Best Of

slyduckfpv wrote: »

a VERY high percentage of my abilities get canceled/cast but do no damage and gets me killed if i don't farm slow as a snail then if 2 abilities don't cast I'm basically guaranteed to die. i do not understand why we have a system to punish players for bugs. love the system in general for the full release but when I'm constantly dying to bugs and other bs it really takes from the enjoyment

🛠️ Alpha Testing & Death Penalties – A Necessary Frustration?

I get it—losing 25% of your loot due to game bugs is frustrating, especially when it feels like the system is punishing you for something out of your control. However, there’s a reason why Intrepid is implementing these mechanics during Alpha instead of waiting until Beta or launch:

🚧 Why Death Penalties Exist in Alpha

🔹 Economic System Testing – Ashes of Creation is designed around a risk-vs-reward economy. The item sink mechanic (losing resources on death) is a major part of the game’s economy and player-driven markets. Without testing it now, they wouldn’t get accurate data on how it affects the economy.

🔹 Learning Curve & Adaptation – Right now, everyone is still learning the systems, and part of Alpha is understanding your limits. Whether it’s mob difficulty, PvP survival, or gathering risk, learning when and where to engage is crucial.

🔹 Bug Reports & Fixes – This phase isn’t just about playing; it’s about reporting these ability bugs so they get fixed before launch. If people aren’t actively testing under real conditions, the devs won’t see the real impact of these systems.

💀 Death in AoC: Not Just a Penalty, But a Learning Tool

In Ashes, dying isn’t just an inconvenience—it’s meant to be part of the experience:
⚔️ Caravan Raids & Sieges – Defenders need to be wary of high-risk engagements.
🏹 PvE & Boss Fights – Grouping up is often the safer route for survival.
🏛️ Tanks Are Guild Leaders' Role – Tanks thrive with organized groups, but they struggle solo. If you're tanking, it's meant to be for guild leadership, not for grinding alone.

🛡️ What Can Be Improved?

While testing death penalties is necessary, there are fair concerns about bugs making it worse. A few things Intrepid could consider:
🔹 Bug-Related Death Forgiveness – If a bug report is verified, maybe refund part of the lost loot.
🔹 Temporary Reduced Penalty – Lower the death penalty in Alpha until abilities are more stable.
🔹 Encouraging Party Play – Tanks and squishy classes could get small group buffs to make partying more rewarding.

🔥 Final Thoughts

Right now, the death penalty isn’t just about punishing mistakes—it’s about testing a hardcore economy & survival system. If you’re struggling with ability bugs, the best move is to report them so the devs fix them before full release.

And hey—Ashes is all about adaptation. If half your deaths are from bugs, then strategize to reduce risk:
✅ Bank loot more often
✅ Play with others when possible
✅ Use tank builds only if you have party support

The world of Verra is unforgiving—but it’s meant to be. The strongest players will learn how to survive it.

And remember, game is in alpha status! 💀🔥

I totally get that feeling—there’s always a level of guilt when destroying something someone worked hard on, especially in a world where players are shaping the environment. But at the same time, that’s what makes Ashes of Creation different.

A world without loss is a world without real victories. If nothing is at stake, then winning loses meaning. Every destroyed node, every toppled guild, every reclaimed city—they aren’t just about tearing something down. They’re about new opportunities, revenge arcs, and the ever-shifting political landscape.

⚔️ Competition vs. Griefing
It’s important to remember that PvP, node wars, and caravans aren’t about ruining someone’s fun—they’re about strategic competition. You wouldn’t feel bad about winning a siege in a strategy game or outmaneuvering an opponent in chess, right? Ashes operates on that same philosophy—a battle of wits, alliances, and calculated risks.

Yes, some people will get mad—that’s inevitable. But emotions in competition are part of what makes victories so rewarding. When your guild defends a node against impossible odds, or rebuilds a fallen city stronger than before, those moments will feel legendary.

So yeah, maybe node destruction stings in the moment, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s just one chapter in an evolving story—a story written by players, for players. And if you’re part of that, you’re not just playing Ashes of Creation—you’re making history in Verra. 🔥🏰

I apologize, but I love the world of Verra, and I already have my path set: creating a defensive and economic big guild with ex WoW, Albion, Archeage, Lineaje ll players. While others kill each other, I plan to accumulate strength and wealth… and when the time is right, I will fight back. ⚖️💰🏹

REHOC wrote: »

🔥 The Philosophy Behind Node Destruction

The idea isn't to grief or make players miserable—it's to create a world where nothing is permanent, and every victory or loss has weight. The alternative would be a static world where once a node reaches max level, it can never be challenged, leading to a stale and predictable experience.

Political & Strategic Play 🏰 –

The destruction of a node isn’t just a random act of cruelty. It’s usually part of larger conflicts over resources, trade routes, and alliances. The best guilds and nations will protect their territories, forming diplomacy, coalitions, and defensive strategies.

Risk vs Reward ⚖️ – A world where cities can't fall would create unshakable monopolies. Ashes forces players to stay active, always engaged in politics, economics, and war.

