Best Of
Re: Fighter - Class Design
1) For me a succesful fighter archetype must be able to use all melee weapons effectivelly. Having said that, a fighter should be worse than a knight in using shields.
If a Fighter can't be a real master of the AoC melee weapons, but rather is forced into two handed, then the identity of the class has failed. I want to see dual wield fighters, spear, two handed, sword shield, staff, you name it.
2) A fighter should be able to engage but not disengage. Disengage should be the selling point of Rogues and at a lesser extend Mages. If you go in either win or die.
3) A fighter should be the balanced melee class. Hit hard but not the hardest. Endure, but not like a tank.
4) A fighter should have more active attack abilities than a rogue. A mix of raw dmg, dmg + CC, Dmg + debuff, dmg + self buff. Constantly hitting one target after another, wheras a rogue should plan a killer rotation on a critical target abd disengage, a knight should look around to control the enemies and aid the allies
A fighter should also have aggressive short duration buffs. Also, the necessary MP/mp recovery to keep fighting. Less than a tank, which tank should last longer in a fight, more than a rogue, which rogue should make use of his MP and get out to plan the next strike.
5) In games like Tera I have seen the fighter using counter attacks. I would like to see that for Fighters and Rogues in AoC.
I am very disappointed by the representation of fighter or warrior classes in most games.
I have enjoyed the Gladiator and Warrior from L2 and Tera.
AA, BDO, FFXIV, Eso didn't do it for me. Very narrow options.
If a Fighter can't be a real master of the AoC melee weapons, but rather is forced into two handed, then the identity of the class has failed. I want to see dual wield fighters, spear, two handed, sword shield, staff, you name it.
2) A fighter should be able to engage but not disengage. Disengage should be the selling point of Rogues and at a lesser extend Mages. If you go in either win or die.
3) A fighter should be the balanced melee class. Hit hard but not the hardest. Endure, but not like a tank.
4) A fighter should have more active attack abilities than a rogue. A mix of raw dmg, dmg + CC, Dmg + debuff, dmg + self buff. Constantly hitting one target after another, wheras a rogue should plan a killer rotation on a critical target abd disengage, a knight should look around to control the enemies and aid the allies
A fighter should also have aggressive short duration buffs. Also, the necessary MP/mp recovery to keep fighting. Less than a tank, which tank should last longer in a fight, more than a rogue, which rogue should make use of his MP and get out to plan the next strike.
5) In games like Tera I have seen the fighter using counter attacks. I would like to see that for Fighters and Rogues in AoC.
I am very disappointed by the representation of fighter or warrior classes in most games.
I have enjoyed the Gladiator and Warrior from L2 and Tera.
AA, BDO, FFXIV, Eso didn't do it for me. Very narrow options.
Re: Guild Gathering #3 - Measuring Success
A good guild is where the boys pog together and flex on some nerds together.
Re: Welcome! Introduce Yourself Here
Just discovered the game during the pandemic and am really interested in the the game overall and concept of the Summoner and Cleric, but we'll see where the details of the classes lead us, right? I also just grabbed a pre-order pack and look forward to my mushroom house, even if it might be years away.
Re: Guild Gathering #3 - Measuring Success
It would be good to have something similar to Steam profile "Featured" panels, to showcase specific accomplishments / counters relevant to your guild.
To elaborate:
On Guild Profile page (both the public one, and the one you see when you open Guild Menu for your current guild), you (Guild Master) can showcase a number of accomplishments, which you can select from a very large list. These are not "achievements", but rather counters for specific actions your guild / guildmembers did. Each counter comes with several options on how to present the counter, so that smaller / more casual guilds can also showcase their smaller achievements without feeling completely inferior.
Example for counter presentation.
Let's say there's a World Boss called Green Dragon, and a counter for GD kills by guild members.
It can be showcased in many different ways, depending on the guild's goals:
- Defeated Green Dragon: 53 times (your guild regularly hunts GD, and you feel proud every time this counter goes up)
- Defeated Green Dragon (your small guild only killed GD couple times, so you don't want to draw attention to the number of times - but it is the only World Boss you killed and you are very proud)
- Rank #2 in Green Dragon kills (you are competing for top GD kills, so to you the rank is more important than the number of kills)
Example for variety of accomplishments that could be showcased:
- Monster kills - for specific type (World Boss, etc.), monster name, region, etc.
- PvP kills - for enemies in specific guilds, for specific events (Caravan, Siege, in the wild...), etc.
