Towns need to be combat free

After a wave of guild war and node wars over the holidays it should now be self evident that combat in towns (village or high nodes) is never going to be a viable part of gameplay and that towns should be rendered a non-combat zone for all members of wars with the possible acception of a node siege war, which we have yet to see any implementation of.

The main reason pvp in town will never be good is because it will always be AFK bottom feeding, because towns by their nature are where people are performing the slow and tedious processing of materials, and or have their heads stuck into the games many shopping, storage, inventory, NPC etc menus and UI's. All of this town activity together constitutes a guaranteed place where players will be sitting ducks, and thus anyone engaging them is simply taking kills without comenserate risk or even a shred of sportsmanship for that matter.

Even if the more obvous exploits on guid/node wars are fixed, such as not being instant, no warning starts. Or being a grotequely simplistic and obvously griefer incentivized 'gank counter' based (and instead become some objective based system). We would still have the general pvp permission between opposing sides which would allow ganking in town so that needs to be explicityly prevented by changing the rules. That change could be just letting the guards stop all pvp flagged players or it could be preventing flagging itself within town boundries.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Songcaller wrote: »

eyawn wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Yeah it is constructive. Because you have the corruption system. Node war and guild war is a pvp system. If pvp system going pvx then corruption system should be pvx with less pvp punishment. Can't have everything your way.

can't have everything my way? what the hell are you even talking about? get your head out of your rear end, and start making sense.

what does xp debt mean, if you don't need it? nothing. so your bs about corruption is useless, as it is rendered moot.

all I said is that the safe zone should be tied to node progression, in an economic node.

Listen mate. I have had a 40 page argument with Noaani.

I bet you thought it was a pointless argument at the time.

Now it's the highlight of your forum resume!

nanfoodle

Songcaller wrote: »

Wow. PvE crowd has some how overtaken all the pvx and pvp veterans.

There 100% needs to be safe areas not zones. IMO banks and crafting stations. Also starting areas IMO. FFA is really not what the PvX gane is about.

Azherae

I don't agree that towns need to be combat free.

I think that changing it so that it's more like a 'raid' by making it so that any player who attacks another in a town and then gets killed but not rezd, respawns in their Home-Citizenship Node, at a specific Freehold, or in Lionhold, is good enough.

Strongish guards is also good, ofc, but if we somehow don't want Guards to defend the Node itself during a Node War, then at least give players the 'home turf bonus' and send the marauding hordes all the way back across the map to make it more like 'you actually died in battle' and not 'you were mildly inconvenienced catching back up with your army currently pillaging Winstead'.

Sathrago

Let players have a place to rest and not be stressed in the game. If this is allowed for long, people will find ways to abuse this. For instance, crafters and people using their banks. All you need to do is find people selling items then get one person with shoddy gear on a ranger to blast the guy you are trading with. Boom, he goes red, you kill the ranger and get a large amount of materials for free.

You do the same waiting at crafting/processing benches in town and blast them while they are at the bench. it doesnt matter how good they think their guards are, unless guards teleport to the person the second damage is done and instantly kill them, this is what will happen in towns. And if guards DO teleport/oneshot.... Why the F should we have them in the first place? just make it a combat free zone at that point.

eyawn

Songcaller wrote: »

eyawn wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Yeah it is constructive. Because you have the corruption system. Node war and guild war is a pvp system. If pvp system going pvx then corruption system should be pvx with less pvp punishment. Can't have everything your way.

can't have everything my way? what the hell are you even talking about? get your head out of your rear end, and start making sense.

what does xp debt mean, if you don't need it? nothing. so your bs about corruption is useless, as it is rendered moot.

all I said is that the safe zone should be tied to node progression, in an economic node.

Listen mate. I have had a 40 page argument with Noaani. I have never met you before but opening with insults get no actual results. Furthermore, what makes an economic node require an immunity bubble? Do you have Hogwarts besieged by death eaters? Perhaps you think fat merchants would have a safe house at home so in game it means immunity? Either way, no immunity was given for streamers and no immunity will be given fir 1/5th of the combat nodes.

loads, trade routes are protected in real life. trade should be protected in verra. it isn't rocket science. (factual)

it's a video game, the same thing that brings you back to life (which is why it is funny that you want a story line for trade merchants, for realism lol) has been found by a trade merchants, which is located in merchant towns. boom there's your story line you can build off of. it isn't rocket science here.

