Best Of

Your not wrong, which is in large part why this ended up so long and formatted the way it did. In addition to helping me keep my thoughts straight, I was trying to highlight all of the problem areas the current punishment only system has. However, the argument didn't feel very grounded and more like one guys opinion rather than a fact based evaluation of the system so I needed something to help contrast the design better.

Maybe I should have made it more clear that the ultimate goal was not the implementation of this exact system if there is a better alternative, but rather the underpinning facts that a punishment only system as it exists in Ashes now cannot be tuned to be effective and wont create the environment as they have described it. Without the underpinning of "Rewards" (Or Incentivized Conflict) for engaging in PvP the game is going down the same road as so many others in this category with just a different coat of paint.

O well, at least I tried I guess. lol

Actually this.

I believe that individual players should have the option to flee. Logically there is and always will be one tool to serve this porpoise : mounting up. No matter what balance and character tweak solutions will arrive due to CC and movement skills (closing gap / flee) no individual player or small team will be able to counter a chase of a PK team who have exactly the same skill sets if not more, that the small team has or of course a solo player. Mounting up is the only option that actually has counters. But if you can not mount up vs a PK team you have ZERO options to counter their act.

as above mentioned, IF you are able to CC the mount and kill it the chased one has no chance (10 min respawn time)

First off, I did a lot of fishing in ArcheAge, so I have a good understanding of how their fishing system works and how you tried to mimic it. If you’re going to do that, you might as well adopt the entire system with very few changes to freshwater sport fishing.

In my opinion, the first attempt fell short.

First, why was freshwater fishing implemented in ArcheAge?

Because only P2W players were able to do saltwater fishing. As a result, they added freshwater fishing, which was a 99.9% opt-out PvP activity. You could use your fishing boat because the lakes that supported freshwater fishing had docks where you could sell your fish.

Freshwater Sport Fishing Feedback

Rowboats

• No ArcheAge owner’s mark? The fact that other players can interact with your rowboat is a serious oversight!
• Rowboats should function like mules; you should be able to store 2 fish or crates on them. You already have the tech that allows crates to be placed on moving objects.

Freshwater Docks

• Why are there no freshwater docks where you can row your boat to turn in fish? ArcheAge had these docks, and they were not that far from the fishing spots.
• Why are there no guards at the harbors to one-shot players? If a player turns purple, the guards should immediately kill them.
• If freshwater docks are added to lakes, they should also have guards that one-shot purple players. This helps prevent camping, which is exactly why ArcheAge had them.

Suggestion:

Fishing License (numbers used are examples only)

• If the concern is excessive gold generation, there are simple solutions. One idea is to add a fishing license that players must purchase at a freshwater dock.
• The fishing license would grant a buff that limits the number of fish a player can catch for one hour. A player would not be able to purchase another license until the current one expires.

Example: Fish Limited by Fishing Certificate Level

• Novice: 15
• Apprentice: 20
• Journeyman: 25
• Master: 30
• Grandmaster: 35

It’s not hard to put limitations in place without relying on a labor point system or the need for constant PVP to be a factor.

Im sorry to say but in the words of steven: We dont want your ideas we want you to tell us the problem.

He has said this a few times in recent livestreams and its such a toxic way to engage with a community. It gives me little hope that hes listening to community feedback.

He is most likely only listening to content creator/"friendly" feedback.

But anyway, I can at least say +1 i agree with this thought process and the approaches to resolve it therein.

I hope this makes it to Steven. I know this whole project started because of his nostalgia with Lineage and the lack of market options for MMO's but I fear he is directing AoC in a way that is trying to be the best of 2004 while the safest in this age. This won't work.

When mounting and crafting feels like a chore, the vision is getting lost on something else that doesn't seem to be working.

Hey Intrepid Team,

I’ve been spending a lot of time looking at the current PvP landscape in the Alpha/Early Access, and while the "Golden Age" inspiration is fantastic, to ensure Verra doesn't just feel like a nostalgic trip to 2004, we need to address a "legacy" design trap: the belief that open-world PvP can be managed solely through punishment.

The current Corruption system is a "stick" designed for a different era of gaming. If we want a world that is truly alive, we need to evolve toward a Hybrid Incentivized Conflict system that rewards players for engaging rather than just punishing them for fighting.

I wrote this out a bit like a technical document I would use at work but it was the only way to keep my thoughts straight so apologies for the length in advance.