- Collected gatherables - for rare ones, or to demonstrate that you are #1 in collecting dandelions
- Gold accumulated
- Caravan routes completed
- Legendary items crafted by guild members
- Castle sieges - participation, conquests; for specific castle, overall; time held, # currently owned, etc.
- Ships owned
- Node population in specific node
- All of the above but over specific time period - last week/month/year
- etc.
This way every time I open Guild Menu - I see exactly what I consider being success for my specific guild.
Counters should ideally only appear if your guild did something at least once, otherwise it might lead to spoilers (what if nobody found Green Dragon yet, or the only guild that found and killed it - keeps it a secret).
To elaborate:
On Guild Profile page (both the public one, and the one you see when you open Guild Menu for your current guild), you (Guild Master) can showcase a number of accomplishments, which you can select from a very large list. These are not "achievements", but rather counters for specific actions your guild / guildmembers did. Each counter comes with several options on how to present the counter, so that smaller / more casual guilds can also showcase their smaller achievements without feeling completely inferior.
Example for counter presentation.
Let's say there's a World Boss called Green Dragon, and a counter for GD kills by guild members.
It can be showcased in many different ways, depending on the guild's goals:
- Defeated Green Dragon: 53 times (your guild regularly hunts GD, and you feel proud every time this counter goes up)
- Defeated Green Dragon (your small guild only killed GD couple times, so you don't want to draw attention to the number of times - but it is the only World Boss you killed and you are very proud)
- Rank #2 in Green Dragon kills (you are competing for top GD kills, so to you the rank is more important than the number of kills)
Example for variety of accomplishments that could be showcased:
- Monster kills - for specific type (World Boss, etc.), monster name, region, etc.
- PvP kills - for enemies in specific guilds, for specific events (Caravan, Siege, in the wild...), etc.
- Collected gatherables - for rare ones, or to demonstrate that you are #1 in collecting dandelions
- Gold accumulated
- Caravan routes completed
- Legendary items crafted by guild members
- Castle sieges - participation, conquests; for specific castle, overall; time held, # currently owned, etc.
- Ships owned
- Node population in specific node
- All of the above but over specific time period - last week/month/year
- etc.
This way every time I open Guild Menu - I see exactly what I consider being success for my specific guild.
Counters should ideally only appear if your guild did something at least once, otherwise it might lead to spoilers (what if nobody found Green Dragon yet, or the only guild that found and killed it - keeps it a secret).
Rinta
1
Ashes of Creation HYPE - Responding to Josh Strife Hayes
My response to yesterday's Josh Strife Hayes video about Ashes
Re: Non Combatant -> Atk Corrupted - > Non Combatant
Is there any specific info about death penalties for non-combatant player killed by corrupted one? Would standard death penalties apply to non-combatant even if he fights back? It makes no sense to me that green player would suffer 50% penalty if he fought back against combatant, but had no way of avoiding 100% penalty when attacked by corrupted player. It would also be possibly exploitable. If you target someone specifically for the materials he's been farming for some time. It could be beneficial to kill a friend first, get yourself corrupted and then kill the player you targeted with guaranteed 100% of possilble loot from him, if the corruption for 2 PKs isn't that hard to clear off.
I think there should either be an option for non-combatant to flag against corrupted player if he chooses so (there are obviousely some issues with that), or you should suffer 50% penalty if you fight back even if you die as non-combatant (with possibly lower corruption gained for the already corrupted player compared to killing someone who doesn't fight back at all).
Yes, if you are green, and get attacked by a red player, and fight back, you die as green. Dying in PvP as green means you suffer the full death penalty.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging#Player_death
I have the same concerns as you, and I really hope they add the ability for a green player to voluntarily flag themselves as purple against a red player to avoid the loophole.
I think this is on purpose. Corrupt players have almost all of the risk when they engage in PvP due to the loss of gear factor. And since this game is risk reward based, the red should have the advantage of gaining something of value for attacking a non combatant, because if they lose.. it could be a huge loss.
Its like Poker.. one player has a quarter of their chips on the table and the other is all in.
Well, considering the purpose of the system, I don't really think it's true, even if it would fit the risk vs reward principle. I am pretty sure there should come no advantage from this system for the red player since it is punishment and it's meant to discourage players from doing something. Also, it would be risk vs reward for the corrupted player, but from the other perspective it makes no sense. Why should green player be punished for being killed by corrupted player compared to anyone else. Sure, he can potentially get something more for killing the red, but quite often it won't be the case anyway (depending on the PK session being planned or not, level difference etc.). I just don't see any reason why the choice between defending yourself or not shouldn't have same consequences regardless of who attacks you.
