the corruption consequences, then they have something to gain. I see no reason for the attacked player to want to protect them from the corruption. Another aspect is the emotional response. If the killing happens too fast, the player goes from being alive to being dead too fast. Emotions are stronger when the player has time to realize the danger and think if should flag or not, if the attacker will kill him or not etc If the player has the option on his side to chose to be flagged, it made already a decision and eliminates the stage where has to consider different scenarios. The entire player base will be divided into players who always pre-flag themselves and who do not, becoming a known fact of what they want and forcing IS to take such a thing into consideration when they balance, if they can balance anything. The game wants to offer risk even though some players hate it. So your suggestions complicates the intended effect of the flagging system. The corruption eventually wants to deter repeated ganking, not to eliminate it completely. So if one side wants to kill fast a player for whatever reason and accepts the corruption consequences, let it be their decision. Well this all comes back to: Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP? Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment". Disincentivize yes, but not to eliminate completely because risk and the associated emotional reaction must exist. Wiki says: Players will gank other players, but the intention is for Ashes of Creation to not be a "gank box".[52] The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17] How will it be balanced remains to be seen. Yeah I get it remains to be seen. We're on a discussion forum. Ok so we agree corruption's entire purpose is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP. My suggestion of some type of pre-flag is for a certain type of player to pre-consent to PvP. So that would not affect anyone else at all, would it? If you don't opt-in, cool, the corruption system will continue as-is. IE: your potential attackers will continue to be disincentivised. corruption isn't to disincentivize non consensual pvp (also you consent by logging into the game, but lets assume you don't or arent in the mood, etc), corruption is there to disincentivize some forms of griefing. also to prevent anyone to just go to low level areas and mass murder people who have no chance of fighting back, plus a few other things here and there.
blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » blat wrote: » Azherae wrote: » I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive. Ok cool. Azherae wrote: » but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design. And this is where those coming from PvP environments would disagree. Not that it's a necessary part of MMORPG design, but that it is a fundamental part of wpvp. This is one of the ways wpvp differentiates itself from arena/duel PvP. Where factors like opportunity, preparedness, reading of situations etc comes into play. Not saying any type of PvP, or any view is better or worse here. Just saying, that's the PoV. I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs. I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption. I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers. So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas. Ah magic. We're def getting somewhere. On this point: "I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs." We agree this is an MMO with wpvp though, yeah? (I think this is one of those areas that you agree with just don't like, right? If so fair enough). So personal taste aside a sec.. we agree that things like "getting the jump", opportunity, preparedness etc are fundamental parts of wpvp. And that Ashes is a game with wpvp. And we also agree about the purpose of corruption (deter non-consensual PvP). And we agree that it doesn't do a great job specifically in the scenario we outlined, between two consensual PvPers (who are familiar with and enjoy an always-on PvP environment). So.. where is the issue with adding such a pre-flag option? It's the exact same system, just making it easier for the PvPers to blow each other up.
