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
AOC Guild Summit - Server Discussion Recap
Hey guys! We have a small discord setup of multiple Guild leaders + reps to help get some more focused data to intrepid on issues if we can. If you'd like to be a part of this conversation, please dm me on discord. (Srixun) Currently we are looking at guilds that are 50+
Toxicity or hazing are not allowed. This is the Adults table.
Each guild gets 3 Reps (Gm, 2 officers) no exceptions. If you don't want to participate, no big deal but we're just trying to ensure bullet pointed feedback for Intrepid to ensure ashes is what we all want it to be.
Posted here to forums so the general populace can also leave feedback on said topics.
Full Breakdown of the Discord Conversation on Server Structure, PvP, and Off-topic Game Mechanics
---
Server Structure: Mega Server vs. Multiple Servers vs. Full Wipe
#### Arguments for a Mega Server (12 Users)
Better for testing and data collection: Keeping everyone on one server allows Intrepid to see real issues, balance PvP, and fix exploits effectively.
Segregation is not the solution: If players split into different servers based on playstyle (PvE, PvP, RP), Intrepid won't get the necessary feedback to balance the game properly.
One world, one community: The game’s vision is for a living, dynamic world where interactions matter—splitting servers kills that.
PvP, PvE, and RP must co-exist: The game is designed to be PvX (not PvP-only or PvE-only), so forcing separation isn’t true to the game’s philosophy.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This has led to excessive toxicity and is driving away new players.
Vyra has already lost significant testers due to PvP exploitation.(Lyneth has also lost alot of player activity)
The server stability is questionable—previous large fights have crashed the server.
---
#### Arguments for Multiple Servers (13 Users)
Different servers allow different playstyles: PvE players can avoid griefing, and PvP players can enjoy unrestricted combat.
Toxicity and griefing are major concerns: A single server will push casuals and small guilds away.
The map isn’t large enough for a mega server: With limited space and server instability, a single server may not work long-term.
Two to three servers could be optimal:
A PvP-heavy server for those who want unrestricted PvP.
A balanced server for mixed gameplay.
A PvE-heavy server for those who prefer a more cooperative experience.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This weakens the player economy and node interactions.
Some mechanics need PvP presence to function properly (e.g., node conflicts, sieges, mayoral elections).
If server populations dwindle, certain mechanics will fail.
---
#### Arguments for a Full Server Wipe (9 Users)
The game is already in disarray: Vyra has been overrun with exploits, war dodging, and server politics.
A fresh start is necessary for meaningful testing in Phase 3.
A wipe allows new guilds to catch up: Right now, dominant guilds have already shaped the server, making it hard for new players to test effectively.
🔹 Counterpoints:
A wipe without fixes will just repeat the same problems.
Some players argue that wipes should only happen once game mechanics are refined.
---
PvP Toxicity vs. Intended Gameplay
#### Concerns About PvP Toxicity (18 Users)
Larger guilds are abusing war mechanics to dominate smaller guilds and make participation difficult for new players.
PvP mechanics enable griefing rather than meaningful competition:
Dodging fights by logging off.
War declarations during RP events just to disrupt.
Excessive camping and griefing in respawn areas.
Casual and small guilds struggle to exist due to constant war declarations.
Many players have already quit because the environment is too hostile.
🔹 Counterpoints:
PvP is part of the game, and avoiding it should not be an option.
Players should use diplomacy and alliances instead of asking for rule changes.
Self-policing works—guilds should create fair play agreements.
---
#### Arguments That PvP Should Remain Unrestricted (8 Users)
It’s a PvX game, not PvE or PvP-exclusive: Complaining about PvP in a PvX game is pointless.
Griefing is not an issue, just player behavior: The game should not limit freedom just because some people abuse mechanics.
Smaller guilds should form alliances: The game is designed to encourage social play.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This ignores the problem of exploit abuse.
