Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
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.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
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: Tab Targeting Feature Request
I think it was Neverwinter Online that had similar tab targeting, it's been so long that I can't remember correctly, but it also had the "action" mode by default and I loved it. Love it in Ashes, would love to be able to tab target better while tanking. Having it tab at whatever the center of my screen is pointed at, not relative to my character's LoS would be a godsend for tight pulls.
Re: Tab Targeting Feature Request
Again though, what is stopping you from using your lmk to pick the target? That's what L2 did and that seems to be what Steven wants you to do, considering that in tab mode Q is your basic attack button, instead of lmk.I am not talking about action combat.
The idea is there is no seperate button to pick your target, you just use tab as normal. The only difference is your mouse pointer dictates what tab target it selected purely by where it is sitting on your screen.
Making it more predictable and accurate on what tab target is selected.
Doing that is waaaaay faster and easier than making a move with your hand but then picking the target with your other hand, while also taking your finger off of movement keys.
Muscle memory difference.
Azherae
1
Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
Currently, large guilds are incentivized to spawn camp during node wars/guild wars, with the express intent of forcing players to either drop citizenship (if they can make it to the NPC before getting ganked again), or drop guild in order to continue playing unmolested.
I feel this creates a pretty major quit point that needs to be addressed; if I'm excited to log in and do some grinding with the boys, and suddenly we're literally unable to do anything except die repeatedly, (theoretically) lose access to the benefits of Citizenry, or access to our guild (What's a guild leader supposed to do when they're getting spawn camped?), then we're just going to play another game where we feel there's a better balance of power and that we have a chance to get some W's in.
I get that this is a niche game, that caters to a niche audience, but it seems counterproductive to champion a game design that creates a pretty obvious quit point.
It also seems like it would be useful for players to have either a warning *before* logging in, and prominently displayed somewhere on the UI that they are entering/are in a zone currently engaged in a node war, even if they aren't part of the node war (I was killed at storage because they were rolling anyone that might be helping, had no idea the zone was at war).
While we're at it, it doesn't seem right to me that *a single person* has the ability to upend hundreds of peoples' plans, without warning, for hours at time. Currently, most of the New Aela wars on Vyra are long and drawn out, meaning that if those players that went to do something else because they were getting spawncamped decided to log back in four, five, eight hours later, they might find themselves *still* being spawn camped, and with little, if any ability to progress their character, this creates a separate quit moment, where the player's perception is that of "I like the game, but every time I try to play it, I get spawn camped."
If you expand the area that players can't be camped, then the spawn campers will just spread out further; functionally all that creating a "safe zone" does is corral the weaker players so they can be picked off by groups, while giving stronger players a focal point for their griefing/denial strategy.
I'm just wondering if denial of gameplay like this is part of Intrepid's intention with their design - Since it's a monthly sub, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that they want/need people to continue playing the game. Maybe they just want that first month payment, I don't know. It would be nice to get some clarification on the team's intent, versus what's reasonably implementable.
In a similar vein, is it intended that nodes be able to build a crafting station and then intentionally demolish it after "their" people have gotten whatever benefit it is? Being unable to advance core character aspects doesn't feel good, especially with gathering professions - This seems to incentivize devolution of a server, where the goal is to obfuscate and frustrate individual growth, rather than giving the players the illusion of a semi-even playing field. It doesn't have to *actually* be an even playing field, players just need to *think* that it is, and that they have the ability to at least stay competitive with the server's average gear score/power level.
We had a great, evenly matched fight up in the tropics with a group that was kitted out about equal to my group, and made some friends as a result; this was over a caravan (that had long been destroyed, and that we had no actual investment in), not interpersonal drama, and we've also had our caravans hit by groups that we made friends with because of how much fun both sides had. I have a guildie that's going in hard on learning medieval tactics, and another guildie that's new to the game and is just cutting their teeth on PvP and has become bloodthirsty for more.
I would rather lose every single PvP fight and feel like I have a chance, than to steamroll my opponent; I don't learn anything, I don't get to refine a rotation, I don't get challenged in new, unpredictable, or unique ways, I don't have to think about strategy, and I don't get an adrenaline rush. The same goes for me if I'm losing, but the end result is the same, nothing is gained from these interactions and all I have in return is a repair bill (and potential xp debt). It's clear that some of the testers in the alpha would rather force other testers out of the testing environment. I have heard one griefer laugh about "ruining peoples' Christmas" by camping them at the storage, which is the sort of toxic and counterproductive behavior that I would expect from a live environment, not a test.