Every action in this game should have a positive and a negative, even going corrupt. If the only gain for going red is personal fun, it will soon be overridden by penalties and major loss. If penalties and major loss are the only outcomes for going red, there is no purpose for it in the game at all.
The purpose of the corruption system is to give players a way to take out frustrations, offer an alternate source of gameplay if that is what one enjoys and to cause friction on the server (Im sure there are more reasons, just listed these). If a player is gathering materials that you need for crafting, but you are not high enough level to gather that material... then going red on that player should give you a chance to get that material as a drop from a PK. Which in turn cause friction, which cause PvP, which makes the server go round.
I do not think this will be a common thing, but it will happen. I know if I was short two pieces of some type of high level metal to craft a top tier weapon.. I might chance a PK on someone gathering that metal to see if I get lucky to get. The risk is getting killed afterwards, and losing more than I gained.
Sure, it makes perfect sesnse, I agree. But your example doesn't really cover the issue. If you decide to kill someone for some material he is gathering and risk the possible consequences of this action, it is ok. But in that case, you would go green - > purple - > red and the other guy will be able to fight back and decrease his penalties if he chooses to. Or he can take the hit of larger material loss in exchange of making your life harder with corruption.
But I don't think you should be able to prepare for the attack by killing your friend/alt/random bystander to guarantee higher reward for killing that player by taking away his option to flag back. Because sure, for the PKer it's all risk vs. reward. But for the killed player it really wouldn't be in a lot of cases. If there is level difference or you just don't have anything of value on yourself, there is really no reward for him and he is only punished by the fact he was attacked by red player instead of green/purple one. This is the part I see issue with. Since the iniciative is completely in hands of the attacker, I don't think others should be punished because he decided to take risk himself. Also the attacker can minimise his risks if it's not spontaneous decision but it's more or less preplanned.
Daerax
1
Re: Non Combatant -> Atk Corrupted - > Non Combatant
But in Poker you get to choose what stakes you want to put in the pot. In AoC, as it has been explained so far, you can't voluntarily flag yourself. A green becomes purple by attacking someone else who is green or purple. (Of course if the green they attack is killed without fighting back, then they go from green to purple to red in one combat.) If a green is attacked by a red player they have no choice in becoming a combatant. There is no mechanism to do so. That's wrong.Its like Poker.. one player has a quarter of their chips on the table and the other is all in.
I like the fact that the green can choose to fight back and not turn purple. I don't like the fact that they can't turn purple. That's a glaring oversight.
Pretty sure you can force flag yourself for a time.
Think one of the videos they said currently set as Ctl+F.
Death penalties won't change for the green between being killed by a red or purple it will be the same for both. Only the PK'er loses here.
Short story don't be a jerk and it will be ok.
Re: Guild Gathering #3 - Measuring Success
Maximum success is holding a castle, being able to kill the most epic raid bosses while fighting off enemy guilds. Having its guild members make names for themselves and be known as the best in their fields.
Moderate success is owning a guild hall and be a fearsome danger to better guilds. In other games this meant winning against big guilds out in the open world in guerrila fights. A few famous members and most of the members having the best gear.
Moderate success is owning a guild hall and be a fearsome danger to better guilds. In other games this meant winning against big guilds out in the open world in guerrila fights. A few famous members and most of the members having the best gear.
Re: Chat filters, in-game censoring and the trend of being overly sensitive.
I get that parents would want their childrens to not see certain things. Plus i also see the use/need to be able to report people. Plus need to block people. Some people you just don't want to deal with. Of course there are people who are oversensative
Filters are fine, mandatory ones are not.
Dreoh
2
Guild Gathering #3 - Measuring Success
Glorious Ashes community - we're excited to continue our new series called Guild Gatherings! Guild Gathering topics are a "reverse Q&A" similar to our Dev Discussions, where we ask you about your thoughts on everything related to guilds.
Our team has compiled a list of questions we'd love to get your feedback on regarding guild tools, gameplay, your previous experiences, and more. Join in on our Guild Gatherings and share how your gaming family is special to you!
Guild Gathering #3 - Measuring Success
How do you measure your success as a guild in a game? What kinds of things would you like to see in Ashes of Creation to help you measure that success?
Keep an eye out for our next Guild Gathering topic regarding team building!
