Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.

Azherae wrote: »

It literally comes down to the fact that you are the one who has not, afaik, played the games that work like this, and nearly everyone that has played them tells you that your viewpoint is wrong.

I mean, so far the AA experience has been represented by Noaani and he said that this abuse hasn't even happened there.

@Noaani would you equate trade pack runs to caravans or more to mule runs in Ashes?

Azherae wrote: »

If you ever expect others to listen and not just 'stick with whatever they imagine will happen due to L2's system', then do the same.

I trust others' experience in their games and expect them to trust in my experience. I laid out why I don't believe that the abscence of this abuse in AA was dictated purely by visible hp. Noaani hasn't read that response, so I can't make a new judgement on whether I'm wrong or right in that assumption.

All other examples here have mostly been "well, no other games is like L2, so let's just not make Ashes like L2". And while I try to appreciate everyone's opinion on things, I do find it real silly that a design that at least in part is inspired by L2 should get changed purely on the basis that L2 is a dead game and no design in it can even possibly be good.

I've addressed the points of toggle/server-based pvp designs, because I've experienced them on different setups of L2 servers and have dabbled in them in NW (and heard about what they led to in WoW).

I guess another closest mmo experience to what's being discussed (in the context of loot on death that you reminded me of) would be Albion, but I don't remember who on the forums have played a ton of albion. I think Solvryn might have, but I don't wanna drag him into all of this and try explaining to him all the points that would need to be explained in order to get a good response.

So I'm not really sure how better I can address the counterarguments and suggestions brought up in this thread.

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

I've been complaining about player loot on death for months (if not a few years) now. It's stupid and pointless imo, especially when we have caravans and mules that would create a much more meaningful target for robbery.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Except we'll only be getting tiny fractions of that player's loot for huge fucking penalties. That's like staking your house on a local "win $1k" lottery

I'm all for going corrupted over a mule, cause that bitch is carrying enough loot for my whole damn party. But incentivizing people to kill other players, while barely rewarding that action and also going out of your way to make the punishment for said action as high as possible - nah, that's dumb and pointless imo.

Ok, now we're in a 'territory' where my group members can probably have a conversation without it devolving, so I'll leave it to them finally.

Also NiKr yeah, sorry, I thought I mentioned it recently enough in the past but I'll clearly point it out now.

I believe that dropping 50% of all materials, particularly in the situation where a bag can be full to the point of holding 100x Ore, for example, is actually a massive incentive for PK, especially since the killer (who turns red and therefore cannot trade) does not have to be the one to loot the body.

This is a 'core principle' of Ashes at this time, and I am saying it will absolutely lead to entirely different incentives for PK. One player sacrificing themselves for half a bag of Ore (which is probably at least 40m of gathering) for the group is an almost obvious shift in the 'rarity' of PK.

Enjoy a mildly related video!

Azherae wrote: »

Also NiKr yeah, sorry, I thought I mentioned it recently enough in the past but I'll clearly point it out now.

I do believe we've discussed this before. My memory has just been shit lately. Especially with all these new huuuge discussions popping up, where I gotta juggle several povs from several people, while trying to still remember what the usuals' opinions are.

I do admit that PKing might be more abundant in Ashes due to player loot (which is why I hate it ), but as, Dygz loves to say, I'd need to test it to see how it works

And the video kinda explains my approach to pvping and PKing as well, but obviously in a different context. For them the activity is not about killing, but about the goal of being a pirate. And to me pvp/PK is simply a means to the mob grinding end. I've had quite a few "contests" for spots where I'd simply come into a room that was occupied by someone who knew me, I'd say "ya gotta get out man, cause I wanna farm this spot now" and they'd leave simply because we've fought each other countless times before and the result was always the same.

And I've had even more situations where a single hit was more than enough to telegraph the difference in power between us.

And on the opposite side I've seen a tooon of people just running around looking for anyone to pvp. They'd be permaflagged and would not miss a single person running by.

If Ashes ends up having piracy (considering that we have free trade) - that'd be great, even if it's a niche activity, just as it seems to be in ED.

Also

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Azherae wrote: »

I believe that dropping 50% of all materials

Wiki rn has it at 20-30% with the classic "subject to change in A2" addition. Though I haven't checked the direct quotes for that, but I trust Lex.

So I'll be real interested in how exactly people will calculate their own risk/reward equations. Cause you wouldn't know how much stuff a person has on them, which means that gaining corruption on that random person might not reap rewards equal to the risk.

But then if you try and spy on a gatherer or try to track his activity - that's time spent not gathering yourself (and potentially not doing anything else valuable), which then decreases the value of your time, even if the risk/reward of corruption is now more equal.

This kind of stuff is exactly why I was really disappointed when we learned that mules will just be gimped caravans. I had really hoped that mules would be used as an additional storage for gathering WHILE you are gathering. And so if you see someone with a mule going back to a node - you'd know for sure that they're carrying a ton of stuff and the risk/reward would be real easy to calculate.

