Best Of

Overall Impressions
Overall I think the game is in a very good place. It's exactly what I was expecting at this stage of development and I think it has a very positive road ahead. We're going to ignore pretty much all the bugs because that's perfectly acceptable, but I do expect them to be resolved moving forward in the next few months. All I will say about the bugs is that I hope that everyone is reporting them as you see them.

The foundation for Ashes of Creation is very good, it's exactly what they were promising us. As long as they keep expanding and moving in this direction it’s going to be an amazing game.I will say that this game will probably not be for everyone. I don't think it has the appeal that World of Warcraft would have for example, mainly due to the minimal hand holding, which is good! But it is going to fit in a perfect slot into the MMORPG genre and might surprise us with the size of the audience it brings in.

World
Speaking personally, the game world is probably my favorite aspect of the game. It truly feels like an RPG, an adventure throughout a world that is actually real. The scale is immense and it really does feel like you're going on an adventure like in LOTR. I've seen some comments about down scaling or resizing the world map but I think it's a huge mistake. I think the size right now is perfect.

it's going to be huge but I think it's going to be manageably huge. The entire concept in my mind is that you kind of live in a certain section of the world and you expand from there.Adventuring to the other side of the planet is supposed to feel like a huge journey and I think they nailed it on the head. One thing that people also need to realize is that the scale of players isn't there yet, I believe the final server count will have 10,000 people. Once those people are in I think the size will be perfectly suited for the distribution of players.

Archetypes
So far I've tried the Cleric, Fighter and the Mage. This weekend I'm going to try the ranger as well. All the classes feel different, they still feel familiar to other MMOs but also with a fresh take on the classes.

Quests
This is one aspect that I think has the greatest opportunity for improvement. I understand that there's going to be very little hand holding in the game, but I believe it should be more of a linear growth in difficulty. I think there should be more guides and direction given in the first few levels, maybe 1 to 10. From that point on they can kind of take the gloves off and let people adventure and find their own solutions and quests and all that.

I think at the moment people are going to be really stuck in the starting zone and not really have a direction to go. I understand the game is going to be more for a old school vibe, but there should be an easier time getting started.

This is my experience so far for weekends 1 & 2, thanks all!

I had some extra thoughts beyond the Monster survey. Would love more monsters that do more than a melee and/or ranged attack with movement to facilitate those attacks.

This might be odd coming from someone playing a Ranger so far but I would love to see some normal and/or star mobs that just have an extra bone to pick with ranged attackers. Like any threat generated and who they aggro to is weighted extra based on the ranged weapons and to attack/charge at those players.
Meaning tanks and off tanks would need to be using a ranged weapon for auto attacks to keep aggro or ranged party members would need to not auto attack with ranged weapons. Otherwise the aggro of the mob could change to the squishy dps or support.
I feel like this could be along the lines of engaging mobs/systems like the status effect poison that blocks healing from the zombies/mobs in Carphin.

Other thoughts along theses same lines which could be Early, Mid, and/or End game mobs (would love to see some of these elements, or similar, early to mid game to make people be creative):
- Resetting their aggro to zero at some telegraphed point(like half hp).
- Mobs that wants to focus on the closest player in X range doing the least damage to them. So healers or support that's not fully dps, need to stay at least that X away or you might pull the mob from the tanks.
- Mobs that call for others near by to help at X amount of hp left. Like 10% so if you don't burst them down at the end or interrupt them you get attacked by multiple.
- Mob focus/extra aggro based on the Player with the least total hp or least physical armor value in the party.
- Different aggro range based on the armor type. Heavy armor is "louder" so wider aggro range for players with more than half of that type. Then medium and light armor.
- Mobs that attack and leave a cloud or pool of something blue(I'm thinking static/electrical/magical goo) that Silences players hit or standing in it. Could also start as Dazed and if you stay in it too long or get hit again while Dazed, you are then Silenced.
Along these lines, status effect infused attacks with most/all of the status effects that player's get to use sounds like great practice for dealing with pvp fights and the status effects.
- AOE attacks that hit a whole party(like chain lightning) that does % or flat damage based on the amount of heavy armor. Could be their big attack that is only done at specific hp amounts like 2/3 and 1/3 left of the mob or based on time/cool down so every 15, 20, or 30 seconds the AOE attack is done.
- Another AOE could be acid, fire, or ice based that does % or flat damage based on amount of light and/or medium armor. Maybe same big attack style as the previous point.

