Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Phase III testing has begun! During this phase, our realms will be open every day, and we'll only have downtime for updates and maintenance. We'll keep everyone up-to-date about downtimes in Discord.

If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.

Best Of

Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

...

As I’ve already said — and at the risk of repeating myself — there is clearly a vision for the game taking shape right now, and it’s obvious that it won’t suit everyone. This vision is likely to become even more entrenched in the coming months and years.

Personally, I have a hard time imagining a future where PvE and PvP can truly coexist in Ashes of Creation. The current POI system, as you’ve described it, pushes for slow and challenging character progression — and I agree with that principle. When tackled with the average gear and expected level, the current POIs are already tough. Mobs hit hard (I’m deliberately not talking about launch balance issues).

But in my experience both during P2 and now I’ve seen three players from a toxic guild successfully chase off entire groups at ROS, Citadel, and even Carphin. Why? Because it’s incredibly hard to fight tough mobs and deal with players who can freely PvP and train mobs onto you. Yet in your communication, this seems “normal”: PvP anywhere, anytime.

I’ll quote Steven: “Corruption is currently pushed to the extreme for testing purposes.”
But I must respectfully say you’re mistaken here. How can we test a real corruption system if it’s not actually planned, tested, and refined during this phase?
Let me be very clear: no group will be able to access elite POIs if players can kill others without any real consequences. PvE and PvP simply can’t coexist like this in Ashes of Creation.

And that brings us back to what I’ve been pointing out from the start: your “not for everyone” vision of the game.
This is one of the worst mistakes a publisher can make: letting a minority rule over the majority through fear.
Because if 10% of your players are able to ruin the experience for the remaining 90%, to the point where vital content becomes inaccessible, you’re headed straight for economic trouble.

And I’ve tested this personally. I temporarily prevented three groups from farming at HH. They died repeatedly. I flagged for PvP, pulled a few mobs, applied some control, and put pressure on the healers — all while avoiding corruption.
And alone, I managed to ruin the experience for 24 players in just a short amount of time.
I didn’t do it for long because I didn’t want to discourage players who were just trying to have fun.
But my conclusion is crystal clear: I could have done it for hours.

When it comes to valuable bosses, it’s always the same groups farming them over and over. The spawn timers are fixed, the players are well-geared, and they easily contest multiple bosses. Once again, a minority is dictating the rules to the majority.

Same goes for caravans. And you mentioned this during P2: a huge number of trade-focused guilds simply gave up on the game altogether, because once again, a minority is able to impose their dominance through fear.
And on top of that, it’s a triple penalty: you die, you lose your cargo, your caravan or boat, and your mount.
Same core issue, again and again.

So yes, because of some of the ideas you’re promoting, you’re at serious risk of losing a large part of your player base.
I say this as someone with between 1000 and 1500 hours played since October, who has played many MMOs and tested several alphas and betas.
And yet today, I’m genuinely concerned about the direction you’re taking. The game is drifting toward a “not for everyone” model and while I truly love many aspects of AoC, I still hope to see it evolve in a way that allows everyone to coexist.

Let’s take the example of ArcheAge, which had peace zones, conflict zones, and a system that shifted into war mode.
War zones gave +20% XP and loot, but there was a real balance between risk and reward. And Steven, whom I know is a big fan of ArcheAge, probably remembers that many players enjoyed trading in safe zones.
The real risk began at sea when venturing toward shipwrecks, trading routes, or fishing zones or when crossing conflict areas. That’s where risk vs reward really meant something.
Even in that game, the Library (an open dungeon) was PvP-free, because you simply can’t expect a group to defend itself from both tough NPCs and enemy players at the same time.

So maybe this is all deliberate. Maybe you truly want to build a game for a niche audience.
That’s fine. I’m not the one who invested tens of millions. I don’t work for Intrepid.
But allow me to say this: games built for a minority have never lasted long.

