Otr wrote: » Hailee wrote: » Otr wrote: » They might get upset, hunt you down and kill you with a special finisher animation to punish you, when you are corrupt Don't underestimate their rage. Those bounty hunters are crazy berserkers. That's exactly how I want the game to be. To have conflict, risk, changes and multiple good and bad interactions driven by player action. Sounds like a good time. Reading the wikihttps://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death I see A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant So there is an incentive to fight back instead of just letting the other player become corrupt. I am very curious how things will work out. Probably if the PvE player will let himself die, the other loots him but will also curse a little and run away. Bounty hunters will not see the lightly cursed players, which is OK. Will be an interesting game No matter how this is balanced, PvE players will not be happy.
Hailee wrote: » Otr wrote: » They might get upset, hunt you down and kill you with a special finisher animation to punish you, when you are corrupt Don't underestimate their rage. Those bounty hunters are crazy berserkers. That's exactly how I want the game to be. To have conflict, risk, changes and multiple good and bad interactions driven by player action. Sounds like a good time.
Otr wrote: » They might get upset, hunt you down and kill you with a special finisher animation to punish you, when you are corrupt Don't underestimate their rage. Those bounty hunters are crazy berserkers.
A non-combatant (green player) who dies suffers normal penalties A combatant (purple player) who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant
Norkore wrote: » Holy shit I almost got giga baited.
Dygz wrote: » Yes. They exist. Pizza without sauce is more popular.
Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP.
Marcet wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP. Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name.
Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP. Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name. Which by the way should be changed.
Marcet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP. Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name. Which by the way should be changed. You're goddamn right it should.
Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP. Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name. Which by the way should be changed. You're goddamn right it should. And now we have to wait someone who disagree from bottom of his/her heart and here we go.
Dygz wrote: » Um. Caravan runs are an activity people can do to satisfy their PvP itch for the day. If they can find a Mayoral or [Node] Quest caravan. Of course, satisfying a PvP itch for the day depends on how casual or hardcore the individual is with regard to PvP combat. I don't know that anyone outright called it PvE content. Again, what SirChancelot said several times is that even on a "PvE server", PvP would still occur for battlegrounds, like caravan runs. We tend to generalize caravan runs as a type of PvP battlegrounds. Especially Mayoral and [Node] Quest caravans. But, if no players attack the caravan - and no PvP combat occurs - that's PvE.
Dygz wrote: » Running the caravan is PvE. Attacking and defending the caravan is PvP. If no one attacks the caravan, it's just PvE.
Sengarden wrote: » I sincerely disagree that if you don't get attacked on your caravan run that it's suddenly PvE content.
Sengarden wrote: » Say I gave you a sword and a highly valuable package, and told you that if you and my two buddies could make it to the post office on foot with the package intact that I'd give you $5k, but that literally anyone outside our neighborhood could drive up, take you out, and steal the package. Think you'd be a bit anxious on the way over there? Think you'd start to sweat a bit thinking about what might happen, constantly looking over your shoulder for unfamiliar faces? Think the threat of combat would get your adrenaline running? Regardless of whether anyone actually came to attack you?
Sengarden wrote: » That's my point. The threat of PvP, the thought that it could occur at any moment, is what creates the risk, the anticipation, the excitement, the rewarding payoff. The threat of PvP is the core of that content, whether anyone attacks you or not. It's what makes it a fun system. Whether anyone attacks you or not, it is a PvP activity. You say that if no one attacks you, it's PvE, but that's not true. If, under those conditions, you absolutely have to say it's not PvP, then it's not "v" anything. It's not content at all. It's just walking. No NPCs are gonna look and say "Oh, no one's attacked them yet! Let's gang up on them!" You're not fighting the environment at all.
Sengarden wrote: » Literally speaking, yes, caravans can scratch a PvP itch, but you're completely missing my point. What I'm saying is, they're not only that.
Sengarden wrote: » They aren't a detached island of content you can zip in and out of like an instanced battleground to have some PvP fun and come back home. They're integrated with every other part of the game, which leads me back to my main point, which you've so far failed to acknowledge or comment on, that every system in this game is interconnected and designed with the all the elements of each other in mind. That includes OW PvP, the corruption system, the bounty hunter system, the gathering systems, the node war systems, the siege systems, the guild war systems, the dungeon systems, the world boss systems, the naval systems, the trade caravan systems, etc.
