Living as a red player

Hi there,

I know the game is a lot wider in scope than PvP. However I always enjoyed PvP in any game, especially if there is a risk/reward factor involved. Not just killing each other over and over again and the only punishment being waiting a few seconds to be able to respawn.
Hence I always gravitate towards mmo’s with the light or heavy focus on PvP.

This game has a PvX philosophy. From reading I gather the punishment/reward for becoming red currently I dont think PvP will be frequent outside of event.
Do you think if chosen, a red path, will it actually be viable? Can I live somewhere?
Should it even be viable?
Personally for me PvP and actually trying to be better than most people is a big driving factor for me to play games. I get competitive. Personally I hope that towards the end game red playstyle will be a viable option. Where you and your friends can become elite red bandits that live for the thrill of a good fight.

I also know there are other games that cater more towards this ‘need’ or ‘playstyle’
But just wanted to hear what other people think.
I mostly read negative or adverse opinions towards PvP in this community. While I personally would advocate for more of it.

Thanks

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Taleof2Cities

Serukka wrote: »

Why do you have this opinion?

In addition to the reply above, repeated PK'ing or ganking results in griefing. The Wiki has a good read on this (see below).

Going red once, twice, or thrice for some valuable loot? Totally fine.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:Griefing

Ludullu

Serukka wrote: »

Why do you have this opinion?

Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.

I want those weakest players to still have a way to win against a stronger opponent, but I do not want those actions to spread outside of that interaction w/o ever-increasing penalties for the PKer, because I don't want this weakling to make people's lives worse.

Aszkalon

Serukka wrote: »

Living as a red player

I think it will not be profitable in any Area where many Bounter Hunters are around, if you understand what i mean.

Sure - You can occasionally murderhobo* someone and steal Ressources from them, if they are Competition in Ressource gathering.

But then it is on. People can kill You without Punishment if You are corrupted. Run -> and try to escape long enough until you can enter your Node again to store in the stolen Ressources.

Serukka

Ludullu wrote: »

Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.

As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.

But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.

Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.

Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.

Serukka

Aszkalon wrote: »

Serukka wrote: »

Living as a red player

I think it will not be profitable in any Area where many Bounter Hunters are around, if you understand what i mean.

Sure - You can occasionally murderhobo* someone and steal Ressources from them, if they are Competition in Ressource gathering.

But then it is on. People can kill You without Punishment if You are corrupted. Run -> and try to escape long enough until you can enter your Node again to store in the stolen Ressources.

From what i gather so far from wiki and posts here.
What you described is a choice you make when red and kinda why you do it. Exactly for those reasons.
The main reason its not viable is the stat dampening. Making you weaker against players and mobs, increasingly over each consecutive kill.

Ludullu

Serukka wrote: »

But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.

Singular PKs are not griefing, which is why I said that I support players having those PKs as the last resort. And Steven supports that too, which is why the design allows people to murder someone.

Serukka wrote: »

Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.

Defending against a flagged person (and the to-be-PKer would be purple instead of red) means opening up yourself to other pvpers, because you'd become purple as well. And some people do not want to open themselves up to pvp every time someone attacks them.

But yes, once someone is Red - they're a ffa kill, which is why I'm sure greens will try and kill them if they see them.

Serukka wrote: »

I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.

I also always fight back when attacked and I like pvp overall. And I've been a PKer countless times. But none of that removes the fact that PKing is literally the way of the weakest players. PKing someone means that you couldn't do ANYTHING ELSE to win against that target and had to then stoop down to attacking them while they do nothing in return.

Hitting trees will most likely require more skill (especially in high lvl locations) than PKing someone.

Serukka wrote: »

Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.

If you want to play this way - you still can. You'll just have to reduce your PK count after every single kill, so that you do not get the amounts of corruption that would dampen your stats.

But outside of that, PK playstyle is not intended because it literally means "a player is murdering passive players and can keep going on like this w/o any problems". Steven implemented this change to the L2's pvp system exactly because he disliked that in L2 someone could be a permanent PKer and just go around slaughtering newbies for free.

Ludullu

Serukka wrote: »

Making you weaker against players and mobs, increasingly over each consecutive kill.

Corruption-based stat dampening only affects pvp, not pve. Nor does that dampening apply against Bounty Hunters.

Serukka

Ludullu wrote: »

Serukka wrote: »

Making you weaker against players and mobs, increasingly over each consecutive kill.

Corruption-based stat dampening only affects pvp, not pve. Nor does that dampening apply against Bounty Hunters.

Very good information thanks

Otr

CROW3 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.

Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...

Was a thread about permanent purple state.
Would be similar to a node or guild declaring war to everyone else and being able to maintain that.
Large guilds split into many small ones can maybe maintain war state with a specific small guild.

The permanent flagged state will exist in the deep ocean and people can be pirates there.

ariatras

I’ve been thinking about the risks with the open-world PvP and corruption system Ashes of Creation is planning, and I wanted to throw an idea out there: what if the devs created a “ripcord” basically, a backup plan in case the current PvP system becomes too polarizing or problematic?

