Things we DON'T like about AoC.

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

I'm assuming by "pvp attacks" you mean that you're getting killed, right? Cause unless Intrepid change the system to "attacks build corruption or up to corruption", you might get prodded by some jerks on semi-regular basis, just as you would sometimes get agro from mobs.

NiKr wrote: »

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

I'm assuming by "pvp attacks" you mean that you're getting killed, right? Cause unless Intrepid change the system to "attacks build corruption or up to corruption", you might get prodded by some jerks on semi-regular basis, just as you would sometimes get agro from mobs.

I wouldn't assume that.

I'm relatively certain that people would be MORE likely to 'attack and not try to kill' particularly when a mob fight is happening.

Same old circle we've been wondering about for most of last year. How will we get meaningful PvE while players are free to interrupt/attack you during it. Removing the ability to CC you is a wonderful change and probably enough to retain a lot of players who would otherwise rightly leave, but, whereas mobs can be avoided, players have much more behavioural freedom.

Even if one is like me and considers that once you have ENGAGED a mob/player, it is fine that the outcome is the same (Mobs being very smart, having few leashes, etc), it's generally much easier to proactively avoid mobs.

Azherae wrote: »

Same old circle we've been wondering about for most of last year. How will we get meaningful PvE while players are free to interrupt/attack you during it. Removing the ability to CC you is a wonderful change and probably enough to retain a lot of players who would otherwise rightly leave, but, whereas mobs can be avoided, players have much more behavioural freedom.

Yeah, it's all same old, same old. Until, at the very least, alpha2 we can only really go in circles discussing the same stuff in the same way. And we won't know how many players the game will really push away with whatever design it decides to go with until we hit release.

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

Then I hope that Steven changes his stance on the nameplate decay visuals, cause that's the most direct way to grief people w/o killing them. I really don't know why they even have that. Maybe AA had smth like that? L2 sure as hell didn't and it worked just fine there.

NiKr wrote: »

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

Then I hope that Steven changes his stance on the nameplate decay visuals, cause that's the most direct way to grief people w/o killing them. I really don't know why they even have that. Maybe AA had smth like that? L2 sure as hell didn't and it worked just fine there.

I'm not sure that would be good for Ashes, though.

Aside from combat (mostly because speculative and untested), I believe that almost everything in Ashes other than the Open Seas PvP thing is design-consistent. Just not necessarily a draw for everyone. Which is the point.

So, 'keeping' Dygz or 'keeping' me by changing things, I don't feel should even begin to be a goal. Not for us specifically nor for our 'demographics'.

There's some things where 'doing it a different way has no real negative effect so it makes sense to change it'. I feel like this isn't one of them, whereas 'no CC on Green players' actually is (because by definition if you are Green you are not threatening the Purple person, so they didn't really need to CC you to get what they wanted).

Consider the 'non-pacifist' response to this, as example, even if it were 'griefing' to attack someone repeatedly while they were fighting a mob, that person will probably just heal to full after the mob and then flag up to fight, ideally.

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

The Nameplate thing technically helps Dygz's situation more than harming it, in many cases. Obviously not all, but it's technically 'better' than 'being accidentally killed'. The other person becoming Corrupted unexpectedly isn't what pacifist players are likely to care about. The other person 'fearing that enough to not bother them', is.

If someone else can see you 'cast a healing spell on yourself' and then 'hits you because they saw that spell' every time', the life bar thing isn't going to matter at all.

I'm just rambling though, it just came to mind because I was thinking about something else, really...

Azherae wrote: »

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

Yeah, I guess I can see that point. Though I'd be a bit worried as to how many people this would push away. No matter how much I'd prefer a way more hardcore game, I'd also prefer Ashes to succeed enough to survive for a very long time. And in most cases that survival of pvp mmos either comes in the form of 2k players on a single server paying just enough to cover server costs or in the form of p2w so damn huge that you could never win a single fight as a non-payer.

And while I might be fine with Ashes having a very small population, I'm not sure if the game itself can support that.

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

If he goes purple - he'll be CCd.

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

The boon is the reward system. If the reward system is utter shite, I doubt anyone will become a BH.

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

I feel like you're shifting the scenario?

If Green attacks Red, Red starts winning the fight and Green flees... this is literally the best possible situation for the Red player, I would think?

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

Is this guaranteed true, though?

We know that players can't be CCed but we don't know if their mount can be if targeted separately.

We don't know if the attacking player's mount has skills that dismount the other player regardless of status, as a specific separate effect like in BDO.

Given the rest of the design, I'm not sure that CC immunity needs to extend to a green player's mount, for the goals of the design to be achieved.