Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you. [/quote]
Here is what I read:
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
<strong><em>There are three states that a player can find themselves in: Non-Combatant (Green), Combatant (Purple), and Corrupt (Red). Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default. If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time. Similarly, if a Non-Combatant enters a PVP zone (which includes things like Castles, City Sieges and Caravans) they are automatically flagged a Combatant while in the zone, and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</em></strong>
My interpretation of that is that if I am a non-combatant and I am attacked, it behooves me to attack back, thereby flagging myself as a combatant. That encourages me to stay and fight so that I only get half the death penalty if I die. Because, if I simply flee and the attacker kills me, I'll receive the full death penalty. The system punishes me more for fleeing that it does for staying and fighting back. That also leaves me flagged as a combatant for several minutes if I survive. Which encourages other players to attack me since it appears I am interested in fighting and they will receive less penalties for attacking a combatant rather than a non-combatant.
This encourages a player who prefers to avoid combat to stay and fight, rather than to run away.
If a non-combatant remains a non-combat when they attack their attacker, they'd receive just as much of a death penalty if they stay and fight as they will if they are killed while they flee. If the non-combatant is not as well geared or is a lower level than their attacker, it doesn't really gain them much to stay and fight... just lost time in the end if they lose. It may be very likely they will lose, depending on how wicked the PKer might be. So, they might as well try to flee or just let the PKer kill them without fighting back.
Either way the non-combatant would receive the same death penalty, which is twice that of a combatant.
This would not encourage a non-combatant to fight. And it's not particularly fun for the "honorable combatant" wanting a fair fight - when they want a fair fight.
If my attacker was a non-combatant and attacks me while I'm a non-combatant, my attacker auto flags to combatant.
If my attacker kills me, I get the full death penalty if I don't auto-flag to combatant when I attack back.
If I kill my attacker, they get half the death penalty.
Does that sound fair to you?? ??
So... no... it makes more sense that, as stated in the link I've provided, a non-combatant auto flags as a combatant when they attack their attacker(s) (combatant/corrupted or non-combatant).
<strong><em>Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim).</em></strong>
This quote states if you are a purple/combatant when you attack the non-combatant, you won't have a corruption score yet. You gain the corruption score if you kill the non-combatant.
If my interpretation is in error, please deconstruct my analysis and correct my errors.
Thanks, in advance.
Did you read those posts that I quoted? A non combatant(say its you) can’t gain a “combatant flag ” by retaliating after he is attacked. The attacker will already have a corruption score as soon as he attacks you. [/quote]
Here is what I read a few days:
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
<strong><em>There are three states that a player can find themselves in: Non-Combatant (Green), Combatant (Purple), and Corrupt (Red). Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default. If a Non-Combatant attacks a Combatant or another non-combatant, then they become a Combatant for a period of time. Similarly, if a Non-Combatant enters a PVP zone (which includes things like Castles, City Sieges and Caravans) they are automatically flagged a Combatant while in the zone, and for a period of time after leaving that zone.</em></strong>
My interpretation of that is that if I am a non-combatant and I am attacked, it behooves me to attack back, thereby flagging myself as a combatant. That encourages me to stay and fight so that I only get half the death penalty if I die. Because, if I simply flee and the attacker kills me, I'll receive the full death penalty. The system punishes me more for fleeing that it does for staying and fighting back. That also leaves me flagged as a combatant for several minutes if I survive. Which encourages other players to attack me since it appears I am interested in fighting and they will receive less penalties for attacking a combatant rather than a non-combatant.
This encourages a player who prefers to avoid combat to stay and fight, rather than to run away.
If a non-combatant remains a non-combat when they attack their attacker, they'd receive just as much of a death penalty if they stay and fight as they will if they are killed while they flee. If the non-combatant is not as well geared or is a lower level than their attacker, it doesn't really gain them much to stay and fight... just lost time in the end if they lose. It may be very likely they will lose, depending on how wicked the PKer might be. So, they might as well try to flee or just let the PKer kill them without fighting back.
Either way the non-combatant would receive the same death penalty, which is twice that of a combatant.
This would not encourage a non-combatant to fight. And it's not particularly fun for the "honorable combatant" wanting a fair fight - when they want a fair fight.
If my attacker was a non-combatant and attacks me while I'm a non-combatant, my attacker auto flags to combatant.
If my attacker kills me, I get the full death penalty if I don't auto-flag to combatant when I attack back.
If I kill my attacker, they get half the death penalty.
Does that sound fair to you?? ??
So... no... it makes more sense that, as stated in the link I've provided, a non-combatant auto flags as a combatant when they attack their attacker(s) (combatant/corrupted or non-combatant).
<strong><em>Players can kill Combatants without repercussions, and are encouraged to do so, since dying while a Combatant means you suffer reduced death penalties. Where this changes is when a Combatant kills a Non-Combatant. In this case, the Combatant is Corrupt, and acquires a Corruption Score (which is accrued based on a number of different parameters, including the level differential of their freshly slain victim).</em></strong>
This quote states if you are a purple/combatant when you attack the non-combatant, you won't have a corruption score yet. You gain the corruption score if you kill the non-combatant.