the game tells you to go into menus, so what? clowns can kill people actually trying to play the game. gank boxes always fail, you know it, i know it, we all know it. when your told to go into a menu and buy something, and are told to be left in a weak position. the game will turn into a gank box inevitably, and player count will dwindle. it will happen in this game just like it has in every game that does this type of markets.

players like your self, just can't help taking advantage of weaker players. so punishments need to be way harsher (like actual level loss), or safe zones need to be implemented, to prevent clowns ruining the game. (it already happened with asmoundgold trying to play the game for the 1st time and everyone kills him, clowns just can't help themselves)

it isn't me who thinks this. mister market is way stronger than your opinion.

personally, don't care about your long winded arguments. 40 pages to try and prove a point doesn't mean you win lol.

eyawn

Noaani wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

eyawn wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Yeah it is constructive. Because you have the corruption system. Node war and guild war is a pvp system. If pvp system going pvx then corruption system should be pvx with less pvp punishment. Can't have everything your way.

can't have everything my way? what the hell are you even talking about? get your head out of your rear end, and start making sense.

what does xp debt mean, if you don't need it? nothing. so your bs about corruption is useless, as it is rendered moot.

all I said is that the safe zone should be tied to node progression, in an economic node.

Listen mate. I have had a 40 page argument with Noaani.

I bet you thought it was a pointless argument at the time.

Now it's the highlight of your forum resume!

ahaha I didn't know what to think. am I to be impressed that it took him 40 pages to prove his point? to me that just shows he's stubborn.

Songcaller

eyawn wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

eyawn wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Yeah it is constructive. Because you have the corruption system. Node war and guild war is a pvp system. If pvp system going pvx then corruption system should be pvx with less pvp punishment. Can't have everything your way.

can't have everything my way? what the hell are you even talking about? get your head out of your rear end, and start making sense.

what does xp debt mean, if you don't need it? nothing. so your bs about corruption is useless, as it is rendered moot.

all I said is that the safe zone should be tied to node progression, in an economic node.

Listen mate. I have had a 40 page argument with Noaani. I have never met you before but opening with insults get no actual results. Furthermore, what makes an economic node require an immunity bubble? Do you have Hogwarts besieged by death eaters? Perhaps you think fat merchants would have a safe house at home so in game it means immunity? Either way, no immunity was given for streamers and no immunity will be given fir 1/5th of the combat nodes.

loads, trade routes are protected in real life. trade should be protected in verra. it isn't rocket science. (factual)

it's a video game, the same thing that brings you back to life (which is why it is funny that you want a story line for trade merchants, for realism lol) has been found by a trade merchants, which is located in merchant towns. boom there's your story line you can build off of. it isn't rocket science here.

the game tells you to go into menus, so what? clowns can kill people actually trying to play the game. gank boxes always fail, you know it, i know it, we all know it. when your told to go into a menu and buy something, and are told to be left in a weak position. the game will turn into a gank box inevitably, and player count will dwindle. it will happen in this game just like it has in every game that does this type of markets.

players like your self, just can't help taking advantage of weaker players. so punishments need to be way harsher (like actual level loss), or safe zones need to be implemented, to prevent clowns ruining the game. (it already happened with asmoundgold trying to play the game for the 1st time and everyone kills him, clowns just can't help themselves)

it isn't me who thinks this. mister market is way stronger than your opinion.

personally, don't care about your long winded arguments. 40 pages to try and prove a point doesn't mean you win lol.

Hmm. For someone unfamiliar with any solid facts you can't hold water. The issue is not 'players like me' the issue is 'consumers like you'. Asmongold is an absolute joke and the fact you are a fan trying to change the whole game concepts yet again from the scarlet pimpernel knowm as the balding warrior. I do not need to waste time in explaining that fair play in competition is vital. Unless you want no ability to declare Guild war and no ability to declare node war all because you need to be wrapped in cotton wool.

eyawn

so, proof of ganking. your response is...... insults. not even a constructive criticism.

now you are adding in something, that is player driven like a node war. then hell yeah!! all protections drop between warring factions and have at it!! there's no stopping wars. but that's not every minute of every day. so that's not what is being talked about. but nice try.