Forcing alliances is not a solution—some players prefer independent small guilds.
---
Exploits and System Fixes Needed
#### Most Commonly Reported Issues (21 Users)
War dodging: Large guilds log off or manipulate war declarations to avoid fights.
Mayorship abuse: Players are dropping citizenship to manipulate elections.
Guard AI is useless: NPC guards do nothing to prevent griefing during node wars.
Caravan and world boss abuse: Mechanics are being exploited to disrupt fights unfairly.
🔹 Suggested Fixes:
Cooldowns on war declarations to prevent instant PvP.
Better NPC guards to stop griefing.
Election system improvements to prevent abuse.
🔹 Counterpoints (3 Users Disagreeing):
Fixing too many of these issues may remove meaningful PvP.
Guild wars should stay unrestricted to maintain a dynamic world.
---
Balance for Smaller Guilds
#### Smaller Guilds Need More Support (14 Users)
The game is currently unbalanced in favor of large guilds.
Small guilds have no way to protect themselves outside of diplomacy.
Many small guilds are quitting, reducing server diversity.
🔹 Proposed Fixes:
Adjust PvP systems so large guilds don’t dominate everything.
Introduce mechanics that help smaller groups compete.
---
#### Arguments That Small Guilds Should Adapt (9 Users)
The game is designed around alliances—small guilds need to find protection.
Survival requires adaptation, not artificial balancing.
There are already ways to deal with bigger guilds through cooperation.
🔹 Counterpoints:
Not everyone wants to be forced into alliances just to survive.
---
Intrepid’s Role in Fixing Issues
#### Arguments for More Developer Intervention (16 Users)
Exploits need to be patched ASAP rather than relying on community policing.
Toxic behavior should be discouraged through game mechanics.
Systems should be adjusted to ensure fairer fights.
🔹 Suggested Fixes:
War cooldowns and better anti-griefing mechanics.
Balancing election mechanics to prevent abuse.
More active developer feedback collection.
---
#### Arguments for Community Self-Policing (10 Users)
The player base should handle these issues themselves rather than relying on the devs.
Diplomacy and social contracts are part of the game’s intended experience.
Restricting mechanics makes the game less dynamic.
🔹 Counterpoints:
Self-policing does not work when exploit abuse is widespread.
Devs need to actively balance the game to prevent population drop-off.
---
Final Summary
13 users want multiple servers.
12 users want a mega server.
9 users want a full wipe (but are split on server type after).
18 users believe PvP toxicity is a major problem.
21 users say war dodging, mayorship abuse, and PvP mechanics need fixes.
14 users think small guilds need more support.
16 users think Intrepid should step in more.
Toxicity or hazing are not allowed. This is the Adults table.
Each guild gets 3 Reps (Gm, 2 officers) no exceptions. If you don't want to participate, no big deal but we're just trying to ensure bullet pointed feedback for Intrepid to ensure ashes is what we all want it to be.
Posted here to forums so the general populace can also leave feedback on said topics.
Full Breakdown of the Discord Conversation on Server Structure, PvP, and Off-topic Game Mechanics
---
Server Structure: Mega Server vs. Multiple Servers vs. Full Wipe
#### Arguments for a Mega Server (12 Users)
Better for testing and data collection: Keeping everyone on one server allows Intrepid to see real issues, balance PvP, and fix exploits effectively.
Segregation is not the solution: If players split into different servers based on playstyle (PvE, PvP, RP), Intrepid won't get the necessary feedback to balance the game properly.
One world, one community: The game’s vision is for a living, dynamic world where interactions matter—splitting servers kills that.
PvP, PvE, and RP must co-exist: The game is designed to be PvX (not PvP-only or PvE-only), so forcing separation isn’t true to the game’s philosophy.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This has led to excessive toxicity and is driving away new players.
Vyra has already lost significant testers due to PvP exploitation.(Lyneth has also lost alot of player activity)
The server stability is questionable—previous large fights have crashed the server.
