Best Of
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
This looked like an interesting topic from the title.
With a quick skim, it's way too long with too many unrelated details, making it hard to follow the main point. Further posts also seem to diverge from what I expected based on the title.
Is there a problem for solo players or is there some other problem?
A tldr: Solo players are not the intended audience for Ashes and as such will be disadvantaged in PvE and PvP. True statement.
Then they claimed half of the entire MMO population is solo players and that Ashes would fail due to a lack of solo-rewarding content.
Caeryl
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
The whole of AOC is centered around:
interdependence
Mutual dependence.
The condition of being interdependent.
A reciprocal relation between interdependent entities (objects or individuals or groups).
Everything from the Archetypes to crafting is all centered around interdependence.
That is the reason I got my wallet out for kickstarter. Steven's vision for for this project to be centered on groups and group play.
With ever so many many pretender MMO's why make another?
interdependence
Mutual dependence.
The condition of being interdependent.
A reciprocal relation between interdependent entities (objects or individuals or groups).
Everything from the Archetypes to crafting is all centered around interdependence.
That is the reason I got my wallet out for kickstarter. Steven's vision for for this project to be centered on groups and group play.
With ever so many many pretender MMO's why make another?
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
Can't really "get behind everyone else" in Ashes.But what about those who join later, who are inevitably going to be behind everyone else? Who do they group up with? The pool of similar players, that are at a similar stage of the game will be smaller and smaller.
This is why a big part of the game needs to be "solo" friendly.
Ashes is a dynamic game, rather than a static game.
The world changes as Nodes rise and fall.
Newbies will find each other near the Portals. But, again, you do not have to mechanically join a Group to fight alongside other players - regardless of their Levels.
Dygz
1
Re: Is there a problem for solo players
I don't care a whit about your unsupported claim that Soloers wil have worse gear. Especially since, even if it were a valid claim, it shouldn't matter if you're playing Solo.AirborneBerserker wrote: »You didn't read the post, because if you had you would know that a solo player will have worse gear, and be lower level, and even if they do some how get gear AND are higher level the corruption system will probably weaken them enough to make sure the last person kills them. And even if they can't kill him and they all die, that's not griefing that's getting ganked, and the amount of corruption will likely force them to leave. Groups will not have that problem.
Why would the Corruption system be weakening Soloers?? The Corruption system weakens PKers.
A player who repeatedly disrupts other players' gameplay is a Griefer. Doesn't really matter how they are griefing. Corruption is irrelevant with regard to whether someone is Griefer.
Dygz
1
Re: Contest for Parent Node
I personally prefer the revolution suggestion from the original post. I know I argued against the more extreme implementations, but I like the idea of introducing an option for uprising against the parent node, as long as it requires sufficient diplomacy or effort.
I'd focus more on fleshing out that idea.
Here are two problems I immediately foresee:
- Your suggestion gives far too much control over world developments directly into the hands of powerful players instead of letting individuals vote with their actions. Node development should be complex and difficult to predict, not be binary; it's the world evolving, it should feel natural and uncontrolled. Sieges are how you reshape it.
(And hopefully some form of vassal uprising as suggested in the original thread)
By your own logic in the previous post of guilds controlling everything, I'd even argue you're actually just making the node development more predetermined if you let players interfere with node development mechanics that directly.
- Your suggestion is a bandaid solution to a fundamental problem with node levelling. That's never a good idea, and it's only going to distract from putting in the necessary work to improve the system causing the symptom. Each node type and each node location should be equipped to attract players, and enable players to be active enough there with activities that level that node.
You would ensure that by adjusting node type experience gain for crafting, trading, PvP etc. Things that aren't just XP-farming.
Then, if all nodes types are inherently viable, it won't be as big of a deal if a sought-after dungeon or monster always appears in the same map location; there will still be a decent chance of a surrounding node type locking out that area because players care more about crafting/warring in the neighbouring node than farming those mobs/dungeons in the node containing that PvE objective. The general area might still be sought-after across most server realms, but the levels of each node will be very fluid anyway.
This will also ensure that sieging can create lasting change, because a thriving PvE metropolis that's successfully destroyed won't just be back at the top of the node XP scoreboard again two months later, if the metropolis that replaced it is destroyed. (Because other nodes will be able to match its XP rebuilding speed and stay ahead.)
I'd focus more on fleshing out that idea.