Just wondering if this is intended gameplay or not, so I can adjust my expectations accordingly.
I feel this creates a pretty major quit point that needs to be addressed; if I'm excited to log in and do some grinding with the boys, and suddenly we're literally unable to do anything except die repeatedly, (theoretically) lose access to the benefits of Citizenry, or access to our guild (What's a guild leader supposed to do when they're getting spawn camped?), then we're just going to play another game where we feel there's a better balance of power and that we have a chance to get some W's in.
I get that this is a niche game, that caters to a niche audience, but it seems counterproductive to champion a game design that creates a pretty obvious quit point.
It also seems like it would be useful for players to have either a warning *before* logging in, and prominently displayed somewhere on the UI that they are entering/are in a zone currently engaged in a node war, even if they aren't part of the node war (I was killed at storage because they were rolling anyone that might be helping, had no idea the zone was at war).
While we're at it, it doesn't seem right to me that *a single person* has the ability to upend hundreds of peoples' plans, without warning, for hours at time. Currently, most of the New Aela wars on Vyra are long and drawn out, meaning that if those players that went to do something else because they were getting spawncamped decided to log back in four, five, eight hours later, they might find themselves *still* being spawn camped, and with little, if any ability to progress their character, this creates a separate quit moment, where the player's perception is that of "I like the game, but every time I try to play it, I get spawn camped."
If you expand the area that players can't be camped, then the spawn campers will just spread out further; functionally all that creating a "safe zone" does is corral the weaker players so they can be picked off by groups, while giving stronger players a focal point for their griefing/denial strategy.
I'm just wondering if denial of gameplay like this is part of Intrepid's intention with their design - Since it's a monthly sub, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that they want/need people to continue playing the game. Maybe they just want that first month payment, I don't know. It would be nice to get some clarification on the team's intent, versus what's reasonably implementable.
In a similar vein, is it intended that nodes be able to build a crafting station and then intentionally demolish it after "their" people have gotten whatever benefit it is? Being unable to advance core character aspects doesn't feel good, especially with gathering professions - This seems to incentivize devolution of a server, where the goal is to obfuscate and frustrate individual growth, rather than giving the players the illusion of a semi-even playing field. It doesn't have to *actually* be an even playing field, players just need to *think* that it is, and that they have the ability to at least stay competitive with the server's average gear score/power level.
We had a great, evenly matched fight up in the tropics with a group that was kitted out about equal to my group, and made some friends as a result; this was over a caravan (that had long been destroyed, and that we had no actual investment in), not interpersonal drama, and we've also had our caravans hit by groups that we made friends with because of how much fun both sides had. I have a guildie that's going in hard on learning medieval tactics, and another guildie that's new to the game and is just cutting their teeth on PvP and has become bloodthirsty for more.
I would rather lose every single PvP fight and feel like I have a chance, than to steamroll my opponent; I don't learn anything, I don't get to refine a rotation, I don't get challenged in new, unpredictable, or unique ways, I don't have to think about strategy, and I don't get an adrenaline rush. The same goes for me if I'm losing, but the end result is the same, nothing is gained from these interactions and all I have in return is a repair bill (and potential xp debt). It's clear that some of the testers in the alpha would rather force other testers out of the testing environment. I have heard one griefer laugh about "ruining peoples' Christmas" by camping them at the storage, which is the sort of toxic and counterproductive behavior that I would expect from a live environment, not a test.
Just wondering if this is intended gameplay or not, so I can adjust my expectations accordingly.
Fix this crap before more people leave!
Something has definitely changed in the game in the last week or so. Prices everywhere are skyrocketing, at first i attributed it to new lvl 20 gear opening up due to advanced Nodes. This is not the case, i don't normally dab in rumors but its coming from multiple sources now, of a program that is allowing certain farmers to locate near their location, the rarities of gatherable nodes before engaging that gatherable. Every successful Gatherer i know has been stating the same thing as of this week, " Its becoming impossible to locate the static spawns of Legendary BLANK that are in high demand". I am talking about 20-30 people that i know across multiple guilds who farm hours upon hours in each day. What ever it is Fix this, prices are not rising due to just demand, they are SKYROCKETING from 10G 2 weeks ago to 15G then 20G to 25G and then last night 30G for 1 gathered item! This shit will kill the game even faster than Static spawn gatherable. I will not play a game that requires me to purchase hundreds of dollars of in game material every month just to stay relevant
!