And even if it’s an old example, I remember saying something similar to the developers of WildStar, when they proudly claimed that only 1% of their players would be able to complete endgame content.
I told them:

“Once you’ve driven away the majority of your players, and your 1% can’t cover your salaries and overhead, you’ll be forced to sell… or end up unemployed.”

And as it turns out, I wasn’t wrong.

To conclude this wall of text (and thank you if you’ve read it all!):

I truly hope to see real PvP zones with objectives, rewards, trade, naval exploration, fishing like in ArcheAge… and most importantly, a meaningful reason to belong to a Node.
But please, protect your POIs from toxic players.
And don’t create a “safe” corruption system that does nothing because if you do, that’ll be the end...

(Yes, I’m concluding dramatically 😄)

Imanek

Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

The phrase “not for everyone” has definitely sparked a range of perspectives, and that’s a good thing.

It’s clear many of you care deeply about how things are framed—not just in vision, but in communication and community culture. While we remain committed to the core pillars of Ashes of Creation—like meaningful risk, no pay-to-win, and a player-driven world—we also recognize how important it is to leave the door open to new voices and evolving dialogue.

At times, it’s important to communicate expectations clearly—even when the message may be difficult for some to hear. Our goal is to ensure that players understand Ashes of Creation is being built upon a distinct set of design pillars, and it may not align with the preferences of those seeking a different type of gameplay experience.

So let’s keep this conversation going:
What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?

Thanks again for being here and sharing your thoughts—we’ll be watching this thread and others like it with interest (and possibly snacks). 😄

MargaretKrohn

Re: Rekindling the Flame: Rewarding Active Alpha Testers with Purpose

So, I have three thoughts.

The first is that it is expected that testing population will drop as any given major build sits on the server for any length of time. This whole thing may be valid if the population with the next major build remains low, but if it starts out high again, then none of the above is needed.

Second, this suggestion turns the alpha test environment in to something else - something that isn't about making the game the best it can be when it releases. People will be trying to game the system as much as they can in order to get better "rewards".

Further, people will read up about bugs and then just log in to the test to report them, thus earning credit. Limiting how many people can get credit for any given bug isn't really an option, as that leaves people that find a bug (or think they have found a bug) unwilling to share it widely until they know they have got the credit for it.

Neither of these scenarios are good for actually testing the product.

Rather than creating an artificial means by which to keep players engaged in the test, I would rather Intrepid continue to monitor tester retention. As a new major patch is pushed to the server, they should be monitoring not only how many people join that test, but also how long they stay. How long testers stay with a given build is the single best metric Intrepid have for how good that build is over all.

Messing with that data is probably not a good idea.

If it turns out that player numbers for a new major build are lower than Intrepid want, then maybe something like this could be valid - but we are not in that situation right now. Right now we have many people coming in with new builds and then drifting off, which is expected behavior.

Noaani

Re: The changes you're requesting to make the Alpha more fun and rewarding would hurt the game.

In the end, perhaps it's just that you chose a comment that doesn't match what it is you're trying to actually get across, Laetitian.

So, to try to have a reasonable conversation, I'm gonna lay out a sequence of stuff and you can tell me where you think the progression of the sequence goes wrong/moves away from what would make the game good.

Crafter wants to make some minimum level leather gloves.
Game offers crafter the ability to make these gloves out of sheep leather and some specific strong fiber
Crafter gets Sheep Leather from AH, Shepherd's Association in exchange for some Commission, or drop/processing drop
Crafter gets fiber from AH, Farming, or Tailoring Association in exchange for some commission, or drop/processing drop
Crafter can make minimum level leather gloves, or repair durability of worn version of these same gloves
The above is one of 6-10 things that a novice Crafter can do in 'Armorsmithing' (Leatherworking, to me)
Crafter cycles through these as they play to raise their Artisanship (including the repairs)
Crafter levels up and wants to make next-level-up leather Gloves, which still involve Sheep Leather (or can) plus some other rarer material/leather
Sheep Leather is no longer the repair material for these second-tier Gloves (or, it's only usable by someone even higher level than that)

I perceive that what players such as the one in your post are asking for, is:

"I want to be able to get Sheep Leather through my own playtime effort in some form."
"I want early recipes to be simple and their onboarding information to be clear."