My suspicion is that the system is meant to be balanced around this "just had more (actively contributing) players in it" metric, and if we lower the significance of that balancing cornerstone, we'll be left with an even less refined system.Imo this would be a much better system than just "well, this node simply had more people in it, so your node got fucked over".
Here are two problems I immediately foresee:
- Your suggestion gives far too much control over world developments directly into the hands of powerful players instead of letting individuals vote with their actions. Node development should be complex and difficult to predict, not be binary; it's the world evolving, it should feel natural and uncontrolled. Sieges are how you reshape it.
(And hopefully some form of vassal uprising as suggested in the original thread)
By your own logic in the previous post of guilds controlling everything, I'd even argue you're actually just making the node development more predetermined if you let players interfere with node development mechanics that directly.
- Your suggestion is a bandaid solution to a fundamental problem with node levelling. That's never a good idea, and it's only going to distract from putting in the necessary work to improve the system causing the symptom. Each node type and each node location should be equipped to attract players, and enable players to be active enough there with activities that level that node.
You would ensure that by adjusting node type experience gain for crafting, trading, PvP etc. Things that aren't just XP-farming.
Then, if all nodes types are inherently viable, it won't be as big of a deal if a sought-after dungeon or monster always appears in the same map location; there will still be a decent chance of a surrounding node type locking out that area because players care more about crafting/warring in the neighbouring node than farming those mobs/dungeons in the node containing that PvE objective. The general area might still be sought-after across most server realms, but the levels of each node will be very fluid anyway.
This will also ensure that sieging can create lasting change, because a thriving PvE metropolis that's successfully destroyed won't just be back at the top of the node XP scoreboard again two months later, if the metropolis that replaced it is destroyed. (Because other nodes will be able to match its XP rebuilding speed and stay ahead.)
Re: Why did you stop to play an MMO you once loved?
Anti-roleplay elements: Over time, mechanics such as trinkets that affect other characters' actions or the introduction of server sharding broke immersion for roleplayers. Good example: The original, non-sharded servers where players consistently ran into familiar faces, allowing for organic, ongoing roleplay. Bad example: Sharding that splits up players across different instances of the same zone, making it impossible to find or roleplay with others consistently.
The story became less grounded: The narrative escalated from regional, political struggles to cosmic-level threats, which felt disconnected from the world’s original, more relatable conflicts. Good example: Early expansions like Wrath of the Lich King, where the focus was on a single, deeply personal threat (Arthas) who had ties to major lore characters. Bad example: Later expansions like Shadowlands, where the story moves into a metaphysical realm and deals with gods and cosmic entities, which feel abstract and distant.
Gearmill and endless grind: Multiple dungeon difficulties, including Mythic+ with endless scaling, turned the game into a constant gear grind. Good example: The original raid system, where there was one difficulty level and gear progression was tied to completing content at your own pace. Bad example: Mythic+ dungeons, where players must run the same content over and over at increasing difficulty levels to keep up with gear progression.
Titanforging: Titanforging introduced random gear upgrades, making progression feel like a lottery rather than a steady, earned process. Good example: In earlier expansions, you knew what gear would drop from a boss, and progression was clear and predictable. Bad example: Titanforging, where your gear might or might not receive a random bonus upgrade, causing frustration for players who didn’t get the “lucky” drop.
Leveling has become an afterthought: Leveling used to be a core experience, but it’s now reduced to a chore you need to complete to get to the endgame. Good example: In Classic WoW, leveling was a slower, meaningful process, with quests that encouraged exploration and learning about the world. Bad example: Modern expansions where leveling is streamlined and fast-tracked, with little thought given to immersion or story along the way.
Invalidation of old content: Each expansion renders old content obsolete, discouraging players from revisiting past dungeons and zones. Good example: Guild Wars 2, where older content scales with the player’s level, keeping it relevant and challenging. Bad example: In WoW, once a new expansion launches, entire zones and raids from previous expansions are abandoned because the gear and challenges are no longer relevant.
Flying mounts trivialize world travel: Flying mounts allow players to bypass the challenges of the world, making it feel smaller and less dangerous. Good example: Zones in The Burning Crusade where flying was earned after a long journey and had specific zones designed around the need for flight. Bad example: Warlords of Draenor, where flying was initially locked and then eventually unlocked, allowing players to skip all content and challenges below them, making the world feel trivial.