If my interpretation is in error, please deconstruct my analysis and correct my errors.
Thanks, in advance.
In my humble opinion, grieving is really the only issue that can come with pvp in an mmorpg. This is coming from a mostly PvE player, but for AoC I will probably try to be a bounty hunter. I personally won't gank someone collecting berries, but I like the threat that someone will gank me while I'm collecting berries. Otherwise there is no reason to pay any attention to the other players around me, like when I played wow on. Pve server, Just going about me day playing solo -- just autoQ for that next dungeon and get some gear. May as well have been playing a solo RPG like the witcher3, (which has some pretty good exploration @Dygz).
Maybe the devs will implement a pve only server. But if they do it will be the players on that server missing out on part of the experience that the devs intend. And I personally don't want too many resources to go into a worst experience of the game if it makes the servers that the devs want not as good. After all that would just be one way of compromising their vision for money, what's next P2W?
[/quote]
Thank you, Ayren. That little point of info eluded me.
@ Dygz
apologies on that one, Dygz. I did n't read your reply but I know I had an important fact wrong. You are only stuck "non combatant" when they are already corrupted.
@ All
So from a noncombatant viewpoint, if he is already corrupt and I fight back, I stay noncombatant?
If he is not corrupt when he attacks me, I fight back and become combatant, I lessen my penalties if I lose. He ends up killing me and takes no corruption because I am now combatant flagged?
Do I have that down now?
[/quote]
Completely agree, but I try to get that across with other methods. :P
MMOs are evolving, or at least those being built right now are. PVP is in most all of the titles that are on the horizon.
Straight up Themeparks are just too expensive and risky, perhaps?
Time to get PVP averse players to see that rates of "naughty PVP" in games that want and try to control it are much lower in realty than their imaginations tell them.
First thing though is getting past the fact that a player can kill you and letting that not be such a big deal psychologically. Second is to learn to play such a game a little bit different than you would a completely NO PVP game. Take a few precautions. Live by a few personal rules that recognize there is possible danger and you will reduce the threat of successful random PVP against you.
[/quote]
I think what he meant was if you dont want meaningful pvp this might not be the game for you.
Completely agree, but I try to get that across with other methods. <img alt="????" src="https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/2.2.1/svg/1f61b.svg" />
MMOs are evolving, or at least those being built right now are. PVP is in most all of the titles that are on the horizon.
Straight up Themeparks are just too expensive and risky, perhaps?
Time to get PVP averse players to see that rates of “naughty PVP” in games that want and try to control it are much lower in realty than their imaginations tell them.
First thing though is getting past the fact that a player can kill you and letting that not be such a big deal psychologically. Second is to learn to play such a game a little bit different than you would a completely NO PVP game. Take a few precautions. Live by a few personal rules that recognize there is possible danger and you will reduce the threat of successful random PVP against you.
[/quote]
Yeah...that's not going to happen.
That's like trying to convince a slave to enjoy working on his massa's plantation.
It's really not as bad as he thinks it is.
The EQNext/ AoC design focuses on PvP conflict; not players killing other players.
PvE folk are fine with PvP conflict and combat which is essentially PvE combat... like destroying caravans and sieges.
What they don't want to do is participate in player characters killing other player characters.
Easy enough to throw them a bone and give them their own server with PvP combat shut off.
I think what he meant was if you dont want meaningful pvp this might not be the game for you.
[/quote]
PvE-only folk want meaningful PvP conflict - which is the crux of EQNext/AoC.
PvP conflict can be resolved without killing player characters.
They know better to trust that PvPers won't gank them too many times. We've lived it over and over and over playing on PvP servers.
Which is why we play on PvE servers. Even those of us who like PvP combat sometimes.
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/please-dont-force-us-to-be-victims-of-pvpers/page/18/#post-19393" rel="nofollow">Kadin wrote:</a></div>
I think what he meant was if you dont want meaningful pvp this might not be the game for you.
</blockquote>
PvE-only folk want meaningful PvP conflict – which is the crux of EQNext/AoC.
PvP conflict can be resolved without killing player characters.
The know better to trust that PvPers won’t gank them too many times. We’ve lived it over and over and over playing on PvP servers.
Which is why we play on PvE servers. Even those of us who like PvP combat sometimes.
[/quote]
I am convinced that you are just a troll at this point, Dygz... Just shut up already. It's been said by the devs that they have systems in place to prevent griefing and you refuse to believe them. Just follow another game because your pve server is not gonna happen.
I agree.
If 2 years from now there is no PvE server - there won't be a PvE server.
And the world will still turn.
You try to change the minds of the PvE-Only server crowd.
We will try to change your minds.
Forum PvP.
We'll see who wins in the end.
If 2 years from now there is no PvE server – there won’t be a PvE server.
And the world will still turn.
You try to change the minds of the PvE-Only server crowd.