Player-Driven Narrative 📜 – Every major siege shapes the history of the server. If a metropolis falls, a new civilization can rise. That’s the core of Ashes—it’s about stories written by players, not scripted content that repeats endlessly.

You might not want to destroy someone’s hard work, and that’s fair. But in a player-driven world, there will always be groups with different motivations:

Conquerors & Warmongers – Those who want to rule and expand their influence.
Defenders & Guardians – Players who form alliances to protect key locations.
Economists & Traders – Who will thrive in times of war, managing supply chains.
Nomads & Survivors – Who adapt and rebuild when change comes.

I really like this response!

Still going to feel bad about destroying people's hard work though... =(

But, I guess I like to PVP and PVX and mob train etc. Not because I want to make people mad or feel bad, but because I consider it a fun competition. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. I suppose I can think of node destruction in the same way. Not sure how many others will view it like that, people get mad from just simple fights over grind spots, or caravan ganks.

🔥 The Philosophy Behind Node Destruction

The idea isn't to grief or make players miserable—it's to create a world where nothing is permanent, and every victory or loss has weight. The alternative would be a static world where once a node reaches max level, it can never be challenged, leading to a stale and predictable experience.

Political & Strategic Play 🏰 –

The destruction of a node isn’t just a random act of cruelty. It’s usually part of larger conflicts over resources, trade routes, and alliances. The best guilds and nations will protect their territories, forming diplomacy, coalitions, and defensive strategies.

Risk vs Reward ⚖️ – A world where cities can't fall would create unshakable monopolies. Ashes forces players to stay active, always engaged in politics, economics, and war.

Player-Driven Narrative 📜 – Every major siege shapes the history of the server. If a metropolis falls, a new civilization can rise. That’s the core of Ashes—it’s about stories written by players, not scripted content that repeats endlessly.

You might not want to destroy someone’s hard work, and that’s fair. But in a player-driven world, there will always be groups with different motivations:

Conquerors & Warmongers – Those who want to rule and expand their influence.
Defenders & Guardians – Players who form alliances to protect key locations.
Economists & Traders – Who will thrive in times of war, managing supply chains.
Nomads & Survivors – Who adapt and rebuild when change comes.

I know it sucks not being able to pay a sub fee I was there too growing up, but regardless this game was sold on a sub fee, and one thing I've noticed is that the community is a lot different when it comes to sub vs f2p games.

A f2p community isn't what people paid for and I don't think changing that would be a good idea. This is along the lines of flying mounts and fast travel, no point in really arguing it.

God, what a load of rubbish

Ashe's doesn't needs to appeal to F2P players, nor do they deserve it. There are plenty of players that will sub. If they move to a F2P model, sure you'd get a lot of players for a little bit, but after the 5 minute enthusiast quit, the game would be left with less players than if they just went with the sub model, and less money, and more bots.

Wow Classic launch doubled or tripled the subs for WoW. Players want a return to that system. The status quo of the current gaming industry (as a whole, with a few exceptions) is moving more and more towards a mobile gaming structure to cash in. But the games themselves are just reskins of previous successful game and blown out IPs like Hope Solos chocolate star fish. This attracts the crowd that needs instant gratification and rewards to stay focused and engaged. Leading to players plowing through content and devaluing any meaningful achievement. And the first step towards this is F2P, then cash shops, then P2W, then ads, then pay for no ads, then non skippable ads, then a kidney donation requirement.. All because people didn't want to spend 15 dollars a month to play a game.

If a MMORPG isn't worth 15 dollars a month to play than it's not worth playing at all.

Xeeg wrote: »

Honestly, if nodes can be built fast then it wont be so bad.... but if it takes months to build a node up, thats going to be a devastating loss for many players.

But this works the other way as well. The more time you need to build up a node - the more time/resources the attackers would need to declare a siege on it.

And considering how long and how many people it takes to level up nodes higher and higher, I'd imagine that the only siegable ones will be the lvl3s and maaaybe 4s. This would mean that people will keep their more valuable stuff in the 5s and 6s, which means mat transfers and potentially a huuuuuge payoff if you do decide to siege a Metro.

But overall it's really difficult to guess how exactly it'll all go down. Especially for casuals who'll be coming to citizenship and home-owning way later than the hardcore players, which will most likely mean that all the casuals will be in those 3s and 4s. We'll have to see.

I totally understand that f2p users deserve to be appealed to. Your perspective on this matter is missing what I believe is honestly the entire point of AoC. Progression in the game is entirely tied to the player's action in-game. Not just there's, but the ENTIRE player base is what drives progression is every aspect of the game. It's weird to imagine when you are not use to playing a game with this sort play style, but if you played WoW Classic, you would come closer to understanding this.

There are other reasons too, but I believe this is the most important and it DOES factor into how the game feels when you're playing it, whether you are cognizant of it or not. I could elaborate how but I don't want to bog you down with text.

Since progression is entirely player-driven though, the game does need to cost money. We're not allowed to spend money for in-game progression, so we HAVE to spend money just to enter the game. It's the style of the game, so there's really no choice the way I see it.