Songcaller

Wow. Your suggestion is absolutely stunning. Your not getting immunity. I did not purchase Intrepid to have every aspect directed by non CEO. You have protection on Freehold. You do not need protection in town. If you do need protection use the gold sinks and hire other players to watch while you craft. I have no time to waste going in circles when I have already stated no immunity for streamers. No immunity for crafters/merchants. Freehold is fair game for anyone. Not just economic. Furthermore, Science is the place to be for crafting. The whole concept of ganking is coveted by corruption. I personally detest half of the safety net systems already so if you think I will approve further movement into safety net systems just so a streamer and some interloper can feel connected to. You clearly feel heard. 💋

Glir

eyawn wrote: »

Lineager wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Wow. PvE crowd has some how overtaken all the pvx and pvp veterans.

This is my biggest fear in Ashes. That the PVE audience will put pressure on Intrepid and demand that PVP content be cut. But I think the Intrepids will endure all this.

lol you really think that's how it works? lol you think there's mobs of people writing letters to the studio? Who even writes letters now a days!

it isn't that at all. it is player count. games change when no one is playing them, but devs still work for the company.

take for instance this game. by the time the game launches. there is a real fear, that the people who talk like you will be the only ones left. which won't be enough to pay the bills. then what? turn off the servers? or adapt the game to bring in a new audience in. usually the last one wins. it has 0 to do with "pvp" and "pvx" crowd. some games goto pay to win. some games try, most games die.

game is good, but it will fail with how the market is setup. supply/demand will be it's downfall. which is why it is too funny, when people like to see the supply get hurt more due to pvp... it is what it is...

I don't mind good PVE. I'm for crafting, good economy. I would also like there to be content for solo players.

But I am against the fact that open world pvp, sieges, open pvp at sea suffer under the cry of pve players. I don’t understand at all why people come to this game knowing in advance what it’s about and what games inspired this game.
But as I said above, I’m also for solo content for players, high-level PVE content as crafting, gearing and economy. And not a purely pvp game, where there is zero PVE.

eyawn

Lineager wrote: »

eyawn wrote: »

Lineager wrote: »

Songcaller wrote: »

Wow. PvE crowd has some how overtaken all the pvx and pvp veterans.

This is my biggest fear in Ashes. That the PVE audience will put pressure on Intrepid and demand that PVP content be cut. But I think the Intrepids will endure all this.

lol you really think that's how it works? lol you think there's mobs of people writing letters to the studio? Who even writes letters now a days!

it isn't that at all. it is player count. games change when no one is playing them, but devs still work for the company.

take for instance this game. by the time the game launches. there is a real fear, that the people who talk like you will be the only ones left. which won't be enough to pay the bills. then what? turn off the servers? or adapt the game to bring in a new audience in. usually the last one wins. it has 0 to do with "pvp" and "pvx" crowd. some games goto pay to win. some games try, most games die.

game is good, but it will fail with how the market is setup. supply/demand will be it's downfall. which is why it is too funny, when people like to see the supply get hurt more due to pvp... it is what it is...

I don't mind good PVE. I'm for crafting, good economy. I would also like there to be content for solo players.

But I am against the fact that open world pvp, sieges, open pvp at sea suffer under the cry of pve players. I don’t understand at all why people come to this game knowing in advance what it’s about and what games inspired this game.
But as I said above, I’m also for solo content for players, high-level PVE content as crafting, gearing and economy. And not a purely pvp game, where there is zero PVE.

for me, this isn't about PvE. it is simple economic principals, that verra will fall under.

each market is separated, so each market better have a lot of money flowing around it. or it will suffer deflation. personally, that's when I get my gear as it is peanuts then. but that drives away players, thus making the situation worse.

they have a way to keep the economy a float. but people who think pvp is everything, don't realize that if they don't buy up everything on the market all the time, there won't be enough people playing to keep the prices up. then legendary gear for silver!!! lol that's the outcome if the velocity of coin isn't spread around. this is simple econ 101

that's why an economic safe zone that's allowed to be earned in economic states.. makes perfect sense. heck you can even have it as a totem that other nodes want.

but to have lawless 100% of the time, will kill the game. take that to the seas if ya wanna be a turd. IMO.

Songcaller

How does it equate to deflation? Are you a programmed AI that crafts and sells irrespective of market forces? Another reason why I will not adopt your request.

eyawn

Songcaller wrote: »

How does it equate to deflation? Are you a programmed AI that crafts and sells irrespective of market forces? Another reason why I will not adopt your request.

youd be the one who can't figure it out. typical.

start by looking up, what velocity of money is. and how it applies to prices. then come back. we can have an adult conversation.

