Player enemy visual Health Bar update on hit.

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

That thinking comes from pvp-toggle/server design, because under those designs you are either a perma-untouchable-pver or a perma-pvper. And you cannot just change your state at your whim.

While Ashes (and L2) gives you a choice at every interaction, which is much freer. I hope Chaliux gets to experience it to understand it better, but I doubt they'll like it, considering this entire discussion.

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

Yeah, I definitely foresee Intrepid disabling flagging and PKing real fast. I was kinda surprised it was even planned for Phase 1. Really thought it'd be something that we test way later on, cause there's a ton of other things to test and pvp/pk will stand in the way of that.

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

Neither of those 2 first lists seem like something that would require pvp/pk testing to me. I guess economy testing could relate, for the exact reason Azherae pointed out, but even then "economy testing" is a very nebulous thing. Is it market/trading/caravan functionality or is it the full cycle of "loot a mob, put the loot up for sale, use the money to buy something at a node, buy something from a person to combine with the thing you bought at a node, sell the combination at a different node at a higher price after transferring the item in a caravan" or some shit like that.

Balancing minute details of PKing and preventing other players for testing core functionality by pvping them seems kinda counterproductive at that stage of testing.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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

Yeah, I definitely foresee Intrepid disabling flagging and PKing real fast. I was kinda surprised it was even planned for Phase 1. Really thought it'd be something that we test way later on, cause there's a ton of other things to test and pvp/pk will stand in the way of that.

I do not believe Intrepid can risk having PvP/PK and corruption disabled for Phase I because Phase I is also when the NDA officially drops.

The murmur will become a roar one way or the other, but unless they intend to ignore the feedback and opinions of anyone who is not actually playing in the Alpha at that time, they need the concepts to be as clear as possible.

Azherae wrote: »

The murmur will become a roar one way or the other, but unless they intend to ignore the feedback and opinions of anyone who is not actually playing in the Alpha at that time, they need the concepts to be as clear as possible.

Seeing Asmon get PKed over and over and over will definitely be a glorious moment Hell, I might even try to get onto the same server and catch him myself.

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

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

Oh, 100% doing that on release, but testing is testing. Nothing matters there.

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

Yeah, it was in the context of trying to compare economic impact of killing players in either game. People will be dropping stuff on death in Ashes, while in AA they only dropped trade packs, so that would be the only direct economic link between the two.

But in Ashes killing a mule would be PKing, while killing a caravan would be just pvp. So in that regard, have you ever come across people raiding trade pack runs of their own faction? Cause that'd be "PKing" in AA, right?

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

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

Yeah, it was in the context of trying to compare economic impact of killing players in either game. People will be dropping stuff on death in Ashes, while in AA they only dropped trade packs, so that would be the only direct economic link between the two.

But in Ashes killing a mule would be PKing, while killing a caravan would be just pvp. So in that regard, have you ever come across people raiding trade pack runs of their own faction? Cause that'd be "PKing" in AA, right?

I'm gonna be super arrogant here and point out that Ashes doesn't work like AA either, I can outline this entire thing for you if you want.

You should take it moreso this way:

L2 is lacking even the most basic of the things that would make the OWPvP incentives match up with those of Ashes. The comparison to AA is just the bare minimum. I was trying to say 'stop applying any L2 logic whatsoever to Ashes, L2 has no economy of note that is relevant to the discussion types that would come up'.

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

Yeah, if there's enough content for majority of people (if not even all) - there'll definitely be less PKing. Potentially more than AA or L2 had, because of the loot factor, cause even if there's enough content - people will still want to avoid doing that content if they can get its reward by killing someone. Especially if mules will work close to how I expected them to work.

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

People are really not ready. Maybe some oldtimers from vanilla wow pvp servers would be kinda ok, cause afaik it was somewhat close in the amount of attacks on other people, but anyone outside of that group will 100% dislike the entire situation.

Azherae wrote: »

L2 is lacking even the most basic of the things that would make the OWPvP incentives match up with those of Ashes. The comparison to AA is just the bare minimum. I was trying to say 'stop applying any L2 logic whatsoever to Ashes, L2 has no economy of note that is relevant to the discussion types that would come up'.

As you pointed out yourself, L2 had player loot on death in early versions (btw, those are the most beloved amongst the players). Except you could literally drop gear that you were wearing when you died to npcs.

And people did exactly the kind of abuse we're talking about. They'd try and get people who were fighting mobs to die to said mobs, either by stunning them or by hitting them in-between mob attacks (trains were obviously another good way of achieving this).

How is that, in this context, any different from Ashes players trying to achieve the same thing to maximize their own benefit from the green dying?

I agree that Ashes is deeper than L2. And it's apparently deeper than AA (which was already deeper than L2). But I haven't played ED, so I wouldn't be able to draw economic parallels between the two. And you were absent for the majority of this entire discussion, so none of us had your input as someone who has experienced an economic system close to that of Ashes.

I can only speak on what I know, which is why I contextualize things in L2's designs. I'd be glad to see your full explanation on the differences of eceonomic impact of PKing in Ashes as compared to other games that we've discussed or that you have experienced.

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

It's about the execution of the activity.

If corruption is punishing enough for people to want to avoid it and if the content quantity is not just "enough for everyone" - people will want to avoid becoming corrupted while trying to remove a contestant for content.

In situations where that activity is happening around mobs, people will try keeping someone at low hp to either make that person die to mobs or just not even attempt fighting them (which secures the content). And keeping a player at low hp is waaaay easier when you can literally see what hp they're at.

So that is the assumed impact. And I believe that we will not have enough content for everyone, considering that Steven keeps mentioning player friction as one of his desires for the game. You can't really create player friction if everyone can just sit in their little corner and get their own rewards.

Obviously this doesn't account for everyone who will simply fight back in the situation above, but at that point it's just pvp, so it's a whole different discussion.

Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: »

So that is the assumed impact. And I believe that we will not have enough content for everyone, considering that Steven keeps mentioning player friction as one of his desires for the game. You can't really create player friction if everyone can just sit in their little corner and get their own rewards.

This part isn't true, in fact it's almost the opposite.

Friction is more likely to be created because 'everyone gets something', but the 'something' they get can only be viewed as a 'reward' when compared to the general value of others. It's precisely this fact that makes Glint a troublesome system.

As for the other part, I don't want to derail the thread overall, but the issue is, we've reached the point where the 'main' argument being offered by Flanker is very close to 'it works in L2'.

Also, L2's player loot on death was much smaller, I've researched this extensively precisely because the L2 players have brought it up so much. I can find no evidence that it was ever truly comparable, maybe 20% chance of dropping anything at all in C2, and this is when you are MPKed.

If you want to have the L2 experience 'enough to suggest the removal of dropping items on death', you're willing to sacrifice something that's relatively important to the way Ashes works.

But this isn't particularly related to whether or not health bars should be shown, so I didn't want to bother with it. All I know is that using L2 as the blueprint and saying 'I want it to be designed this way because OTHERWISE an L2 problem will happen' doesn't make sense when you are countered by 'I don't think it needs to be designed that way because AA did it that way and the problem didn't happen'.

If we as a community keep being this way about basic design stuff, communication is going to break down even more, and when the NDA lifts, this place is just going to give Ashes a bad rep. I'm probably 'out of line' in saying it, but y'all L2 players need to stop this, seriously.