Overview:

The PvP Flagging System in its current iteration disproportionate benefits to the Attacker. In this post I will outline the issues and the need for refinements to the flagging system to balance the benefits of the Defender / Player being attacked.

About the Author:

I am a Kickstarter backer of the project and an avid watcher of the development progress. I did not discover the project early enough to get Alpha 1 Access so have been relegated to comparing the game systems to those in other games based only on what I see and read. I have been reluctant to post any feedback or concerns until I have had the chance to play and interact with these systems directly. In my opinion, providing feedback with only half the perspective is often counterproductive. I just hope that Alpha 2 is not too late in the process to call for change.

My wife and I have been gaming together for over twenty-five years. We hope to do so for twenty more and are looking for Ashes to be a significant part of that.

Introduction:

This is a long post that highlights the imbalance in the PvP Flagging System and the need for Change. Please see the length is an indication of how much I believe in the feedback being provided. I will relay the situation that essentially “proved” what I have been worried about since the announcement of the flagging system for Non-Consensual PvP.

Much of what I will discuss here is the Options available to the player, on both sides of Non-Consensual PvP. Unfortunately, they are never as simple as fight or flight, it is, as all things in life, more complicated than that.

The Situation:

I will relay a situation that occurred on the second weekend of Alpha 2 and use it as the example for much of this post.
My wife and I were in the Ruins of Aela, right beside the starting area. We were progressing one of the quests to kill the skeletons there. For those that have not played, the ruins where the skeletons spawn still hold some of their initial structure, walls but no roof as such. The result of this is that different groups and individuals progressing the quests are often pressed into confined spaces. As such, escape from or avoiding aggressive players is not as easy as it would be in the open world.

In one of these rooms, at least two groups were present, a group of four players from the same guild, my wife and I in a group of our own and two other players. When the quest target spawned all three groups would rush to try and kill it. The fact that there is not a 100% drop chance for a Skeletons skull is… strange, but a different topic, however, the low drop chance meant that this process of everyone going for the quest target repeated several times.

My wife and I were watching the local chat and keeping an eye on the other players and saw the two players not in the guild appear to give up and run off. A moment later the guild group went Purple (Turned on their PvP Flags) and attacked.
This was Four (4) on Two (2) where the four were all higher level than us, in a confined space. We (my wife and I) had almost completed the quest chains in the area and as a result had more glint on us than we would normally have.

To be clear, I have No Issues Whatsoever with the decision or action to attack us, none whatsoever! They pushed out competition for a quest target so they could, hopefully get the quest item. It is a PvP game and this is part of that type of world. They saw an opportunity and took it, well played.

What’s the Problem?

The issue I have is the decision I / the defender was and is forced to make. This is compounded by the fact that no matter what the Defender does, they are disadvantaged, this is in my opinion, imbalance.
Before we unpack the different aspects of what happened and the options available to both sides let us look at the current situation in game.

Consensual PvP is where all parties willingly participate in PvP. This is normally done by all players “Flagging” / Turning On their PvP Toggle and their nameplates turn Purple. This post is almost entirely concerned with Non-Consensual PvP.

Open World Automatic Flagging Process Today:

1. Green is NOT able to Attack Green, so no PvP possible
2. Purple Attacking Green - Stays Purple (Fight is Non-Consensual)
3. Purple Attacking Purple - Stays Purple (Fight is Consensual)
4. Green Attacking Purple - Turns Purple (Changes Fight to be Consensual)

Easy Right? No… not really. The Loot Dynamics change with the PvP Consent Flag. Flagged players drop Half* (*Subject to Change) the Loot when Killed in PvP compared to Unflagged players. Loot in this case refers to Glint, Resources, Commodities and the like, Not Equipment Items. We must also consider what happens after the instigation of the Attack.

Impact of Player Killing and Flagging:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green - See Above
2. Purple Kills Green - Gains Corruption (Corruption can Lead to the PvP Flag Changing to Red)
3. Purple Kills Purple - No Impact, Stays Purple
4. Purple Kills Red - No Impact, Stays Purple
5. Green Cannot Kill Red as Attacking a Red is the same as Attacking a Purple. The Green will change to Purple.

The Loot impact for Corrupt / Red Flagged players changes a little. They drop more resources than even Green players, but also have a chance to drop Equipment Items.

The Defenders Disadvantage and Disincentive:

As we have just seen above, if a Green Player is attacked, they must make a Choice. This choice is what I have issue with as it represents No Good Options.