Class homogenization: Classes have lost their unique identities as abilities and roles have become more similar. Good example: In Vanilla WoW, classes had distinct roles—paladins were strong at healing, warriors were the go-to tanks, and each class had its niche. Bad example: In modern expansions, most classes have access to similar abilities (e.g., AoE attacks and self-healing), making them feel less unique.
No more mana management: Mana management used to be an important aspect of gameplay for certain classes, adding a layer of strategy. Good example: In Classic WoW, healers and casters had to carefully manage their mana in long fights, making decisions about when to use expensive spells. Bad example: In modern WoW, mana regeneration and resource management are trivialized, with few situations requiring careful planning.
Overabundance of AoE attacks: Every class having access to AoE abilities reduces the importance of tactical play. Good example: In Burning Crusade, AoE abilities were rare and powerful, used in specific situations and requiring careful positioning. Bad example: In modern WoW, almost every class has AoE abilities as part of their main rotation, making crowd control and positioning less relevant.
Stat inflation: Over time, the numbers for health, damage, and stats have grown excessively large, making progression feel bloated. Good example: Earlier expansions, where stats were smaller and each piece of gear’s impact was clear and meaningful. Bad example: In modern expansions, where numbers like DPS and health values have become astronomical, making them feel abstract and disconnected from player experience.
Removal of weaknesses and resistances: The removal of elemental resistances simplified gameplay, reducing customization and strategic depth. Good example: In Classic WoW, resistances played a big role in certain fights, like gearing for fire resistance in Molten Core. Bad example: Modern expansions where resistances have been almost entirely removed, reducing the need for specialized gear or preparation for specific encounters.
On-rails gameplay: The game feels more structured and linear, guiding players along a set path rather than encouraging exploration. Good example: Earlier expansions where players could wander the world freely and stumble upon hidden quests or secret areas. Bad example: Modern expansions where quest markers and linear story progression guide players from one objective to the next, removing the sense of discovery.
Lack of player housing: Despite the game’s deep world-building, the lack of player housing limits personalization and expression. Good example: Final Fantasy XIV and The Elder Scrolls Online, where players can build and customize their own homes, adding personal touches to the game world. Bad example: The lack of player housing in WoW leaves players with little opportunity to make their mark or personalize their experience.
Lack of fun, random items: The game used to have more quirky, random items that brought unexpected joy to gameplay. Good example: Items like the Dead Branch in Ragnarok Online, which would summon random monsters, adding unpredictability to the game. Bad example: Modern WoW, where most items are optimized for stats, with little room for items that have fun or strange effects.
Cookie-cutter design: Gear and builds have become more standardized, leaving less room for creativity and experimentation. Good example: In earlier expansions, players could experiment with unusual builds, like hybrid melee/caster setups. Bad example: Modern expansions push players toward optimized, meta builds, reducing the freedom to try unconventional gear combinations or playstyles.
Lack of meaningful social interaction: The ease of finding groups through automated tools has reduced the need for meaningful social interactions. Good example: In early expansions, finding groups for dungeons required communication and teamwork, often leading to lasting friendships. Bad example: Automated group finders in modern games, where players can run entire dungeons without saying a single word to their group.
Overemphasis on endgame content: The focus on endgame raiding and dungeons has sidelined other aspects of the game, like exploration or crafting. Good example: Games like RuneScape, where crafting, exploration, and social activities are just as important as combat. Bad example: Modern WoW, where most content outside of dungeons and raids feels secondary or irrelevant once a player reaches max level.
Predictable, formulaic content updates: Expansions and patches follow a predictable formula, reducing the excitement of new releases. Good example: Games that introduce new and unexpected mechanics or challenges with each expansion, like Guild Wars 2’s living world updates. Bad example: WoW expansions that consistently follow the pattern of adding new zones, dungeons, and raids without truly innovative content.
Instant gratification mentality: Modern game systems often prioritize quick, easy rewards over long-term challenges. Good example: Games that reward players with rare, prestigious items for completing difficult, time-consuming content. Bad example: Modern systems where players can obtain powerful gear through daily or weekly chores, removing the sense of accomplishment from earning rewards.
Loss of risk and reward dynamics: The reduction of penalties for failure has diminished the tension and stakes of gameplay. Good example: Earlier MMOs where death meant losing experience, or even dropping valuable items, adding real risk to gameplay. Bad example: Modern WoW, where death has little consequence, and players are simply sent back to the nearest graveyard with no real loss.