Here's why I think this could be a good move:

Preventing Player Frustration: While the PvP system sounds great on paper, we all know how things can go once a game goes live. If forced PvP leads to griefing or turns off a chunk of the player base, a ripcord could give the devs a way to scale things back without losing players. For example, adding more consensual PvP options or safe zones could help keep both PvP and PvE players happy.

Listening to Feedback: No matter how much testing they do, player feedback will be crucial once the game is out. If the PvP system doesn’t hit the right balance, having a fallback plan shows that the devs are prepared to adapt based on how the community reacts. It could be as simple as tweaking corruption penalties or adding features that make PvP less invasive for players who aren’t interested in it.

Keeping the Game Inclusive: I love the ambitious PvP ideas, but I also know Ashes is attracting both PvP and PvE players. If things lean too heavily into forced PvP, it could push away those who prefer a more PvE-oriented experience. A ripcord could help the devs pivot if needed, so the game doesn’t become too niche and alienate a part of its player base.

Avoiding Long-Term Issues: If forced PvP doesn’t work out and they don’t have a plan in place, it could damage the game’s reputation in the long run. Having a ripcord ready to go would give the devs the ability to quickly adjust and preserve the health of the game before things get too far out of hand.

It seems like having this kind of fallback option could be a smart, proactive move. What do you all think? Better to have it in the toolbox in case the current system doesn’t hit the right balance, right?

Otr

ariatras wrote: »

I’ve been thinking about the risks with the open-world PvP and corruption system Ashes of Creation is planning, and I wanted to throw an idea out there: what if the devs created a “ripcord” basically, a backup plan in case the current PvP system becomes too polarizing or problematic?
...
What do you all think? Better to have it in the toolbox in case the current system doesn’t hit the right balance, right?

I think they have a lot of freedom to balance things.
For example they can make it so that if you become red, the very first corruption penalty will already reduce your output damage to 1%. Then nobody will PvP.
And loot tables can also be changed to make drops in metro dungeons more valuable, to a point that the deep ocean is just an alternate option for whoever enjoys being there.

Alpha 2 will show what the majority wants just by what they do if they login.

koltovince

CROW3 wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.

Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...

The BH system on some levels doesnt make sense. They are designed to be able to track red players, but they are a purple state combatant who will not affect the corruption level of a red or have the stat reduction, making it actively worse to punish a corrupted player than the average green. Then you consider this feature is supposed to match teleportation points, auction houses, or a grand PvX crypt. Feels like it was an idea before every other node got fleshed out.

CROW3

koltovince wrote: »

The BH system on some levels doesnt make sense. They are designed to be able to track red players, but they are a purple state combatant who will not affect the corruption level of a red or have the stat reduction, making it actively worse to punish a corrupted player than the average green. Then you consider this feature is supposed to match teleportation points, auction houses, or a grand PvX crypt. Feels like it was an idea before every other node got fleshed out.

Certainly seems that way. I'm confident that the BH system will go through some major iterations as the corruption system finds its sea legs, but I'm guessing it's fairly far down the backlog ranking (relative to critical, core functions).

I think the high-level idea is still solid: Wouldn't it be cool if players - that may be node-agnostic - be rewarded for hunting down villainous players that are causing trouble for a node & its citizens?

I'm guessing the details are going to flail until the underpinning systems are nailed down and calibrated.

Dolyem

Serukka wrote: »

Ludullu wrote: »

Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.

As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.

But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.

Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.

Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.

PKs arent bad. Corruption is designed for deterring griefing. And as Steven defines it, griefing is intentionally causing negative gameplay for another player. So if you are Pking to maintain control over a resource or even just want to smack someone for a quick loot, those arent griefing.
That being said, there are aspects of corruption design that punish both PKing and griefing as if they are the same thing. Which I believe will negatively impact Open World PvP.
But in your case, corruption itself shouldnt be your goal of what to maintain. Corruption is designed to need to be removed ASAP. Your playstyle of PKing/ganking/even potentially griefing constantly is either going to be extremely hardcore, or outright impossible. The upkeep of removing corruption and gaining it over and over will likely prevent you from ever actually progressing your character in any other aspects, which in turn would also make you weaker than other players from lack of gear and resources alone.

Serukka

Dolyem wrote: »

Serukka wrote: »

Ludullu wrote: »

Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.

As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.

But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.

Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.

Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.

PKs arent bad. Corruption is designed for deterring griefing. And as Steven defines it, griefing is intentionally causing negative gameplay for another player. So if you are Pking to maintain control over a resource or even just want to smack someone for a quick loot, those arent griefing.
That being said, there are aspects of corruption design that punish both PKing and griefing as if they are the same thing. Which I believe will negatively impact Open World PvP.
But in your case, corruption itself shouldnt be your goal of what to maintain. Corruption is designed to need to be removed ASAP. Your playstyle of PKing/ganking/even potentially griefing constantly is either going to be extremely hardcore, or outright impossible. The upkeep of removing corruption and gaining it over and over will likely prevent you from ever actually progressing your character in any other aspects, which in turn would also make you weaker than other players from lack of gear and resources alone.