Songcaller

Buy a Bank and come back at me bro. I run real national economies.

eyawn

Songcaller wrote: »

Buy a Bank and come back at me bro. I run real national economies.

and this is why all the empires died. now that mentality is being brought to verra.. kiss your game good buy with that attitude.

Songcaller

You are a funny breed of competitive player. No ounce of competition at all. Just an entitled sense of a miniscule portion on YouTube under a pve player who runs around Pillars in wow instead of 1v1ing, trying to mess up a game set in stone due to kick-start which I cannot and will not change. Cheers ears. 🍻

eyawn

Songcaller wrote: »

You are a funny breed of competitive player. No ounce of competition at all. Just an entitled sense of a miniscule portion on YouTube under a pve player who runs around Pillars in wow instead of 1v1ing, trying to mess up a game set in stone due to kick-start which I cannot and will not change. Cheers ears. 🍻

lol I don't even like wow.

I'm not messing anything up.

this attitude will bring pay to win into the game. not me, I'm pointing out the obvious.

which they said wouldn't happen, I know. but with ignorant players like yourself, they won't have a choice. keep it up buttercup, it is your game to lose.

Songcaller

I don't play wow either your defence was 'Asmongold getting ganged all over'. Natural repercussion for someone who has the highest rated battleground rewards after being carried by two actual nutty pvp players in a duo for some 20 years. If you think I want a flash pan of a player who can't check surroundings, isn't aware crofters are seen as threats on all sides and furthermore your belief that deflation will happen. I have two MMOs under development. One is vendor prices. Ashes should be the same. Yet, once stated to be no drops and only crafting, now slated to be drop efficient and crafting deficient. Also now having a massive hissy fit because the same crafters who will be paid GOLD rather than certificates are complaining of death penalties which never touch actual GOLD. 😳

eyawn

Songcaller wrote: »

I don't play wow either your defence was 'Asmongold getting ganged all over'. Natural repercussion for someone who has the highest rated battleground rewards after being carried by two actual nutty pvp players in a duo for some 20 years. If you think I want a flash pan of a player who can't check surroundings, isn't aware crofters are seen as threats on all sides and furthermore your belief that deflation will happen. I have two MMOs under development. One is vendor prices. Ashes should be the same. Yet, once stated to be no drops and only crafting, now slated to be drop efficient and crafting deficient. Also now having a massive hissy fit because the same crafters who will be paid GOLD rather than certificates are complaining of death penalties which never touch actual GOLD. 😳

the example was to show, ganking is a bad thing in verra.

I'm not bothered how people get paid.

it isn't my "belief" that deflation might happen. it will. constant supply from gathering, gold only flowing to the top guilds. it is a definite deflationary scenario.

unless the mega guilds go around and just buy up every market (this isn't realistic) just to keep the markets up.

I'm trying to illustrate that there is 0 penalty for ganking level 1 people, even if it's asmoundgold or not.

just think, you could have a large guild sitting at lionhold killing everyone that doesn't join their guild.... this is allowed with the game, but imagine being a new player logging in and finding that, you'd leave and never come back to the game. (deflationary, lack of demand)

that is almost what we have now, just not to that extreme yet.

the death penalty, it should be more like a level loss to max level. they should know better not to punch down and hit low levels. if they want that, than bam, they can go back to that level.

this approach would have made asmongold not complain. and more caravans become successful, which drives more gold into the economy. (more gold & more players)

it is a win win... but still clowns think this takes away from pvp.. it doesn't you can still be a bitch and gank people, it just means you will be back to level 1. it would make people think twice.

and it would be awesome to see low levels all going after a caravan, while it tries to make it to the location, seeing that the other way around is .... gross at best.

it will turn into gta, but no shark cards....

but maybe that's what these gankers want. something like shark cards, that would help save the current trajectory.

Songcaller

Yes, I understand exactly what you mean. I have railed against vertical levelling full stop. It takes like 2 months to level. If everyone loses a level for going red there will be no world pvp. Which I think is the entire aim of all of the immunity and protection calls when faced with the pvp systems. I've seen the slide in every mmo except crowfall and crowfall population was not enough for sustenance. You seem quite happy to fuzz up another's game play even though you have experience of having a fuzzed up experience but then all the people will have issues. You may not play WoW but what exactly does thou play?

Child Item