In neither the Comment nor the Reply in your screenshot, does anyone ask for anything beyond this from my perspective as a person who plays games that work like the above.

Yes, everyone can learn to make and repair their own leather gloves and specialization only starts after that. That's what I read those comments to be asking for. Neither seems to care about or reference anything about 'beyond Novice', so if your first post was a concern about 'allowing people to do too many things or level too easily at Journeyman (or similar), then I misunderstood you and may have focused the response incorrectly.

Azherae

Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?

Thanks again for being here and sharing your thoughts—we’ll be watching this thread and others like it with interest (and possibly snacks). 😄

Node Reputation. Using a Node Reputation system to mimic some RvR elements. This will clearly identify friend vs foe, and isolate those who attack non-flagged players within certain areas. For those that attack non-flagged players it reduces the corruption penalty but adds the Reputation penalty, this could be worse or better for you depending on what Node that non-flagged player is apart of. This bridges the gap between those who want to PvP and those who would rather avoid it. By reducing (by a lot) the stiff crippling penalties you're encouraging those who want to PvP to engage in PvP. A lot more risk is going to happen. Those who want to avoid PvP will be able to keep within "safe zones" of the Nodes influence, only venturing out when they really have to. This will encourage people to band up beyond just their guild to defend their land or Realm, from others attacking. This will also encourage and reward those who venture out seeking conflict in the "wilds", who only venture into the "safe zones" to cause a little havoc, before being hunted away.

Definitions:
AOI = Area of Influence. This is the area a Node has influence over.
This area could be the zone that the Node is in if it's single Node.
If the Node is has a Vassal the area extends to any Vassals Node zones.
If the Node has a Sponsor the area extends to any Sponsor Node Zones.
In short the AOI is the area of the Node or Kingdom it's part of.

Reputation = How a Node views a player. This could be any Node to any Player.
This reputation will always begin at Neutral. And will consist of the following levels.
Revered -> Heroic -> Ally -> Friend -> Neutral <- Nuisance <- Enemy <- Hated <- Reviled
100 | 66 | 33 | 11 | 0 | -11 | -33 | -66 | -100
(These are rough numbers that would be need to be adjusted, this is just enough to give an idea)

Yellow Icon: minimal reduction of corruption gain for killing this player
Orange Icon: reduction of corruption gain for killing this this player
Red Icon: severally reduced corruption gain for killing this player.
Black Icon: no corruption for killing this player.

Reputation would layer on top of the corruption system and affect it some ways.
With Reputation corruption wouldn't have to be so steep, and your entire penalty for killing a non-flagged player
wouldn't be spread world wide, it'd mostly be isolated to the Node/Religion/Guild that player is apart of.
Corruption would still exist and acts mild deterrent in the more uncivil areas.
The Reputation layered on top of corruption acts as the deterrent in the civil areas.
Corruption penalties would need to be toned down a lot, they're too stiff.

The basic idea.
None flagged player only will be effected by reputation
Player A Kills Player B in Zone A
Player A receives reduced corruption gain

Player A Kills Player B in Zone B
Player A receives corruption gain and reduced reputation with Node B