---
#### Arguments for Multiple Servers (13 Users)
Different servers allow different playstyles: PvE players can avoid griefing, and PvP players can enjoy unrestricted combat.
Toxicity and griefing are major concerns: A single server will push casuals and small guilds away.
The map isn’t large enough for a mega server: With limited space and server instability, a single server may not work long-term.
Two to three servers could be optimal:
A PvP-heavy server for those who want unrestricted PvP.
A balanced server for mixed gameplay.
A PvE-heavy server for those who prefer a more cooperative experience.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This weakens the player economy and node interactions.
Some mechanics need PvP presence to function properly (e.g., node conflicts, sieges, mayoral elections).
If server populations dwindle, certain mechanics will fail.
---
#### Arguments for a Full Server Wipe (9 Users)
The game is already in disarray: Vyra has been overrun with exploits, war dodging, and server politics.
A fresh start is necessary for meaningful testing in Phase 3.
A wipe allows new guilds to catch up: Right now, dominant guilds have already shaped the server, making it hard for new players to test effectively.
🔹 Counterpoints:
A wipe without fixes will just repeat the same problems.
Some players argue that wipes should only happen once game mechanics are refined.
---
PvP Toxicity vs. Intended Gameplay
#### Concerns About PvP Toxicity (18 Users)
Larger guilds are abusing war mechanics to dominate smaller guilds and make participation difficult for new players.
PvP mechanics enable griefing rather than meaningful competition:
Dodging fights by logging off.
War declarations during RP events just to disrupt.
Excessive camping and griefing in respawn areas.
Casual and small guilds struggle to exist due to constant war declarations.
Many players have already quit because the environment is too hostile.
🔹 Counterpoints:
PvP is part of the game, and avoiding it should not be an option.
Players should use diplomacy and alliances instead of asking for rule changes.
Self-policing works—guilds should create fair play agreements.
---
#### Arguments That PvP Should Remain Unrestricted (8 Users)
It’s a PvX game, not PvE or PvP-exclusive: Complaining about PvP in a PvX game is pointless.
Griefing is not an issue, just player behavior: The game should not limit freedom just because some people abuse mechanics.
Smaller guilds should form alliances: The game is designed to encourage social play.
🔹 Counterpoints:
This ignores the problem of exploit abuse.
Forcing alliances is not a solution—some players prefer independent small guilds.
---
Exploits and System Fixes Needed
#### Most Commonly Reported Issues (21 Users)
War dodging: Large guilds log off or manipulate war declarations to avoid fights.
Mayorship abuse: Players are dropping citizenship to manipulate elections.
Guard AI is useless: NPC guards do nothing to prevent griefing during node wars.
Caravan and world boss abuse: Mechanics are being exploited to disrupt fights unfairly.
🔹 Suggested Fixes:
Cooldowns on war declarations to prevent instant PvP.
Better NPC guards to stop griefing.
Election system improvements to prevent abuse.
🔹 Counterpoints (3 Users Disagreeing):
Fixing too many of these issues may remove meaningful PvP.
Guild wars should stay unrestricted to maintain a dynamic world.
---
Balance for Smaller Guilds
#### Smaller Guilds Need More Support (14 Users)
The game is currently unbalanced in favor of large guilds.
Small guilds have no way to protect themselves outside of diplomacy.
Many small guilds are quitting, reducing server diversity.
🔹 Proposed Fixes:
Adjust PvP systems so large guilds don’t dominate everything.
Introduce mechanics that help smaller groups compete.
---
#### Arguments That Small Guilds Should Adapt (9 Users)
The game is designed around alliances—small guilds need to find protection.
Survival requires adaptation, not artificial balancing.
There are already ways to deal with bigger guilds through cooperation.
🔹 Counterpoints:
Not everyone wants to be forced into alliances just to survive.
