Another Idea to Mitigate PVP Griefing

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Because most players have no reason to value it.

OwPvP is not that valuable as a game experience. PvP can be very valuable. But a lot of even very PvP focused players see it as POINTLESS, which, to be fair, it is. It offers precisely two things that Caravans and Sieges don't, and both those things are more often annoying than not, without some very specific mindsets.

This is why Steven COULD afford to drastically hike up Corruption and so on to the point where it just barely happens and a lot of people who like PvP still play.

The 'OW' part of it just doesn't appeal to them, it causes the reaction that its letters spell out.

"Ow."

I get that, but those masses of people will mainly push for complete removal of pvp rather than some changes to the corruption system. Because in their minds (and usually experiences) "owpvp" means pure chaos and destruction and nothing else.

I can live with harsher corruption rules (even if I'd prefer just a better balanced counter actions), but if the game turns into yet another toggle-based mmo, I'll just feel bad about losing my last opportunity to live in an mmo (at least until vrmmos).

And considering current design, I dunno if toggle (or a pve server for that matter) system would even work, so it might be another NW's case of "we changed the whole fucking game several year into its development", except even worse

Then as I always say, it's our job to 'get it to a state where they won't all just ACTUALLY LEAVE' first.

I'm obviously not playing if it is Toggle PvP, I have Korean games for that.

People that don't like Korean games as much as I do just need to work with Intrepid to give what we can to make this not stupid for that set.

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

What is 'winning the debate' here though?

IF we 'win the debate' but it is ALSO true that people don't want to play the game as we want it and we end up at Mortal Online 2 numbers, is that a win?

Azherae wrote: »

What is 'winning the debate' here though?

IF we 'win the debate' but it is ALSO true that people don't want to play the game as we want it and we end up at Mortal Online 2 numbers, is that a win?

I do think there's a middle ground and imo that'd be the win.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

What is 'winning the debate' here though?

IF we 'win the debate' but it is ALSO true that people don't want to play the game as we want it and we end up at Mortal Online 2 numbers, is that a win?

I do think there's a middle ground and imo that'd be the win.

Hence the question. I don't know what it means to others, to 'win the debate'.

If we 'start infighting', the line will slip, that's my experience from overseeing development.

Azherae wrote: »

Hence the question. I don't know what it means to others, to 'win the debate'.

If we 'start infighting', the line will slip, that's my experience from overseeing development.

I think winning the debate would be "reassuring the absolute carebears that owpvp can work" and then fiving Intrepid feedback to support that claim, while still preserving owpvp itself.

This would most likely require a few analytical pvers who can succinctly explain the core issues with owpvp. Is it purely the "I never want to die at the hands of another player" or is there more to it. And if there is in fact more, we can look at good ways of addressing that.

We have those people already, but they get shouted down too a lot of the time.

We already 'lost' our 'best one', thankfully they've promised to still help test.

Azherae wrote: »

We already 'lost' our 'best one', thankfully they've promised to still help test.

While I do appreciate Dygz' pov, I feel like his is as special as mine or yours. A seemingly outlierish one.

But yes, we're definitely in a constant spiral of both sides flaming each other w/o real attempts at bringing themselves closer to the other side's pov. I've definitely been a part of that spiral, even if I try to only join it when the suggestion from the pve side is just "let's remove pvp outright".

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

Ok, well, if it's impossible, there's nothing to be concerned about.

In the end, the only thing that would ever give Steven reason to change perspective, I think, is numbers. If the debate is won, and the numbers will be fine, there's no reason for any concern at all.

I don't share this opinion, and I have concerns as a result, but they won't matter as long as you're right.

To add to this briefly.

It CAN'T be that 'PvP games fail' as a whole. Sure they're somewhat niche in a different way but it's not like people don't love League, Overwatch, etc.

People want to PvP, whatever their reason.

So why is it that PvP MMOs don't do as well over time? Why do PvE ones even get PvP-ish modes that have participants? Why are even the 'PvE players' looking forward to things like Sieges, Caravans, etc?

People just want some more agency in these situations than owPvP games COMMONLY give them. But that's just opinion, so I'll stick to the main part. PvP is great. Lots of people like it. Not all of those people like PvP MMOs. That seems kind of weird to me.

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

These don't sound like carebears. They sound like corporate style guilds.

Azherae wrote: »

Why are even the 'PvE players' looking forward to things like Sieges, Caravans, etc?

This I truly don't know. Like, yeah, you gonna opt-into the pvp instead of it being potentially forced upon you, but you ain't winning it. It's not gonna be fair. You gonna die in your caravan and lose all your shit. Mainly because all these things will be populated by the hardcore (both time and skill) pvpers who'd have no other outlet for their pvp desires (well, in the context of toggleable pvp or pve-server changes).

Azherae wrote: »

PvP is great. Lots of people like it. Not all of those people like PvP MMOs. That seems kind of weird to me.

Usually because mmos give you the ability to win against others by having more time. And while non-mmo pvp games have skill ladders, where any potential carebear can be at the bottom of the ladder but still fight the same carebears that got the same lvl of skill, pvp mmos just let the powerful players kill the weak ones.

I've suggested a ladder-like system for Ashes before, but I'm pretty sure everyone disliked the concept itself. The alternative to a ladder is a complete equalization of pvp stats, but that can only apply to arena battles because in open world the stronger side will just win with numbers rather than pure skill.

I think Ashes just gotta have several "good samaritan" mechanics that would encourage people to help each other, cause, as proven by Asmon (and countless others), people will be utter and absolute dicks if given the chance to. Which obviously leads to their victims hating the system itself rather than the players, because it's not the players who did the bad thing it's the system that allowed them to do that.