We will try to change your minds.
Forum PvP.
We’ll see who wins in the end.
[/quote]
The game is not being marketed to the pve-only crowd , if there was going to be pve only servers the devs would of included the information before and on the kickstarter to draw in more money. Everyone supporting the game knows that pvp is part of the gameplay. Pvp players don't have to change their minds about pvp , its pve players that still want to play the game that have to change their minds about it and accept it.
The devs are trying to win over players who don't like PvP combat.
The PvE combat haters are excited by all the PvP conflict features. They don't want to play on the same servers as the PvP combat lovers.
The PvP combat haters are willing to sub for the game if they can get a server with PvP combat shut off. They won't sub if there isn;t a PvE-Only server.
Nobody has to change their minds.
We can still have the discussions. And we will mostly likely continue to have these discussions until the forums are shut down.
That's what you'll have to accept.
The devs are trying to win over players who don’t like PvP combat.
The PvE combat haters are excited by all the PvP conflict features. They don’t want to play on the same servers as the PvP combat lovers.
The PvP combat haters are willing to sub for the game if they can get a server with PvP combat shut off. They won’t sub if there isn;t a PvE-Only server.
Nobody has to change their minds.
We can still have the discussions. And we will mostly likely continue to have these discussions until the forums are shut down.
That’s what you’ll have to accept.
[/quote]
1) The game has both PvP and PvE in mind when designing the game. They are codependent with eachother. Both needs to exist in order for their node system to work, as it made so PvE Build the world, and pvp destroys/change it.
2) A PvE server will never happen, as it doesn't work with their core game mechanics.
3) We can of course still have the discussion, but it's a pointless one. All people like you do is splitting the community further with your ideologies. It's about time you accept that AoC isn't a gameworld that will ever be 100% safe. Majority of mmorpgs are made and catered for the Casuals. How about people like you stop trying to change every mmo out there towards your pacifist ideology and let there be a mix of different kind of games?
Edit: Oh and the game isn't being marketed as a PvE game specificly. It's being marked a an mmorpg with a living world. Both PvE and PvP is a part fo that living world.
Preach bro.
2) If a PvE server never happens, it never happens. Hurts no one to have the discussion.
3) Great. So, we'll continue the pointless discussion. I'm not going to accept that the devs won't provide us with on PvE server until the game launches without a PvE server. Even on a PvE server, the game world will not be 100% safe. no one is asking for the world to be 100% safe. I thought people were complaining about splitting the playerbase, but you want to exclude casuals? or your expecting casuals to enjoy playing like hardcores? If we get this one right, we won't have to change every mmorpg (let's remember to include the rpg - it's kinds crucial)...everyone will be enjoying playing this one together.
Yep. The game is being designed for both PvE and PvP conflict, so why not have one server that's PvE-Only.
If that truly "breaks the game", the PvE-Only folk can pop over to a normal server and see which one is better.
And if the PvP-sometimes crowd is having a grand time as Steven is hoping, they can convince those disappointed PvE-Only folk to stay on the normal servers.
Shut down that PvE-Only server.
And everyone gets their happy ending.
AoC is a Sandpark mmorpg, meaning a mix between sandbox and themepark style. It's not a full Sandbox because they added walls and restrictions on sandbox features, but they still keep them in. So, by removing the PK system you are essentially killing a core feature of a sandbox/sandpark mmo. What you are trying to do by having a PvE only server is to change a vital core feature and part of the game. You are trying to remove a features that helps making the game world seem more alive and open.
So, let's try to put this ridiculous discussion to an end, and see what their standpoint on the subject is.
<a href="http://prntscr.com/f617ax">http://prntscr.com/f617ax</a>
Hopefully we get a respond fairly soon. If you are correct regarding a PvE server, and that Intrepid is fine with going back on their vision with the game and doing the extra work of making that a reality. Then fine, I trust that they have figured out a system to make it good.
If they say that PvE servers isn't something planned, will you finally stop trying to damage the community on this topic?
Communities thrive from making friends. Friends mean retention. Retention means company success.
[/quote]
I remember when a ton of people stated similar for Wildstar, "keep the pvp'ers away from us", "pve makes the game, not pvp". We all know how that turned out.
Why constantly split the community because you get triggered at a "harder" enemy.
Seems likely we might see that.
There would still be PvP conflict - really that's Node v Node conflict. That conflict could escalate to Node v Node combat but that would essentially be PvE: Buildings and bridges and caravans getting destroyed...just no player characters killing other player characters.
People these days are commonly using PvP as a broader term than what fits in the EQNext/AoC game design.
Similar to how people commonly talk about MMOs and don't focus enough on the RPG aspects of the genre.
I think the devs should provide one server with PvP combat turned off (player characters killing player characters).
Show everyone how broken the world will be. Or... if it's succesful, let it run.
Corruption should be part of killing non-combatants regardless of whether it's a player character or not.
I think that should be true on normal servers.
But that should be especially true on a PvE server. Yes!!
Brilliant observation!