1. The Option that is almost reflex is to Defend themselves:
- Automatically Flags Purple
- Chooses to reduce the loss of carried Commodities (available to the Attacker)
- Removes any penalty on the Attacker for Starting the Fight
2. The Defender tries to run / escape:
- Defender Stays Green
- Chooses to Risk 50% more Loot for the Attacker if they are Killed
- Chooses to ensure the Attacker receives a corruption penalty.

To be clear, I am suggesting that the option is ONLY to defend and die or try to run. Why? Because when have you ever seen a player instigate PvP that they do not think they can win? Yep, that is a one in a hundred situation. If you are going to try and PvP, you stack the deck or you avoid the fight. In the situation at the quest target, we were outnumbered two to one, almost perfect odds for the attackers. I speak from PvP experience in many, many games over the years. If you see good odds, you take them and when you do not see good odds, you live to fight another time.

As the choices above show, the defender / green player must decide to give the attackers More Loot and Corruption or, try and protect their loot by fighting back but enable the attacker to immediately attack them again and again. Yes, in the case of the attack at the quest target, if we chose to fight back, we are choosing to drop less glint etc. but, offer only an incentive to attack us again and again.

Now let’s look at the options from the attacker’s perspective. Again, assumption here is that victory is assured as described above.

1. Defender Fights Back and Dies
- “Free” Loot
- Absolutely Zero Disincentive here, able to Rinse and Repeat as necessary
2. Defender Does Not Fight back and Dies
- More Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
3. Attacker can Stop attacking at ANY time without penalty.
- If the Attacker stops and the Defender escapes, there is no penalty to the attacker, they can do that again and again.

These are pretty good choices and no bad options. In fact, I would suggest that in the current state, the attacker is incentivised to kill any and all competing players.

Coming back to the situation at the quest target, my wife and I do not have an issue with the attack, well done, opportunity taken, well played! The issue is the lack of viable options for us. If we choose to run and don’t escape, then we are gambling 50% more of our glint etc. on the off chance that another higher level and/or larger group take revenge for us. Fighting back, which in my opinion, should be what we are incentivised to do, is actually a bad choice here as if we come back, we will just be killed again because it is beneficial for the attacker to do so.

Never Present a Problem without Offering a Solution:

As a Technology leader for many years, I do not permit my team to escalate issues they have not attempted to solve themselves. I do not care if they bring the “correct” or best answer, the issue is that they have tried to find a resolution and in doing so have gained a better perspective, ultimately becoming a better technology practitioner.

To be clear, the Problem I am looking to resolve here is to provide the Defender some better options and hopefully incentives them to defend themselves, which should be, in my opinion the goal of the system.

It is my opinion that we are missing a Flag. A Criminal Act Flag. If we go back to the days of Ultima Online and forward, we see that an Instigator of non-consensual PvP is and “always” has been flagged as a criminal. Yes, always is overstating here but I am also generalising. The most common Flag used for a Criminal is Grey. How would this Criminal / Grey Flag addition alter the dynamics?

Proposed Open World Automatic Flagging process:

1. Green is NOT able to Attack Green, so no PvP possible [No Change]
2. Purple Attacking Green - Turns Grey (Fight is Non-Consensual)
3. Purple Attacking Purple - Stays Purple (Fight is Consensual) [No Change]
4. Green Attacking Purple - Turns Purple (Changes Fight to be Consensual) [No Change]
5. Green Attacking Grey - Stays Green
6. Green Attacking Red - Stays Green

Proposed Impact of Player Killing and Flagging:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green - See Above [No Change]
2. Purple Kills Green - Gains Corruption (Corruption can Lead to the PvP Flag Changing to Red) [No Change]
3. Purple Kills Purple - No Impact, Stays Purple [No Change]
4. Purple Kills Red - No Impact, Stays Purple [No Change]
5. Green Can Not Kill Purple. The Green will change to Purple. [No Change]
6. Green Kills Grey - No Change, Stays Green
7. Green Kills Red - No Change, Stays Green

Proposed Loot Drop Chances and Corruption Acquisition:

1. Green Can Not Kill Green [No Change]
2. Green Kills Grey - Grey Loot Drop is the Same as Green, No Purple “Protection”
3. Green Kills Red - Red Loot Drop and Corruption Loss [No Change]
4. Grey Kills Green - Green Drops Loot and Grey Gains Corruption as well as Criminal Timer (Limited Change)
5. Grey Kills Red - Same as Purple Killing Red [Existing State]
6. Purple Kills Purple - [No Change]
7. Purple Can Not Kill Green - See Above
8. Red Kills Green - [No Change]
9. Red Kills Purple - [No Change]
10. Red Kills Red - [No Change]

The point here is Not to make it more complicated, it is to Change Player Choices. So now let us consider the available options this should create.