Streamlined professions and crafting: Crafting systems have been simplified, removing much of the depth and meaning from professions. Good example: In earlier expansions, crafting could create powerful and unique gear, with a player-driven economy. Bad example: Modern expansions where crafted gear is often inferior to dungeon or raid drops, and professions feel like an afterthought.
Loss of exploration: The game has lost much of its sense of discovery and exploration, as everything is marked on the map. Good example: Games like Breath of the Wild, where exploration is rewarded and players are encouraged to roam freely. Bad example: Modern MMOs where quests are laid out in a linear fashion, with markers showing exactly where to go, removing the need to explore on your own.
Overemphasis on min-maxing: The focus on optimizing character builds has reduced creativity in how players approach the game. Good example: Games that allow for a wide range of viable builds and playstyles, encouraging experimentation. Bad example: Modern WoW, where the community heavily pushes optimized builds and players are discouraged from trying unconventional setups.
Repetitive dailies and chores: Daily quests and tasks have become repetitive, turning gameplay into a routine rather than an adventure. Good example: Games that mix up daily tasks with random, dynamic events or challenges to keep the experience fresh. Bad example: Games that rely heavily on repetitive daily quests that offer little variety, causing burnout among players.
Less focus on role-playing and immersion: As the game has prioritized mechanics and efficiency, role-playing and immersion have taken a back seat. Good example: Roleplaying-focused servers and systems that encourage deep immersion, like those in The Elder Scrolls Online. Bad example: Modern WoW, where the focus on min-maxing and meta progression overshadows the narrative and immersive aspects of the game.
PvP becoming secondary: PvP content has been sidelined, with overly balanced systems reducing the excitement and stakes of player combat. Good example: Open-world PvP in earlier expansions, where players fought for control of zones and had real consequences for winning or losing. Bad example: Modern PvP, where arenas and battlegrounds feel like isolated, over-balanced minigames with little impact on the world at large.
The story became less grounded: The narrative escalated from regional, political struggles to cosmic-level threats, which felt disconnected from the world’s original, more relatable conflicts. Good example: Early expansions like Wrath of the Lich King, where the focus was on a single, deeply personal threat (Arthas) who had ties to major lore characters. Bad example: Later expansions like Shadowlands, where the story moves into a metaphysical realm and deals with gods and cosmic entities, which feel abstract and distant.
Gearmill and endless grind: Multiple dungeon difficulties, including Mythic+ with endless scaling, turned the game into a constant gear grind. Good example: The original raid system, where there was one difficulty level and gear progression was tied to completing content at your own pace. Bad example: Mythic+ dungeons, where players must run the same content over and over at increasing difficulty levels to keep up with gear progression.
Titanforging: Titanforging introduced random gear upgrades, making progression feel like a lottery rather than a steady, earned process. Good example: In earlier expansions, you knew what gear would drop from a boss, and progression was clear and predictable. Bad example: Titanforging, where your gear might or might not receive a random bonus upgrade, causing frustration for players who didn’t get the “lucky” drop.
Leveling has become an afterthought: Leveling used to be a core experience, but it’s now reduced to a chore you need to complete to get to the endgame. Good example: In Classic WoW, leveling was a slower, meaningful process, with quests that encouraged exploration and learning about the world. Bad example: Modern expansions where leveling is streamlined and fast-tracked, with little thought given to immersion or story along the way.
Invalidation of old content: Each expansion renders old content obsolete, discouraging players from revisiting past dungeons and zones. Good example: Guild Wars 2, where older content scales with the player’s level, keeping it relevant and challenging. Bad example: In WoW, once a new expansion launches, entire zones and raids from previous expansions are abandoned because the gear and challenges are no longer relevant.
Flying mounts trivialize world travel: Flying mounts allow players to bypass the challenges of the world, making it feel smaller and less dangerous. Good example: Zones in The Burning Crusade where flying was earned after a long journey and had specific zones designed around the need for flight. Bad example: Warlords of Draenor, where flying was initially locked and then eventually unlocked, allowing players to skip all content and challenges below them, making the world feel trivial.
Class homogenization: Classes have lost their unique identities as abilities and roles have become more similar. Good example: In Vanilla WoW, classes had distinct roles—paladins were strong at healing, warriors were the go-to tanks, and each class had its niche. Bad example: In modern expansions, most classes have access to similar abilities (e.g., AoE attacks and self-healing), making them feel less unique.
No more mana management: Mana management used to be an important aspect of gameplay for certain classes, adding a layer of strategy. Good example: In Classic WoW, healers and casters had to carefully manage their mana in long fights, making decisions about when to use expensive spells. Bad example: In modern WoW, mana regeneration and resource management are trivialized, with few situations requiring careful planning.