Sengarden wrote: » You cannot just flip a switch like some are suggesting and expect everything else to operate the same way without seriously affecting the game experience in a negative way. It would require a lot of reworking in every single game system, with a ton of testing and reiterating, in order to maintain the balance and equilibrium without OW PvP, and that means more and more time spent on a system that ultimately would result in a very different gameplay experience from top to bottom, not just a different server.
Marcet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Ferryman wrote: » Marcet wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Yep. We know. Sometimes topics run some distance away from the OP. Give it 2 more pages and we'll be talking about changing the "Tank" name. Which by the way should be changed. You're goddamn right it should. And now we have to wait someone who disagree from bottom of his/her heart and here we go. Dygz is too old and wise to engage in lost battles, but Noaani could still take the bait... What can I say, we have too strong of an argument.
Keyozen wrote: » No we dont need PVE servers, get baited. ... There are risks and rewards in this game. If Frodo went to Mordor in a PVE server would that be fun?NO ... Its like going to McDonalds and ask for Pizza because you dont like hamburgers, makes no sense.
Dygz wrote: » If it didn't detract from development time, I would love to see one "PvE Server" just to see what it looks like. Even just to prove to people that it won't work.
Dygz wrote: » Anxiety is irrelevant. But, no... if I choose to accept the mission, I'm not going to sweat it. I'd certainly be stealthing per normal in a world that includes OWPVP. By your definition, Ashes has no PvE activities. So... you think that the THREAT of murder is murder??? Ashes has open world PvP. If I'm out picking flowers, there is threat of PvP. I'd be more likely to keep looking over my shoulder while picking flowers than I would be driving a Personal Caravan.
Dygz wrote: » Obviously if PvP-flagging is turned off outside of battlegrounds, no one will gain Corruption and there won't be anything for Bounty Hunters to hunt. Which is perfectly fine for a "PvE Server". How is that going to affect gathering systems? How does that affect Node Sieges? It might negate Guild Wars, but that is probably fine for a "PvE Servers". How does it affect world boss systems? How does it affect Naval systems? It doesn't affect Mayoral and [Node] Quest Caravans.
Dygz wrote: » You pretty much can just disable the OWPvP flagging and leave the battlegrounds active. It would require some testing. I've said several times - too much work given that the devs are already taking twice as long as they originally anticipated. But, it would not take months of reworking to set-up one server for people to test gameplay with OWPvP disabled while leaving battlegrounds PvP enabled.
Sengarden wrote: » You can't stealth a caravan. That was my point. And I doubt many would handle such a task so fearlessly.
Sengarden wrote: » During an activity in which PvP can occur, the times between being actively attacked are the negative space of that activity. Are you familiar with the concept of negative space in visual art? It references the parts of the media left untouched. These untouched, seemingly absent spaces are not random - they are left behind in a strategic way, such that they complement the parts of the canvas that contain added or subtracted material. The negative and positive space play off of each other, like yin and yang, but at the end of the day, the negative space in a drawing isn't "not a drawing". The entire work is the drawing! The spaces left untouched were considered and designed in a way to support the strokes of positive space in a meaningful way.
Sengarden wrote: » Likewise, in an activity which contains PvP, the periods of time during which you're not actively fighting someone are designed in such a way to support the overall experience of the active fights. The times when you're not fighting someone are in service to, very much a part of, the PvP experience. They should be designed that way. And that one activity is just a single element of the greater artwork. They are all connected and influence each other in deliberate ways, because that's what creates a cohesive experience.
Sengarden wrote: » I'm not a developer on the team, so I couldn't begin to give you specifics. I don't need to know the specifics to assume that some problems would arise.
Sengarden wrote: » For a quick example, imagine I coded a computer program where dozens of complex, separate, but complimentary modules relied on each other's calculations and data to do their own calculations and data assignment. What would happen if I changed one module and didn't care what happened to anything else? The whole system would be broken. I'd have to go in and make edits to every other module. If it was a very complicated system (like an MMO) I'd have no idea how many edits I'd need and how many reiterations I'd have to go through before it worked again.
Sengarden wrote: » I think it would require a great deal of testing. And then more redesigning. And then more testing... You get the idea. We're on the same page though in the end, because that's all I'm saying as well.
Sengarden wrote: » You're correct that it would not take months to set up a test server, but how much time would it take to collect and organize the data the testers returned, and then follow through start to finish with repeated rounds of a multi-stage reiteration process for nearly every system in the game until a desired outcome was achieved? You could probably pull it off, eventually, but there's the potential for it to be such a different experience by the end that it may be an understatement to simply call it a different server. That being said, I'll concede that I'd be curious to see what it would look like... Just not right now.
