NO PVP on the Freehold Please!

I usually hate offering additional complexity solutions to simple problems but this one seems like it might have a good one.

Freeholds should have an option to become a PvP objective, decided by the owner of it, from within their house.

How I see the problem:
People want to be able to work on their Freehold Premises without being harrassed. As @Arya_Yeshe already pointed out, you can't be CCed when green, chances are you will make it into your house even if you were doing stuff.

You could curse at it and log off. You could prep for combat, come back out, and take out the intruder (maybe talk it out and make a fair 'deal' where they actually go away).

But for those who think they won't win, or who will just be 'attacked over and over' for some reason, I suggest the ability to 'set your Freehold as a PvP objective' that works similar to a Caravan (but not entirely). When someone signs up as 'Defender', you the owner now become 'immune' to PvP while doing your own stuff until all the defenders fall.

If you want to stop the top Crafter/Processor and Freeholds require people to be outside to do that, then there should be a structured PvP option where the Crafter/Processor becomes the Attacker Objective, but they also have to go through the Defenders.

The Objective-Person, the Freehold Owner, is risking 'losing their chance to do what they want and still not giving the enemy force any Corruption even if killed'.

The attacking force isn't risking anything in particular, but I figure it can just be equal to whatever the risk of randomly attacking a Caravan is.

So your gameplay solution to 'someone harassing you on your Freehold' is to explicitly go into your house, call the squad/mercs/NPC Guards even, and provide some 'content' for the attacking force, with their only 'benefit' being 'can they stop you from actually processing your stuff?'

If you've got PvP friends hanging around, you can just leave this option on while y'all hang out at your Freehold, just in case.

It'd also give people all that 'structured PvP' practice they want a bit more easily, when considering all the other hierarchies of who can attack or defend which things.

It probably couldn't be that hard to implement, it's just a 'stationary caravan' basically, with no loot drop.

I suggest all this so that we don't have to introduce any hardcoded 'extra safety', and instead can just increase combat situations. Hanging out on your Freehold safely while doing nothing? Can do it indoors or rush indoors when bandits come.

Hanging out on your Freehold working and you expect the bandits camped outside your house to stay there for a while? Raid mode on.

We have not received permission from Songcaller to share the quoted post.

True enough. I've got no real problems with the house thing, but if others do, this is what I thought of to help them out.

We have not received permission from Arya_Yeshe to share the quoted post.

Sure, that works for me, but the effectiveness of that specific type of thing varies quite heavily from game to game, games that attract more 'casual' or 'peaceful' players in the first place, don't tend to do well with this type of requirement.

I think that for Ashes specifically, I'd prefer to be a little more 'lenient on the so-called carebears' than you are (I put that in quotes only because I disagree with your definition of carebear, not because I disagree with your wish for organic problem solving in games in general).

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Are we sure it is though? If there can be pvp on our freehold's footprint it means that people can enter it whenever they want, which means that any farming done by the freehold owners would be open to others. So if you're known as a top lvl farmer (or any other outdoors gatherer/processer) - you'll get sieged and be either prevented from even touching your stuff or that stuff will be stolen by enemy gatherers (be it guild or node ones).

And if Intrepid blocks others from touching your stuff as long as it's on your freehold, then I'll be even more baffled at the decision to allow pvp there.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

The value comes from the fun that the attackers get from just annoying someone. That's it. Some others will even PK, just to have fun with the BHers. And trying to PK a loner on his freehold would be easier than attacking someone who's around other people or are in a group, especially if that loner wasn't prepared for the attack cause they were concentrated on their freehold.

L2 provided nothing to the PKers yet we still had a few who would just PK for their own fun rather than with any kind of purpose. Obviously due to AoC's harsher penalties there'll be fewer PKers, but they could also get something from the kill, which might entice more people to try and PK. There'll also be more people on each server, so purely in terms of numbers there'd be more PKers in Ashes.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

I was also fairly sure that we couldn't be attacked on our freehold's footprint The "access to crops" quote literally states "this is all subject to change" (as they always do). And with this new change to freeholds I'd assume there's a pretty high chance of other changes as well.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

I would expect top lvl farming to produce top lvl items. Otherwise why the fuck would people even choose that profession?

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Yes, and as I said, for some PKers the "value" comes from preventing someone else from doing smth, not from just picking up their loot. You seem to be avoiding this point, because even in your argument below you keep saying

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

But the desired activity that I'm (and maybe others) talking about IS the attack on someone's freehold, rather than that attack being a sidetrack.

We have not received permission from Noaani to share the quoted post.

Good point. How did AA address this? Was their land off limits or were others free to attack you on it? What about crops?

If Steven decided to just copy AA's flagging system (in the context of housing) - so be it. I'll dislike it, but if it worked in AA, I can live with it.

NiKr wrote: »

If Steven decided to just copy AA's flagging system (in the context of housing) - so be it. I'll dislike it, but if it worked in AA, I can live with it.

Everything I find indicates that this didn't actually 'work' in AA.

It's moreso that the concepts and perspectives on motivations are linked to what a player considers a valuable/important part of the game. Some players won't naturally agree that even behaviour that causes a specific type of 'problem' is actually a real design problem, if they don't care about the experience involved.

(and that's why we defer to you for PvP incentive discussions)