Overabundance of AoE attacks: Every class having access to AoE abilities reduces the importance of tactical play. Good example: In Burning Crusade, AoE abilities were rare and powerful, used in specific situations and requiring careful positioning. Bad example: In modern WoW, almost every class has AoE abilities as part of their main rotation, making crowd control and positioning less relevant.
Stat inflation: Over time, the numbers for health, damage, and stats have grown excessively large, making progression feel bloated. Good example: Earlier expansions, where stats were smaller and each piece of gear’s impact was clear and meaningful. Bad example: In modern expansions, where numbers like DPS and health values have become astronomical, making them feel abstract and disconnected from player experience.
Removal of weaknesses and resistances: The removal of elemental resistances simplified gameplay, reducing customization and strategic depth. Good example: In Classic WoW, resistances played a big role in certain fights, like gearing for fire resistance in Molten Core. Bad example: Modern expansions where resistances have been almost entirely removed, reducing the need for specialized gear or preparation for specific encounters.
On-rails gameplay: The game feels more structured and linear, guiding players along a set path rather than encouraging exploration. Good example: Earlier expansions where players could wander the world freely and stumble upon hidden quests or secret areas. Bad example: Modern expansions where quest markers and linear story progression guide players from one objective to the next, removing the sense of discovery.
Lack of player housing: Despite the game’s deep world-building, the lack of player housing limits personalization and expression. Good example: Final Fantasy XIV and The Elder Scrolls Online, where players can build and customize their own homes, adding personal touches to the game world. Bad example: The lack of player housing in WoW leaves players with little opportunity to make their mark or personalize their experience.
Lack of fun, random items: The game used to have more quirky, random items that brought unexpected joy to gameplay. Good example: Items like the Dead Branch in Ragnarok Online, which would summon random monsters, adding unpredictability to the game. Bad example: Modern WoW, where most items are optimized for stats, with little room for items that have fun or strange effects.
Cookie-cutter design: Gear and builds have become more standardized, leaving less room for creativity and experimentation. Good example: In earlier expansions, players could experiment with unusual builds, like hybrid melee/caster setups. Bad example: Modern expansions push players toward optimized, meta builds, reducing the freedom to try unconventional gear combinations or playstyles.
Lack of meaningful social interaction: The ease of finding groups through automated tools has reduced the need for meaningful social interactions. Good example: In early expansions, finding groups for dungeons required communication and teamwork, often leading to lasting friendships. Bad example: Automated group finders in modern games, where players can run entire dungeons without saying a single word to their group.
Overemphasis on endgame content: The focus on endgame raiding and dungeons has sidelined other aspects of the game, like exploration or crafting. Good example: Games like RuneScape, where crafting, exploration, and social activities are just as important as combat. Bad example: Modern WoW, where most content outside of dungeons and raids feels secondary or irrelevant once a player reaches max level.
Predictable, formulaic content updates: Expansions and patches follow a predictable formula, reducing the excitement of new releases. Good example: Games that introduce new and unexpected mechanics or challenges with each expansion, like Guild Wars 2’s living world updates. Bad example: WoW expansions that consistently follow the pattern of adding new zones, dungeons, and raids without truly innovative content.
Instant gratification mentality: Modern game systems often prioritize quick, easy rewards over long-term challenges. Good example: Games that reward players with rare, prestigious items for completing difficult, time-consuming content. Bad example: Modern systems where players can obtain powerful gear through daily or weekly chores, removing the sense of accomplishment from earning rewards.
Loss of risk and reward dynamics: The reduction of penalties for failure has diminished the tension and stakes of gameplay. Good example: Earlier MMOs where death meant losing experience, or even dropping valuable items, adding real risk to gameplay. Bad example: Modern WoW, where death has little consequence, and players are simply sent back to the nearest graveyard with no real loss.
Streamlined professions and crafting: Crafting systems have been simplified, removing much of the depth and meaning from professions. Good example: In earlier expansions, crafting could create powerful and unique gear, with a player-driven economy. Bad example: Modern expansions where crafted gear is often inferior to dungeon or raid drops, and professions feel like an afterthought.
Loss of exploration: The game has lost much of its sense of discovery and exploration, as everything is marked on the map. Good example: Games like Breath of the Wild, where exploration is rewarded and players are encouraged to roam freely. Bad example: Modern MMOs where quests are laid out in a linear fashion, with markers showing exactly where to go, removing the need to explore on your own.