1. Moving Beyond the "Stick": Why Punishment Alone Isn’t Enough

The current Corruption model is essentially a "stick"—it punishes non-consensual combat through severe stat dampening and loot drops. However, when the "stick" is the only tool in the box, it often drives player behavior "sideways" rather than stopping the conflict.

• The Rise of "Toxic Workarounds": When players feel that corruption is detrimental to their progression or too risky for their gear they dont stop trying to kill the other players instead, they often resort to environmental griefing. We’ve seen this in many sandbox predecessors: players "training" high-level mobs onto others or using the environment to secure kills without technically triggering the Corruption flag.
• Unfun for Both Sides: This creates a lose-lose scenario. The PvE-focused player feels frustrated because they are being "griefed" in a way they can’t easily report (its not technically harassment) or fight back against, while the PvP-focused player is forced into a clunky, "un-fun" playstyle just to avoid a mechanical penalty.
• The Goal: Transition from a system that only "polices" bad behavior to one that "incentivizes" healthy, direct conflict. By rewarding players for choosing to fight openly (the Vanguard system), you can reduce the need for these toxic workarounds and keep the gameplay focused on skill and strategy rather than exploitation of the environment.
• The Vision: Move the tension out of the "gray area" of griefing and into a clear, reward-driven ecosystem where the stakes are high, but the rules are fair.

2. Breaking Out of "Scheduled Fun" (The Bubble Problem)

Currently, the most exciting parts of Ashes—Node/Castle Sieges, Caravans, and Guild/Node Wars—function as "tentpole" moments. These are fantastic for concentrated action, but they often act as bubbles of scheduled conflict. This leaves players with very little to engage with outside of these scheduled conflicts.

• The 20% Instance Gap: There has been a lot of discussion around the "80% Open World / 20% Instanced" content split. While I love the focus on a living, seamless world, 20% might actually be too low of a blend for PvE-focused players to feel like they have consistent options. When you aren't in a "tentpole" event like a Node War, the jump from "Safe Node" to "High-Risk Open World Farm" can feel very jarring without more varied middle-ground content.
• The Need for Variety: A sandbox thrives on variety. If the only choices are "Highly Dangerous Open World" or "Waiting for a Siege," players can burn out. Players need a wider spectrum of activities that allow all player types—PvE and PvP alike—to engage with the world in different ways between those massive server-wide events.
• Implementing "Safe Spot" Breathers: I’m not  suggesting a world of safety, but Verra could benefit from rare, localized "safe spots" or low-intensity zones. These wouldn't be places where you’d find legendary drops or endgame materials; instead, they would serve as areas for "stepping stone" upgrades and instance content feels like a great place for most of these to exist.
• The "Stepping Stone" Philosophy: By providing areas where players can reliably gather mid-tier materials for transitional gear without the constant threat of a 10-man gank squad, you create a smoother progression curve. It gives players a place to "catch their breath" and gear up before they head back out into the high-stakes regions where the truly elite resources reside.
• The Goal: Bridging the gap between the "safe" city life and the "chaotic" war zone ensures that players always have something meaningful to do, regardless of whether a Node War is currently active on their calendar.

3. The "Vanguard" State: A Declaration of Intent

To bridge the gap between "Scheduled War" and "Standard Farming," I’m proposing the Vanguard System. Think of this as a specialized evolution of WoW’s "War Mode," but reimagined to fit the high-stakes, sandbox nature of Verra.

• Not a Replacement for Corruption: It is vital to clarify that this system does not replace Corruption. The Corruption system remains the ironclad law of the land for those who choose to target "Standard Mode" players. If you kill a player who has not opted into the Vanguard state, you still suffer the full weight of Corruption, stat dampening, and social shunning.
• A Way to Say "I’m Game": The Vanguard toggle is a proactive declaration of intent. By flagging as a Vanguard within a Node, a player is saying, "I am not afraid of PvP, and I am willing to put my progression on the line for higher rewards."
• Consensual High-Stakes Combat: When two Vanguards meet, they can engage in combat with zero Corruption penalties, and heavily reduced XP debt. They have both opted into a "consensual" state of open-world conflict where skill and strategy determine who keeps the spoils.
• Creatively Rewarding "The Vanguard": In addition to better PvE loot and reduced downside to dying in PvP the system could be designed to incentivize skirmishing with others by allowing non-corruption carrying Vanguards who have successfully killed corrupted players to designate small portions of their materials inventory as safe from dropping for a short period of time.
• The "Power Gap" Safety Valve: Even within the Vanguard state, I believe there should be a check on griefing. If a high-level Vanguard repeatedly kills another Vanguard significantly lower in level (where no real challenge or "risk" exists for the attacker), Corruption should still potentially apply (or other suitable penalty). The system should encourage competitive conflict, not "legalized" bullying of players especially at power difference tiers (like currently exists between adept and radiant gear). This ensures the Vanguard state remains about "Risk vs. Reward" and not just "Punching Down."
• Drawing the "Aggro" of Aggressive Players: One of the greatest benefits of this system is that it naturally protects the PvE-first population. If the world is populated with Vanguards who carry a "Risk Premium" (bonus loot, XP, and rare materials), they become the most attractive targets for aggressive players.
• The Path of Highest Reward: Why would a ganker take the massive, character-crippling hit of Corruption to kill a "Standard" player for low rewards, when they could instead hunt a "Vanguard" who offers a legitimate, penalty-free fight and a much higher payout? The Vanguard system creates a "lightning rod" effect that keeps the most intense combat focused on the players who actually want to be there.