---
Intrepid’s Role in Fixing Issues
#### Arguments for More Developer Intervention (16 Users)
Exploits need to be patched ASAP rather than relying on community policing.
Toxic behavior should be discouraged through game mechanics.
Systems should be adjusted to ensure fairer fights.
🔹 Suggested Fixes:
War cooldowns and better anti-griefing mechanics.
Balancing election mechanics to prevent abuse.
More active developer feedback collection.
---
#### Arguments for Community Self-Policing (10 Users)
The player base should handle these issues themselves rather than relying on the devs.
Diplomacy and social contracts are part of the game’s intended experience.
Restricting mechanics makes the game less dynamic.
🔹 Counterpoints:
Self-policing does not work when exploit abuse is widespread.
Devs need to actively balance the game to prevent population drop-off.
---
Final Summary
13 users want multiple servers.
12 users want a mega server.
9 users want a full wipe (but are split on server type after).
18 users believe PvP toxicity is a major problem.
21 users say war dodging, mayorship abuse, and PvP mechanics need fixes.
14 users think small guilds need more support.
16 users think Intrepid should step in more.
Srixun
4
Re: Discounted Subscription Fee for Testing Phases?
There's plenty of people to test what's needed. Intrepid will develop the game and then people who are taking a break from testing can simply come back.chaotictiger11 wrote: »Yeah, I agree 100%, which I explained to them. But they're more concerned with only getting 2 months of playtime and not liking it enough to stick around. My thought was just having that many more players to test their servers rather than not having to have "too many" servers.
Also, I'm almost sure that in a year there's gonna be another key/bundle sale. Potentially cheaper than what it is rn.
Ludullu
1
Gear salvaging
Might be worth putting in some form of gear salvaging partially on named gear. Seems like name mobs being perma camped for their recipe and craftable piece and all the completed gear drop which is there most common drop it might be worth allows people to have another chance for the unique craftabke or recipe from the completed drops. Kinda feels bad camping 1 hour respawn times while competing with like 3 other people only to get the armor piece over and over again
Veeshan
1
Re: Gear salvaging
Might also be worth doing something with extra recipes aswell atm alot of common recipes filling the market up that no one buying, could maybe do something about it like allowing a npc recipe collector that trade in 5 recipes of any type and give you 1 random one in exchange. Would atleast give extra recipes a use aswell.
Veeshan
1
Re: Consensual PvP System in Ashes of Creation
The mayor can't really do that on release. We simply don't have the full system implemented yet.Arya_Yeshe wrote: »For example, why can a mayor just declare war on any node whenever he feels like it? No cooldown or anything? Why not limit a mayor to declaring up to three wars and with upgrades that let them declare more wars? There could even be war declarations by votes that doesn't require any node upgrade. Let the citizens vote to declare war on each node, and if they want to go to war with everyone, they can vote for it.
Thier node war stream showed that it's gonna be about proposing a war by the mayor and then people deciding to contribute to it or not. And it's gonna take a ton of resources and also will have a cd on it.
Once again, all issues of "the game" stem from the game not existing currently. This is why I keep saying, critique the plan and not the current state.
The plan for pvp event death penalties changed and I started critiquing that. The static resources keeps being a plan, so I'm critiquing that too. Corruption is planned to be tuned harsher than L2's was, so I've critiqued that in the past. And we haven't even heard about updates to some other plans either, so it'd be nice to ask some questions about that, but obviously we're not getting stream Q&As anymore.
Ludullu
3
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
Arya_Yeshe wrote: »I did not read anything that has been written and have nothing of value to add.
Too Long Didn't Read
Zeric
1
Re: Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
Arya_Yeshe wrote: »daveywavey wrote: »Arya_Yeshe wrote: »daveywavey wrote: »Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
I love this lol, this is content, weclome to EVE Online 2010
So, Intrepid got this right, however Intrepid failed in rewarding pvpers and the people from this node you mentioned absolutely cant live off fighting wars. This could be easily fixed with my idea of gold rewards for kills based on how much you make your target waste gold on repairs when they die
It provided some drama to the server, for sure!