Overemphasis on min-maxing: The focus on optimizing character builds has reduced creativity in how players approach the game. Good example: Games that allow for a wide range of viable builds and playstyles, encouraging experimentation. Bad example: Modern WoW, where the community heavily pushes optimized builds and players are discouraged from trying unconventional setups.
Repetitive dailies and chores: Daily quests and tasks have become repetitive, turning gameplay into a routine rather than an adventure. Good example: Games that mix up daily tasks with random, dynamic events or challenges to keep the experience fresh. Bad example: Games that rely heavily on repetitive daily quests that offer little variety, causing burnout among players.
Less focus on role-playing and immersion: As the game has prioritized mechanics and efficiency, role-playing and immersion have taken a back seat. Good example: Roleplaying-focused servers and systems that encourage deep immersion, like those in The Elder Scrolls Online. Bad example: Modern WoW, where the focus on min-maxing and meta progression overshadows the narrative and immersive aspects of the game.
PvP becoming secondary: PvP content has been sidelined, with overly balanced systems reducing the excitement and stakes of player combat. Good example: Open-world PvP in earlier expansions, where players fought for control of zones and had real consequences for winning or losing. Bad example: Modern PvP, where arenas and battlegrounds feel like isolated, over-balanced minigames with little impact on the world at large.
ariatras
3
Re: Resurrection during combat
Some folks keep forgetting that the main inspiration for Ashes comes from Lineage II and ArcheAge. This will not be a typical MMO with classic raid encounters, where guilds will compete over "who can do the most DPS" on the boss. There will be a bloodbath every single time, and organized guilds will control access to the boss itself. If you're part of a small, niche group, chances are you probably won't even get to hit the boss, or get past the entrance of a dungeon.
Vargan
1
Re: Vassal resentment
Do you see every guild that's gonna pvp for their content as rats as well? What about players that flag first if they see someone approaching their gathering spot or mob farming location?IT has nothing to do with the node you live in, im talking about rats that just want to attack everything or be used by other nodes to destroy things around them. Again you fit the bill.
Cause that kinda sounds like 90% of the game's population will just be rats then.
Ludullu
1
Re: Why did you stop to play an MMO you once loved?
JamesSunderland wrote: »I will never forgive NCSoft for what they did to L2Good News for You probably, James.
I remembered your Comment here when i saw this Video. Apparently Lineage Two Players have a good Number of Reasons why they will love Ashes of Creation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTNBu3MOALw
May the Copium-Gods bless us once more.
Yeah for sure xD Lineage 2 influence in Ashes is pretty blunt. Not only having Lineage 2 inspirations but also having Archeage Inspirations which is also a game that took inspirations from Lineage 2.
Lineage 2 players will mostly few at home in Ashes.
Re: Ideas on goldsellers and ban that feels?
Firstly here is a short clip from Steven on their stance on gold sellers or more specific gold buyers.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HLDwGT5aHP4
Sadly TheLazyPeon wasnt informed well enough or didnt research well enough before posting his video with his concerns. I commented this below his video, but that seems to have gone under.
In general you have to squash the demand so the price wont be high, then the botters will move on to a more profitable game and to squash the demand you have to ban players that RMT.
What can be difficult is when real humans who lock parts of the maps or raidbosses start to sell kills or loot for real money. Even if a crafter sells their items for real money.. this will be incredibly hard to detect and I am not sure how Ashes can/will handle this. How do you decide if the crafter got paid in cash or maybe the other player did something for him or a friend of him, maybe he is a friend.. or its one of thousands of other reasons why he might give him an item or several items for free.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HLDwGT5aHP4
Sadly TheLazyPeon wasnt informed well enough or didnt research well enough before posting his video with his concerns. I commented this below his video, but that seems to have gone under.
In general you have to squash the demand so the price wont be high, then the botters will move on to a more profitable game and to squash the demand you have to ban players that RMT.
What can be difficult is when real humans who lock parts of the maps or raidbosses start to sell kills or loot for real money. Even if a crafter sells their items for real money.. this will be incredibly hard to detect and I am not sure how Ashes can/will handle this. How do you decide if the crafter got paid in cash or maybe the other player did something for him or a friend of him, maybe he is a friend.. or its one of thousands of other reasons why he might give him an item or several items for free.
Legi
2