!
methose1
1
Re: Weekly Feedback Request - 02/27/2025
Top 3-5 Most Important Feedback Topics:
1. Static Spawns, There is a way to create the tension being looked for vs static locations. Allow Nodes to define outposts (Mines, Groves, Hatcheries) where high quality nodes spawn change this from a needle in a haystack to something we actively fight over.
2. PVP was a blast to play on that tech server for that day you wanted us to test it, going back to the current version I noticed a distinct different in the fun I was having. I know enchanting is being reworked but some more details would be ideal
3. Hard to put into exact words but the relationship between Nodes and Guilds right now feels more focused on the guilds vs. Nodes as a whole. There isn't enough ownership to go around for anyone but the guild managing the town to feel impactful - outside when you need help placing a building. Perhaps and adjustment on the town quests so instead of them being selected they just turn on based on resources being provided?
1. Static Spawns, There is a way to create the tension being looked for vs static locations. Allow Nodes to define outposts (Mines, Groves, Hatcheries) where high quality nodes spawn change this from a needle in a haystack to something we actively fight over.
2. PVP was a blast to play on that tech server for that day you wanted us to test it, going back to the current version I noticed a distinct different in the fun I was having. I know enchanting is being reworked but some more details would be ideal
3. Hard to put into exact words but the relationship between Nodes and Guilds right now feels more focused on the guilds vs. Nodes as a whole. There isn't enough ownership to go around for anyone but the guild managing the town to feel impactful - outside when you need help placing a building. Perhaps and adjustment on the town quests so instead of them being selected they just turn on based on resources being provided?
Re: I dont see myself subscribing, if the current trend of grind and character power continues
SmileGurney wrote: »I honestly hope player levelling will introduce a power gap ONLY between 1 to 25, and then all levels above 25 won't add HP or stats, just OPTIONAL choices to modify your playstyle.I've been hammering this point in almost all my feedback.
Will the player base grow if no new player can participate in PVP content with the established players before putting in 200~300 hours just rushing leveling? I seriously doubt it. And this is not a game with instanced content. Node wars happen whether you like it or not and you're fighting against higher level more geared players. Guild wars are also a player-driven event and you don't choose where and who to fight. Most important of all, open-world PVP is supposed to be an important feature of the game. There is no matchmaking, there is no auto-balanced ranking system to put you in the same category as your enemies. You'll spend 90% of your time fighting ppl either stronger or weaker than you. If that power difference means you kill or die in a split second, without a chance of playing the game, no one will participate.
The game that seemed to nail power progression for me was Ravendawn. The game basically had infinite progression but even at 20+ levels of difference I could still participate on a GvG against the most sweaty guild on the game and be able to contribute and feel like I was doing something rather than just being cannon fodder.
Did I do the same damage or win against those same sweaties in an individual duel? Hell no. But I was able to last 10~15 seconds even in a duel scenario where the guy was much stronger than me. This meant that in group scenarios I was able to play, throw my CCs, debuffs, interrupt some big casters on the other side, and even contribute to damage when the call was to focus damage. There was a certain comfortable level and gear gap that allowed players to win with less power if they played really well, but power progression still mattered.
This allowed me to follow my own progression pace, level up at my own time and do other content inside the game aside from rushing to the max level, because I knew that even at a disadvantage the game would still be fun and I wouldn't be useless in PVP.
How did they do it? A few factors:
On the TTK front:
1. High HP/DPS ratio. You did a very small % of damage per hit or ability compared to the player's base HP. This made it so even when 5 players grouped on one, that one wouldn't die in a second. The one guy would very rarely win, but he would survive long enough to maybe play extremely well and run away. This also means TTK was long overall and even on large-scale pvp with power gaps players didn't disappear instantly.
2. High Heal-Defensives/DPS ratio. Healing and defensive abilities were a lot more effective than baseline DPS. This means that even on a large scale where DPS outnumbered tank/healers by 4~8x, Healers and Tanks could still perform their role, and healing/defensive abilities were really important. The game was not about simply spamming DPS and whoever hits harder wins.
3. Limited but very effective anti-healing and armor reduction debuffs. If healing and defense were stronger than DPS, how did ppl die? Some people think in these high TTK scenarios ppl only die when the healer runs out of mana, and that is only true in badly designed high TTK games. The game had very powerful debuffs limited to very few spread across all archetypes and these debuffs were limited in time and area of effect. When these debuffs were properly coordinated with a focus DPS follow-up, healing and armor/defensive abilities were severely weakened and DPS could quickly dispatch of enemies. This also meant that uncoordinated Zergs couldn't kill anyone effectively as they suffered with properly timing these debuffs. This gave a massive advantage for elite small groups over just numbers. (we already have the foundation for this in the debuff systems and wounds and shaken, so this is easy to do for ashes)
All these factors gave the game a very high base TTK, with the possibility of some quick kills (not even close to the quick we have right now) with very well-coordinated strikes in large-scale pvp.