Though I just double-checked how exactly mules work and their crates are supposedly refillable in the wild. So maaaaybe what I expected is still possible? And then the overall situation would depend on how much our own bags can carry as opposed to mule crates.

And then it'd be a question of balancing and design. Do Intrepid want to push people towards using a mule for gathering (by making us only able to carry, say, 30min of gathering in our inventory) or will mules be simlpy a transferring tool for solo players who'll depend on the protection of the corruption system. Which would then pretty much lead to piracy/robbery, cause attackers will be killing mules instead of players (especially considering that mules give less corruption).

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

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
There is a 60 second timer to logout while corrupt. Force-disconnecting the client during the cooldown will leave the character in-game.[21][26]

Depending on the location of the PK, 60s can be a reaaaal long time.

I have now checked the exact quote and it's interesting, but Steven also prefaces that it is all very subject to testing in A2 ofc so I won't derail the thread with it.

All I'll say is that anyone who thinks that the current 'finger in the wind' testing is still going to be 50% might be surprised, and that discussion from awhile back about whether or not people wanted ways to mitigate the amount they drop on death might have temporarily landed on 'Ok we'll add some mitigation of this and see how it shakes out' after all.

Azherae wrote: »

I have now checked the exact quote and it's interesting, but Steven also prefaces that it is all very subject to testing in A2 ofc so I won't derail the thread with it.

All I'll say is that anyone who thinks that the current 'finger in the wind' testing is still going to be 50% might be surprised, and that discussion from awhile back about whether or not people wanted ways to mitigate the amount they drop on death might have temporarily landed on 'Ok we'll add some mitigation of this and see how it shakes out' after all.

It's not really a derailment, considering that it directly impacts people's desire to both PK and use the abuse we've been discussing.

In that commissions showcase it definitely looked that Steven lost A TON on death. So at least before all the most definitely complaints from people the current tune is already fairly high.

I forget, what was your opinion on my idea of "stolen goods" bags and BHs tie-in to return those goods to the initial victim? I really feel that a mechanic like that would lessen the impact of PKing even more, while making the PKing more fun (cause BHs are hunting you even more actively) AND making BHing way more viable.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I have now checked the exact quote and it's interesting, but Steven also prefaces that it is all very subject to testing in A2 ofc so I won't derail the thread with it.

All I'll say is that anyone who thinks that the current 'finger in the wind' testing is still going to be 50% might be surprised, and that discussion from awhile back about whether or not people wanted ways to mitigate the amount they drop on death might have temporarily landed on 'Ok we'll add some mitigation of this and see how it shakes out' after all.

It's not really a derailment, considering that it directly impacts people's desire to both PK and use the abuse we've been discussing.

In that commissions showcase it definitely looked that Steven lost A TON on death. So at least before all the most definitely complaints from people the current tune is already fairly high.

I forget, what was your opinion on my idea of "stolen goods" bags and BHs tie-in to return those goods to the initial victim? I really feel that a mechanic like that would lessen the impact of PKing even more, while making the PKing more fun (cause BHs are hunting you even more actively) AND making BHing way more viable.

My opinion was 'That's effectively how ED works, it seems like an obvious solution to me'.

I care less about the returning of the goods, and I can see some weird exploits coming up in that aspect of it.

But remember that it doesn't make a lot of sense to engage me on this, I'm too Econ biased and for me, the whole stack is wrong, from 'The way Corruption works" right up to the fact that "Stolen Glint" exists but so far not other stuff.

Maybe 'stolen Glint' is the first phase of testing the thing you're suggesting.

As for the Commissions Showcase, maybe Steven didn't have a good enough bag.

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

And he'll have to pay for that corruption at that point. BHs would still see him and anyone near the mobs that he'll want to clear his corruption on will kill him, because Reds are always loot pinatas.

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

Several people have suggested this. It is not planned for the game. And I'm personally highly against it, because it ruins any altoholic's life simply for killing one person.

But I have suggested account-wide PK count in the past. Though I'm sure you wouldn't care about that, cause you don't want people to be attacked at all.

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

Like you said though, he's still gotta log back in. He's still gotta farm that off, and while he does he's marked on the map for bounty hunters.

If he ganks one guy a day, maybe he find a quiet time to do that. But after the first time or two, the whole node is gonna be on the lookout for him. When my node has a problematic ganker, I personally am planning on putting together a posse , and going to go deal with the problem.

He can maybe hide for a bit, but not forever. It just takes one player who notices when he likes to grind it off and report back. He's still marked on my (bounty hunter) map while he's corrupted.

The more people he ganks, the more time he has to spend on that, and the easier it is to hunt him down.

Alts don't change a thing. The only thing more alts or more gankers does is give me and my crew even more reason to hang around, because we know we'll run into one of them. They all gotta grind it off eventually, and I don't care which bounty I claim.

All that 60 seconds needs to do is stop him from logging out the second he sees me coming.