4. Protecting the "Backbone": Avoiding the Hardcore PvP Trap

A healthy PvP engine requires a massive amount of PvE "fuel" to keep the gears turning. Historically, many of the most ambitious sandbox games have fallen into the "Boom and Bust" cycle because they prioritized the "wolves" (PvPers) at the total expense of the "sheep" (PvE-first players and gatherers).

• The Lineage Legacy: We can’t talk about Ashes without acknowledging Lineage 1 and 2. These games pioneered the high-stakes open-world drama we love, but they also highlight the friction of the "Karma" system. While those games thrived in a different era of gaming, their long-term health often struggled when the "power gap" became an insurmountable wall for new or non-hardcore players, leading to server stagnation.
• Modern "Bust" Warnings: We’ve seen this cycle repeat in modern titles. New World famously struggled at launch by pivoting away from its hardcore PvP roots because it couldn't find a way to make the world feel "safe" enough for a sustainable PvE population. Conversely, games like Mortal Online 2 remain niche because the constant, unmitigated risk alienates the very crafters and gatherers needed to fuel a global economy.
• The Albion Online Success: On the flip side, Albion Online provides a possible modern blueprint for success. By using a tiered risk system (Blue, Yellow, Red, and Black zones), they allow players to "graduate" into danger. Our Vanguard vs. Standard proposal mirrors this success by allowing the players themselves to act as the "zones," choosing their level of risk while remaining in the same seamless world.
• The EVE Online Lesson: Even the most "hardcore" PvP sandbox in history, EVE Online, understands this. The massive wars in "Null-Sec" are only possible because of "High-Sec"—the safe regions where players can mine, trade, and build the foundation of the economy with relative security. Without High-Sec producing the raw materials and entry-level ships, the war machine of Null-Sec would literally run out of metal.
• Economic Principles of the "Risk Premium": In any economy, risk must be balanced by reward. By using this proposed Hybrid System, you create a natural economic ladder:
  • Standard Mode (The Foundation): These players provide the high-volume, baseline materials needed for the world to function. They take lower risks and, in turn, receive standard rewards.
  • Vanguard Mode (The Multiplier): These players take the high risks, fighting over the most lucrative spots to gain that 20% Risk Premium. This premium represents the "extra value" created by conflict.
• Creating "Sinks" Not "Stress": A healthy economy needs "sinks"—reasons for gear to break and resources to be consumed. PvP is the best sink in the world, but it only works if players feel they can recover. Providing "Safe Spots" for stepping-stone materials (as mentioned in Section 2) ensures that a player who loses everything in a Vanguard skirmish has a clear, non-punishing path to recover and get back into the fight.
• The Goal: I want to ensure that Ashes of Creation doesn't just have a great first month, but a great first decade. By respecting the PvE-first player as the "backbone" of the economy, you ensure there is always a world worth fighting over.

5. Agency for the Modern Gamer

The player base of 2025 is fundamentally different from the one that populated Lineage or Vanilla WoW twenty years ago. To succeed long-term, Verra must design for the "modern" player’s reality, not just the "hardcore" memory.