Attacker:

1. If the Defender is Green then the Criminal Flag and Timer are an Accepted Cost of instigating the fight.
2. Defender Fights Back and Dies
- Normal PvP Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
3. Defender Does Not Fight back and Dies
- More Loot
- Corruption Timer so might have to defend from other players later… maybe.
- Corruption wears off / expires = back to green
4. Attacker is able to stop the attack but has committed to the Criminal Timer.

Defender:

1. Fight Back
- Reduce Loot Lost to the Attacker
- Attacker Gains Corruption
2. Run / Escape
- Increase Loot Lost to the Attacker
- No Increase in Corruption gained by Attacker
3. See the other Group Flag before Attacking you, but Flag for PvP yourself and Attack First
- Reduce Loot Lost to the Attacker
- No Corruption gained by anyone

Now if we go back to how the situation at the quest target could have unfolded in this situation. The attacking group now have a disincentive to attack, not only benefits for controlling the question objective. They need to decide if the 5 (or whatever) minute Criminal timer and potential corruption is worth it. My wife and I have only incentives to stand our ground and defend ourselves, you never know, we might get lucky and take one or more of them.

Is this not a more healthy environment? The players who are not looking for PvP are far less likely to get “Farmed” by higher tier groups without needing to “pay” for the privilege of giving their attackers corruption by staying green and dropping more loot.

Do I think the situation would have been avoided? I hope not. I believe the push to control the quest objective was, and is, justified. I am only suggesting that the choice to do so should carry more weight than it does now.

Again, I personally cannot see how there is balance in the defender effectively paying the attacker for corruption through increased loot drop rates. For Criminal and Corrupt players, forcing Attackers against them to flag Purple is imbalance. The player performed an anti-social action and there must be consequence. By not flagging as Purple when you attack a Corrupt or Criminal player, the attacker is effectively holding them in their state, either Grey or Red by increasing the respective timer or value. If the Criminal or Corrupt player wants to avoid this, then the consequences of their action is the need to avoid confrontation and wait out their timer. I believe this makes for a healthier environment where “Ganking” has a real penalty.

What Happens If Nothing Changes?

Speculation is always dangerous, however, in any game where PvP and / or Ganking is commonplace, many of the Gatherers that feed the crafters simply don’t go out because it is not worth the “Gank Tax”. These players need to feel that even after getting killed by other players and having stuff they were getting stolen, there was still a benefit for them and the Gankers didn’t have it all their own way. If they don’t go out and gather, they stop feeding the crafters and the economy comes under pressure. Gathering in particular is a very real issue here, because it is not really a group activity. Who, in any game, has ever see “LFG Need 7 More for Ore Gathering”. Yeah, I thought not. Keep these players in the game and we have a healthy ecosystem, lose them and… well, let’s just say I think that is bad.

Not Just in the Open World:

If a Criminal Flag is implemented, it would / could also resolve the issue where flagged players can run through the node hitting / disrupting Green Players at random. I have lost count of the number of times I have been struck by random swings when standing at a crafting station. I find it strange that the Guards will come from far and wide for a monster, but not some player randomly hitting people in town. In fact, I fail to see any parallel to any world where random acts of aggression in town / around guards fail to create issues for the aggressor.

Conclusion:

I have attempted to articulate through a real example of non-consensual PvP how the current game environment provides all benefits to the Attacker and only disincentives to the Defender. I have also attempted to articulate a solution that is commonplace in the MMORPG ecosystem that should bring some balance to game play.

I do understand that there is a bounty system coming and a Bounty Hunter “Profession” coming in the future. I do not believe that the suggested Flagging changes would negatively impact that system, but I say that with Zero (0) knowledge of what @Stephen has planned there.

I do know that this is a PvP game and I am not trying to change that. My feedback is that the current systems lacks balance.
I would love to hear from Intrepid around how they believe the current system provides balance, but I am just a single tester providing feedback.

To those of you that have read this post before commenting, I thank you.