Player A Kills Player B in Neutral Zone
Player A receives corruption gain

Bad reputation penalties explained
Player A has Neutral reputation with Node B.
Player A Kills Player B in Zone B's AOI.
Player A has Nuisance reputation (-11) with Node B.
Player A has raised cost to use stations in Node B.
Node B Players see Player A with a Yellow Icon next to name plate.
-> If Player B Kills Player A they'll receive a slightly milder than normal corruption gain.
Player A Kills Player BB in Zone B's AOI.
Player A has Nuisance reputation (-22) with Node B.
Player A has extreme cost to use stations in Node B.
Player A Kills Player BBB in Zone B's AOI.
Player A has Enemy reputation (-33) with Node B.
Node B Players (And Node B's Vassals) see Player A with an Orange Icon next to name plate.
Node B Guards (And Node B Vassals' Guards) are hostile to Player A.
-> If Player B Kills Player A they'll receive reduced corruption gain
Player A Kills Player BBBB in Zone B's AOI.
Player A has Hated reputation (-66) with Node B. (we skipped a few, but the increase can be tuned)
Node B Players (And Node B's Vassals and Sponsors(if any)) see Player A with a Red Icon next to name plate.
Node B Guards (And Node B's Vassals' Guards and Sponsors' Guards(if any)) are hostile to Player A
-> If Player B Kills Player A they'll receive a very minimal corruption gain.
Player A Kills Player BBBBB in Zone B's AOI.
Player A has Reviled reputation (-100) Node B.
Node B Players (And Node B's Vassals and Sponsors(if any)) see Player A with a Black Icon next to name plate.

To reset reputation
Natural reset after so many hours.
Reputation quests.
Success attack on Node.

This is a rough idea, and I might have missed typed a few things and there's plenty of wholes to poke in it as it is. But the game is complex and to create a balance it really needs a lot of strings to pull to adjust things, a Reputation like this gives some control to the devs to balance out things ganking, griefing, deflaging, hiding behind non-flag, ect. The idea is to encourage pvp but not random chaotic free for all style pvp, something structured with clearly identified friends and foes. People getting together to form a raiding party, and others banding together to chase them out of the zone. Without needing to be in every discord or without having to watch Node chat like a hawk. Something more organic and flexible.

What snacks we got?

Volgaris

Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

MargaretKrohn wrote: »

What’s one feature or system you think could help bridge the gap between hardcore and casual players without compromising the game’s vision?

Somehow I've always thought a simple PvP flagging system, outside of known PvP events, would allow both sides a chance at enjoying the entire map.

Caww

Re: Steven, Please Rethink “Not for Everyone”

*yawn*

Imagine reading all these pages about no subject at all

Arya_Yeshe

Re: Node Level Confusion.

Just to reiterate here, the design intention of zones and how they progress does indeed remain the same. The quotes from Steven on this page are still accurate at this time

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Zones_and_progression

Vaknar

Re: [NA] Dünhold | RP| PvX | All Dünir Dwarf Guild

Working on a fun wiki where we have some basic "character sheets" of Dünhold's kin!
Come take a look at a few entries!
library.xn--dnhold-3ya.com/

Thoghli Ramheart

New player experience experiment.

Summary

I leveled a Mage from 1–10 solo, intentionally avoiding the most efficient path to simulate a common new-player experience: someone doing online research, exploring the world, learning their class, and trying to gear up through quests rather than raw mob grinding or zerg groups. I focused on token quests, early recipes, and storyline progression to see how it all flowed. Also, did this when the player population wasn’t crazy, which really effects the what and how leveling occurs.

What I discovered is that the current tuning creates a mismatch between effort, reward, and timing. By the time I finished the quests and earned the gear, I had already out-leveled the content it was meant for. The gear felt like a reward for a phase I had already outgrown. This wasn’t a one-off or edge case—it’s a likely path for players who want to understand the game organically.

More concerning, questing was dramatically slower than just grinding mobs. The time-to-reward ratio is way out of balance. That’s not just a numbers problem—it’s a design tension between exploration and progression. If quests are meant to provide a satisfying alternative to grinding, they need to deliver value earlier and more meaningfully.