• The Aging Vanguard: Data from 2024 and 2025 reveals that the average gamer is now between 36 and 41 years old. These "legacy" players—the same ones driving the hype for Ashes—now balance their gaming with "crushing real-world responsibilities" like jobs, families, and limited free time.
• The Concept of "Mental Bandwidth": Gaming is increasingly used for stress reduction and relaxation. A player might have the "bandwidth" for a high-intensity, adrenaline-fueled Vanguard session on a Friday night, but on a Tuesday after a 10-hour workday, they may only have the energy for a "safe" Standard Mode gathering session.
• "Care Bears" are Choice-Driven, Not Anti-PvP: There is a common misconception that PvE-first players (often disparaged as "care bears") hate PvP. In reality, many are willing to "jump into the meat grinder" and engage in conflict—even if it ultimately leads to them being killed several times—if they have the bandwidth for it that night.
• Rewarding the Mood: By offering the Vanguard Toggle, you allow these players to opt into the "meat grinder" when they are in the mood for it, lured by the 20% Risk Premium. Because they chose the danger, the sting of a loss is mitigated by their own agency.
• Sustainable Participation: This flexibility prevents the burnout that occurs when players feel "forced" into high-stress conflict every single time they log in. If a player knows they can always drop back into Standard Mode to "catch their breath," they are far more likely to remain subscribed and active in the world for years.
• Choice Matters: Some nights, a player might only have an hour and just wants to chill and process some ore (Standard). Other nights, they want the adrenaline of defending their spot against rivals (Vanguard).
• Retention: By giving players the agency to choose their "intensity level" for that session, you reduce burnout and keep the world populated with people playing exactly how they want to in that moment.
• The Goal: A system that respects the player's time and mental state. By acknowledging that a player’s "intensity level" changes day-to-day, we ensure Verra remains a welcoming home for both the 24/7 warrior and the weekend-warrior "Settler."

Illustrating the Experience: Three User Stories

The Outlaw (The Ganker)

Jax is an opportunist and rather than gather himself he likes to take a portion from those he defeats. In the old system, he would "train" mobs onto a gatherer, or “poke” mob farming players to put them near death against NPCs, all to avoid Corruption and try and gain some loot. Now, he sees a Vanguard player gathering/farming and because that player carries the 20% Risk Premium, and with it better loot, Jax has a massive incentive to engage in a direct, legitimate fight (even if that is jumping them at the most opportune moment; after all a legitimate fight isn't necessarily a fair fight) rather than using clunky environmental and npc exploits. He gets a better reward and a more fun fight, but if he decides to "punch down" and grief a low-level Vanguard repeatedly, the system still flags him for Corruption, keeping his bloodlust in check.

The Vanguard (The Core PvPvE Player)

Elena wants the fastest progression and best loot possible. She toggles her Vanguard State, knowing she’s now a "lightning rod" for combat. She heads to a where a mini boss mob spawns for a rare gear drop. She encounters another Vanguard; they have an epic, penalty-free battle over the rare spawn. Elena wins, and because of her Risk Premium, she gets more resources and has a higher chance of getting that rare gear off the mob. She feels rewarded for her skill and her willingness to take the risk.

The Settler (The PvE-First Player)

Kael just finished a 10-hour shift and wants to relax. He stays in Standard Mode and heads to a Safe Spot to gather materials for a "stepping stone" gear upgrade. He knows he won't find the best loot there, but he appreciates the "breather." He sees Vanguards fighting in the distance, but they ignore him because he doesn't have the "Risk Premium" loot they crave. He contributes to his Node’s growth at his own pace, knowing that when he’s feeling energized on the weekend, he can toggle Vanguard and join the fray.

Conclusion

Thank you for the incredible work you are doing. I believe that by shifting the focus from "policing" bad behavior to "rewarding" meaningful risk, Verra will become a living, breathing world that feels as dangerous as it is abundant. I look forward to seeing how the world of Verra continues to evolve!

Edit

I dont think it was clear but, the "Vanguard" system isn't meant as a "This is the idea you should absolutely implement in the game". I needed a way to highlight the short comings of punishment only, and try and show how the stated goal of open world PvP in Ashes by the Intrepid team is really only achievable by actually creating a baseline reward structure to fuel the Risk vs Reward ideology. There could be a million different ways to achieve what I referred to as Hybrid Incentivized Conflict, but open world PvP as it stands, even with tuning, is not going to accomplish the Intrepid's stated goals.

I don't really understands why it's like this… Is that deliberate? if so please give me a reason why players are allowed to summon their mount instanly?

The issue actually is the obvious escaping exploit, people are griefing, ninja looting, training with mobs, or going through full dungeon with no issue, by just instanly summoning theie mount wwhile flying to ride and dash.

Summoning a mount should require to be OUT OF COMBAT and takes at LEAST 2 seconds casting time.
This would negate most exploit and give actual purpose to the dismount option instead of unsummoning option.