Another area perma flagged for PVP?

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

I don't know about Dygz but to me the reason this is different is because of how it causes/allows OTHER players to behave.

A game which has a constant FFA PvP area has both a different 'feel' and a different set of players and player behaviours than one that doesn't. Node Ruins wouldn't change it, but Open Seas does.

We have not received permission from CROW3 to share the quoted post.

I also may end up in the same situation because I too, have a very specifically defined principle. I can 'draw my line'.

If FFA PvP Zones are a First Order Win Condition for this game, I'm out.

Not because I don't like them, even, but because I don't ever seem to like the community of games where that is the case.

By the nature of a temporary zone, particularly one under the control of players (Caravans, Node Siege Ruins, etc), it CAN'T in itself be a true First Order Win Condition, so I support those entirely. You can add a LOT of them before I even start to worry.

But 'Open Seas are the most rewarding so they are the most risky' is a strong hint that they are at least in competition for First Order, especially if ships can be maintained without having to interact as much with harbor nodes or their politics (whether that's by having people on land bring resources, or just being able to keep yourself going at sea based on what is out there).

And I too, will test. Probably even play for a while before the game reaches the point where most stronger groups are starting to use that Win Condition (again, if it is one). Already paid for it, not gonna ditch right away. But that's how precisely I can define it. "I'll play until the point where being at Sea is a First Order Win Condition".

You could say that I have more of a problem with the reasoning for the Zone than the Zone itself, therefore.

But to speak to the OP, a very temporary zone, one that is explicitly a RESULT of an Objective based PvP situation, is very difficult to 'turn into a First Order Win Condition'. Usually you PAY resources to get that far.

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

But he did CHANGE something.

Something that was specifically asked about, so yeah you can say 'it wasn't a lie'. And it wasn't. You can interpret it to mean that. That's the problem. There's so much stuff that people read into that could just be 'reinterpreted' at any time. Not even 'oh this always meant this but now it's been clarified'.

Just 'yeah the team decided to use one of the multiple interpretations of the vague thing we said before'.

I don't like this type of response because I feel like using it automatically diminishes faith in what the vision is. It's rough enough to take the various nebulous things that Ashes says as positives without having to constantly 'assume it means the thing you would like the least'.

If we all 'assume everything Steven says should be interpreted in the way we are least happy with', would we all still be here?

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

Nah, I REALLY don't think you can say 'was always going to be a feature'.

Because it was explicitly a 'hey we made a change to this'. There was no reason to assume this was going to be a thing in a permanent zone ANYWHERE, in my opinion IF you didn't understand enough about ArcheAge or Lineage OR you got the impression somehow from Steven that he wasn't going to do the same things as those games (reasonable enough, because they could have said that from the beginning, that's why it is a 'change')

This sounds way too much like the one thing I'm really worried about, either side, PvP or PvP-nothx, going 'this is what the game always was, you should have known that'.

If Steven says "ok you can make massive Freehold Communities right next to each other now and be safe there, but I always said Freeholds would be safe zones, so it's fine", are we going to just go 'This was always going to be a feature'?

Probably a better example would be a sorta 'throwaway, possible gaffe/misspeak' from the AMA.

Steven said SOMETHING about 'Exp for PvP'.

Now, what does that mean? Does it mean 'Oh, well sure, gotta give people some exp for Caravans at least, to offset their investment in time'.

Does it mean "Well ok there's probably some special situation under which PvP grants Exp."

Or does it mean "Well we decided it's ok for PvP to grant Exp because if you lose you lose Exp and you can't flag on your Guild or NodeMates, so it'll be fine."

Do we then claim 'Exp for Open World PvP' as a 'feature we were always going to have'?

Will people be going out to Open Seas to PvP for Exp? That would be among the 'worst interpretations' for some people, and the only thing we'd have to go on is the APPARENT philosophy of the game to tell us 'nah that's not likely'.

The APPARENT philosophy of this game to Dygz and myself would definitely not have led to "Rewarding FFA Open Seas PvP", given Steven's answer that Dygz is referencing. That answer is in fact the ONLY reason I wouldn't have thought so, in a game that says 'nope, no Safe Zones'.

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

True enough, but in case I am giving the wrong impression, this isn't about the Open Seas PvP at all, I don't care that much about it other than what I said, even if I disagree, I don't know the real reason.

I could speculate, I could assume the worst, or I could do what the community needs and wait to test. It's not me that will get 'discouraged' here.

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

There are avid anti-PvPers on the forum?

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

Come on now, Dygz is not in every pvp thread. Maybe every other one, but not every.

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

L2's whole private server scene was held up by the fact that L2 players loved to sit on forums and flame each other, which then translated to the game and back to the forums.