The biggest problem was that they had alts in each node that they just spawn-killed over and over and over again for the points.
Damn, being perma spawn killed is hard, maybe in AoC you could become a ghost and have a timer of 5-10 minutes to reach another spawn.
Hey this is a cool idea. When you respawn at an ember spring, you spawn as a ghost and you need to click on an emberspring to activate your body again. This could allow players to run across the realm to another emberspring if they wanted to, or wait to spawn until it is convenient.
Xeeg
1
Re: A simple fix for the TTK (Time To Kill) problem
Solonthebandit wrote: »If people want gear to not matter why play something like AoC over something like LoL? I've heard guildies say gear progression is the skill in proper MMO's. I felt like that was a step to far but its wild to me how much complaining is happening on these forums over gear gapping. Isn't that the point? A feature, not a bug?
no and thats a terrible example , items in DOTA and LOL are literally gear , in dota the items/characters are mostly balanced so no matter how long or far you are into the game even if a team had a terrible start they can still win ,do strategy and make a comeback and fights arent 1 sided no matter how bad the gap was as long as the losing team outskill the other and be smart .
meanwhile in lol other than a few characters if any of the rest get like 2-3 kills at the start and get ahead even with 1 item they roll stomp the rest of the game with absolute ease which is what ashes of creation is so yeah , be like DOTA not LOL
Re: Node Siege - Risk vs. Reward
You need to differentiate between node wars and node sieges in your question. Node wars do not destroy an opposing node, cost mayoral mandate points, have requirements before they can be "decced" and other. (all planned, not in testing yet, but they have said getting those systems online shortly is priority atm). Node sieges which are also in testing now on PTR, have a different function. They are started by individuals. Cost as many resources as it took to take the node targeted to that level, have a quest line that has to be followed to craft the declaration, has a placement period where the banner crafted has to be defended within sight of the node's walls. All sorts of restrictions that will come later. Initially the testing will be rudimentary and will have similar problems to current guild and node war decs, with people exploiting and using broken, unfinished systems to gain "advantage".
The "risk" to attackers in a node siege is the time lost farming those materials to craft the declaration. Imagine the millions of exp and resources that contribute to a node levelling beyond the initial stages to even level 3, not to mention beyond. This will not be some solo effort, but will require a targeted group (Steven has used examples of WoW opening the Gates of Ahn'qiraj that takes server wide effort in relation to sieging a metro). Now, during testing that "risk" to attackers will not be as identifiable, cause to get bodies into the mix, those requirements will not be present initially. So your risk as an attacker is the time and resources that will be lost on a failed attempt. Does that mean that there will be roaches who don't participate in the gathering portion and just show up for the loot? Sure, but realize if the siege is successful, to get the stuff you win out of there will require even more pvp, and those two side of attacker/defender, become many, based on the games affiliation structure. It is important to realize the difference between the various systems.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_wars
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
The "risk" to attackers in a node siege is the time lost farming those materials to craft the declaration. Imagine the millions of exp and resources that contribute to a node levelling beyond the initial stages to even level 3, not to mention beyond. This will not be some solo effort, but will require a targeted group (Steven has used examples of WoW opening the Gates of Ahn'qiraj that takes server wide effort in relation to sieging a metro). Now, during testing that "risk" to attackers will not be as identifiable, cause to get bodies into the mix, those requirements will not be present initially. So your risk as an attacker is the time and resources that will be lost on a failed attempt. Does that mean that there will be roaches who don't participate in the gathering portion and just show up for the loot? Sure, but realize if the siege is successful, to get the stuff you win out of there will require even more pvp, and those two side of attacker/defender, become many, based on the games affiliation structure. It is important to realize the difference between the various systems.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_wars
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Node_sieges
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