Yeah,
After reading everyone’s thoughts and input I understand the system intention at least.
I even agree with it.
Being red in other games usually be tied to a playstyle. Ashes uses the ‘red’ system to deter griefing but has other ways to entertain a more pvp focussed antagonist playstyle.

For my part this thread can close.

Appreciate everyone mostly cordial input.

Depraved

Podgnil wrote: »

[quote=

balance > rp

Depraved wrote: »

Podgnil wrote: »

As for me, the system with corruption is the most controversial decision of the developers. It looks like the hand of God meddling into the affairs of mortals, as if it is not the game that punishes you for your transgressions, not the laws of the world, but the developers themselves. Yes, griefing should be punishable, bounties on heads, increased fines for death - yes. forced reduction of characteristics - no.
Why? Why should killing my victim, a merchant, a grender, an adventurer, make me weaker? I'm a criminal, not a weakling.
I think griefers should be a problem of a node, in whose jurisdiction the land on which the crime is being committed is located. In this node of measures from the budget, the node must assign a reward for the heads of griefers, thereby ensuring security and attracting honest artisans to their lands. Those nodes that skimp on security will create lawlessness around themselves and gather a certain contingent, and this is normal. kind of a pirate bay)

balance > rp

I think the best way is when RP=BALANCE. Again, balance for whom? for collectors? for griefers? for adventurers? A very subjective concept. Here is an example of games that put balance at the forefront. Modern WoW - everything for everyone - Healing for wars and rogs, invisibility in half of the classes, they gave literally everything to everyone - for balance. But the classic version, in which there is no balance, but is based primarily on the RP, plays much more interestingly, immerses you in the world more. And is it really a balance when a developer underestimates the characteristics of your character? It looks more like a patch on the balance sheet.[/quote]

no. balance > rp. you can have immersive and balanced games without the rp/acting part.
balance isn't subjective. balance is I don't press 1 and 1 shot you, or you don't press e and gather 3000 flowers at once. everything for everyone doesn't mean balance.

Depraved

Serukka wrote: »

Githal wrote: »

The design behind the corruption is that you get reward from killing a green guy that you know he has a lot materials for example which you can steal. and the risk is becoming red.
It is not designed to live as a red player. There is no reward in staying red all the time. Staying red is the risk.

Losing your gear, harsher death punishment i agree with it all.
Do you agree however that you also should be nerfed combat wise?

I feel like that is a bit lame.

this is to avoid abuse with pk alts. killing one person wont probs nerf you to the point you cant kill someone your level. but killing a lowbie will, or multiple people your own level.

daveywavey

Serukka wrote: »

Seems everyone does agree that the stat dampening is a bit iffy and that red playstyle should be viable.

Lol, it's like you've not even read the thread or any of the other similar ones.

ShivaFang

'Red life' Probably won't work. Remember you can't trade or access storage while red, so to have any meaningful play you'll have to be working off your corruption constantly.

For the 'Outlaw' style gameplay, you are better off focusing on caravan raids and naval combat - both of which are open pvp 'outlaw' raiding modes that do not incur corruption.

Slipree

Serukka wrote: »

Hi there,

I know the game is a lot wider in scope than PvP. However I always enjoyed PvP in any game, especially if there is a risk/reward factor involved. Not just killing each other over and over again and the only punishment being waiting a few seconds to be able to respawn.
Hence I always gravitate towards mmo’s with the light or heavy focus on PvP.

This game has a PvX philosophy. From reading I gather the punishment/reward for becoming red currently I dont think PvP will be frequent outside of event.
Do you think if chosen, a red path, will it actually be viable? Can I live somewhere?
Should it even be viable?
Personally for me PvP and actually trying to be better than most people is a big driving factor for me to play games. I get competitive. Personally I hope that towards the end game red playstyle will be a viable option. Where you and your friends can become elite red bandits that live for the thrill of a good fight.

I also know there are other games that cater more towards this ‘need’ or ‘playstyle’
But just wanted to hear what other people think.
I mostly read negative or adverse opinions towards PvP in this community. While I personally would advocate for more of it.

Thanks

i just started checking out the forums/bought alpha 2 myself, and I have noticed the same. For a game that promotes pvp, it seems a lot of the player base is not about that life. At least that is the impression i get from the forums. there are some who argue in our favor, but most do not. seems a pretty big disconnect. most are asking the devs to change arbitrary things to fit whatever flavor, or larp they are going for.

for example, if you are red, and are attacked by a green player, they do not flag to you and to defend yourself you take more punishment. Also any CC will not work on that green player.

this does the opposite of promote open world pvp. it is not how a pvx game should operate imo.

you wont be able to trade i hear as well....not sure if thats an in game mechanic or not, but if you are in a clan and your clan cannot even trade you, seems silly at best. what if your whole clan wanted to be red?

seems this is care bear light to me.

Child Item