This isn’t about chasing efficiency—it’s about making sure the game rewards players who engage deeply with its systems. Right now, intentional and immersive play feels inadvertently punished. The pacing undermines the sense of progression, and by the time you’ve earned the gear, you’ve already outgrown it. That disconnect turns what should be a satisfying early-game experience into a missed opportunity—and it’s something worth fixing.
.
Experience Overview

I started in Lion’s Hold and followed a logical questing path:
• Completed “Sweat of Your Brow” to get the horse.
• Grabbed package delivery quests, the treasure map quest (for a bag), commissions, and attempted to start purifier recipe quests (locked behind level 5).
• Headed to Samia’s Hope to pickup token quest line.
• Did initial quests near Biz Bug, then east toward Miraleth for zombie kills and token progress. This was tough solo with low DPS and drop rates; I needed help to finish it.
• Returned to Lion’s Hold to start the warhelm and bandit captain quests (now level 6). The captain was too difficult solo, so I pivoted to the warhelm recipe chain instead, getting to level 7 to solo captain
• After turning in token quests and package quests, I got my first batch of gear and hit level 9.
• Continued with RoS scout and goblin manifest quests, and eventually the starving wizard quest.

⸻

Quest-Specific Feedback

Zombie killing quest outside miraleth
Without a zerg around, this quest was super hard. Solo level 5 mage would have taken a very long time because of the drop rates. Had to pull in a high level helper on this one.

Scout RoS Quest:
Well-paced, slightly dangerous, rewarding. Solid quest.

Goblin Manifest Quest:
Needs serious rebalancing. The manifest drop rate is extremely low, and the volume of junk items makes the quest feel tedious. Getting 15 manifests, then being told to get another 15—with no lootable crates—is exhausting and unrewarding.

Starving Wizard (Wolf Meat) Quest:
Drop rate was ~1 in 8–10 wolves. Too low. PvP drama happened here too, which added spice, but doesn’t change the drop rate issue.

Tower Quest (Level 9):
I was able to get the first two chests. The third was too hard solo. By this point, I had more tokens than I needed anyway.

⸻

Main Takeaways
• Questing is not time-efficient for leveling.
Grinding mobs would’ve gotten me to level 10 in about 1/5th the time. I understand the goal isn’t to min-max, but the disparity is so large it devalues the quest path.
• Gear reward pacing is mismatched.
If the goal is to finish token quests around level 10, that works numerically—but not experientially. As a player, I’d expect to earn and use level-appropriate gear midway through a tier, not as I’m about to leave it behind.
• Quests felt satisfying, but not rewarding.
I finished with all my sub-10 gear… at level 9.75. Recipes I earned felt irrelevant for myself and only useful for market twinks. The economy isn’t fully live yet, but this highlights a mismatch between effort and practical value.

⸻

Suggestions
1. Adjust pacing so token gear is earned by level 5, not 9–10.
This keeps it relevant longer and provides a gear “ramp” instead of a gear “exit.”
2. Rebalance drop rates for all the starter quests, but manifest and meat quests especially.
3. Purifier Set Feedback:
• Positive: Recipe quests are meaningful, and the gear is superior to other starter sets.
• Issue: Players move through 0–10 too fast for it to matter. Making it felt like a waste unless you’re crafting for alts or market sales (which can’t happen in Lion’s Hold).
• Suggestion: Either:
• Make it T2 gear (relevant at level 10–15),
• Make it significantly stronger so it lasts through level 20,
• Or greatly reduce effort to craft and relocate a marketplace vendor near token turn-in.
4. Add light, medium, and weapon versions of the purifier gear to improve utility across classes.

⸻

Final Thought:

This feedback comes from the perspective of someone intentionally walking the path a new player is likely to take—engaging with the world, experimenting with class mechanics, and seeking gear through quests rather than shortcuts. The questlines themselves show real promise in terms of structure and tone, but the overall progression loop feels misaligned. When the rewards arrive too late to be useful, and the leveling path feels more punishing than exploratory, the game risks discouraging the kind of thoughtful, immersive play it should encourage.

It’s important to remember that the journey to level 10 is just an introduction. This phase doesn’t need to be punishing or deliver long-term gear—it just needs to set players off on the right foot. It should teach the core systems, offer a taste of the world’s depth, and deliver timely, meaningful rewards that feel connected to the effort. Done right, this part of the experience can build player confidence and momentum—not burn it.

MetalDad