On the power progression front:
1. Saturated power curve. After the first 30~40 levels, the power gain really diminished, and players were grinding for very small power gains (as it should be, MMO players will grind for any 0.01% of power advantage)
2. "Gated" power progression. In the game, there was no dropped gear, only crafted gear. And the crafter progression was way slower than the leveling progression. The sweaties would be level 60 using level 40 tier gear. This would mean that they were on the same power tier as a guy who casually played the game and was level 40. Of course, the level 60 guy was stronger, as there were ways to min/max your gear with better stats and "enchanting", and the guy who was level 40 would be starting to gear up, but he wouldn't be able to reach lvl 60 tier of power until crafters progressed further. The progression curve in that game was something like this:
This is something that we have in ashes today kinda with the nodes soft-locking the possible crafter gear, but the balance isn't there yet to see this working. I also think that mob drops will kinda break this as players will just use blue-level appropriate gear when it's properly balanced, instead of engaging with the crafting system.
So, can Ashes pull it off? I believe it can, and they have the foundation to do it (gated progression, debuff system), but they need to forget this idea that lower TTK is better and focus on creating a proper system.
Imnotkio
1
Re: I dont see myself subscribing, if the current trend of grind and character power continues
I honestly hope player levelling will introduce a power gap ONLY between 1 to 25, and then all levels above 25 won't add HP or stats, just OPTIONAL choices to modify your playstyle.I've been hammering this point in almost all my feedback.
Will the player base grow if no new player can participate in PVP content with the established players before putting in 200~300 hours just rushing leveling? I seriously doubt it. And this is not a game with instanced content. Node wars happen whether you like it or not and you're fighting against higher level more geared players. Guild wars are also a player-driven event and you don't choose where and who to fight. Most important of all, open-world PVP is supposed to be an important feature of the game. There is no matchmaking, there is no auto-balanced ranking system to put you in the same category as your enemies. You'll spend 90% of your time fighting ppl either stronger or weaker than you. If that power difference means you kill or die in a split second, without a chance of playing the game, no one will participate.
What concerns me the most is the gear progression. Large power gap due to gear, enchanting etc is going to gate keep a lot of the game's content for those who aren't the top 10% or whatever of the server population. The same will apply to players who take a break from the game, and obviously new players. Player retention is going to be an issue, if pvp content isn't balanced. GW2 managed to pull it off, I'm just not sure if balanced pvp is Intrepid's intention.
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
Arya_Yeshe wrote: »@Electronn too long to read my man, nobody will read this unless they get paid to do so, sorry
Lol for sure for sure. I didn't read it either. I didn't even read the original post.
I don't even know what this thread is about!
I dont see myself subscribing, if the current trend of grind and character power continues
In before someone comments:
"This is alpha"
"Time To Kill is a known issue and being actively worked on"
Sure, then this is a perfect time to express an opinion on this subject.
I hope that current relationship between grind and character power gap will not be maintained. My main complaint is about how grind heavy the gear progression is, and how at the same time it enables a massive power gap between players of the same level. I'm not sure where Intrepid actually stands on it, so it would be good to dig out their comments or ask during their Q&A sessions. The trend from our experience in P1 and P2 so far, doesn't inspire me to be optimistic on this subject.
In short: I simply don't want a game which pushes players into a senseless grind before they can become competitive, due to how much stats and gear matter in pvp. I would prefer if Ashes was built with focus on player skill, teamplay and strategy, instead of constant race to acquire larger stat sticks. Sadly this is the state of the "game" today.
"This is alpha"
"Time To Kill is a known issue and being actively worked on"
Sure, then this is a perfect time to express an opinion on this subject.
I hope that current relationship between grind and character power gap will not be maintained. My main complaint is about how grind heavy the gear progression is, and how at the same time it enables a massive power gap between players of the same level. I'm not sure where Intrepid actually stands on it, so it would be good to dig out their comments or ask during their Q&A sessions. The trend from our experience in P1 and P2 so far, doesn't inspire me to be optimistic on this subject.
In short: I simply don't want a game which pushes players into a senseless grind before they can become competitive, due to how much stats and gear matter in pvp. I would prefer if Ashes was built with focus on player skill, teamplay and strategy, instead of constant race to acquire larger stat sticks. Sadly this is the state of the "game" today.