Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
A few examples:
1: Separate PvP gear. That calls for a continual state of extra art and extra stat balance. The devs are not going to bend over backwards to cater to PvE only folks to support a vision that is counter to their own vision.
2: No PvP penalty system and no bounty system
I think corruption is probably too integral to the lore to be completely missing and some archetypes have abilities related to bounty hunting and detecting corrupted, so... there has to be some way to put those abilities to use.
Actually, I think I would want them both to still come into play to help resolve my issue with unwanted PvP Getting attacked after I've moved away from a PvP battle and playing as a non-combatant but I'm waiting for the flag timer to cool down. (Still ways unscrupulous folk could exploit that so needs more thought)
Seems like there would need to be other ways to have corruption and bounty hunting have meaning in the game. Off the cuff, I'm thinking of cursed zones or cursed dungeons. That might be even better than PvP tokens as an incentive to flag for PvP combat. Hardcore zones/dungeons that auto-flag participants as corrupted. hmmmn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Stabby
Seems odd to me to consider node destruction as a PvP pillar.
The pillar is "Nodes". Leveling nodes and destroying nodes is the pillar - along with all of the underlying systems that thereby cause the world to change.
So... in that section, there would be no getting rid of node destruction as a PvP pillar.
In fact, sieges would be a great reason to flag for PvP combat on a server where PvP combat is possible.
Ashes AI isn't robust enough to simply have NPCs traveling around sieging cities and metropolises. The devs could program massive horde attacks into the narratives of the nodes, but... if they go through the trouble of designing and programming the various hordes that could take down a city or metropolis, that would need to be standard on all servers, not just limited to PvE-Optional servers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does have me wondering about a server with PvE zones and PvP zones, though.
On the EQnext forums, we had discussed that as a way to have all the playstyles on the same servers - not splitting the playerbase.
My guess is that for Ashes it would be too easy for PvE zones to monopolize the Metorpolises, so it would probably have to be some form of battlegrounds on an otherwise PvE-Only server.
Hmmnn Probably unworkable, but a fun thought excercise.
Did I miss anything? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of that.
If you're attacked in PvP and fight back you both earn corruption
Players can attack your freehold at any time and steal the items you have in your chest(s)
..................................
Those two are absolutely incorrect. Some others may also be wrong but I'm not sure.
Exactly, Seriously guys ... @Dygz posted an actual Article which states how PvP works - don't be discouraged in reading.
Do we have a link to this post?
So you would have the same penalty for dying from being ganked as you would as dying from PVE, provided you don't fight back. If you do fight back and die, you would have a reduced penalty.
The youtube video I am having difficulty finding right now used the bunny-eared mount graphic to demonstrate this in a visual way and made it a lot easier to understand.
https://errantpenman.com/2017/01/11/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life/
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.
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).
If you are going to advocate so stronly against the game design, you have to at least correctly understand what the game design is.
Do some research, dude. Please.
Make sure you have your facts straight.
1: We don't lose xp when killed by other players - instead we gain xp debt.
2: If you attack back and win, you don't gain corruption.
3: If you attack back and lose, you only suffer half the normal death penalties.
4: Better to say that dying while corrupted lowers your corruption score.
5: If you're corrupt and die, you suffer 3x the normal death penalty and have a chance to drop gear - which is then destroyed.
6: When you gain corruption, you become flagged to bounty hunters who can use their abilities to track corrupted on the map.
7: You gain corruption when you kill a non-combatant. Yes.
8: Players cannot steal from a freehold.
9: Players can attack a freehold during a 60-120 minute window after a siege is successful.
10: If you fail to fight off an attack on your freehold (friends and hired NPCs can help defend) during that 60-120 minute window after a siege is successful, your freehold will be destroyed.
11: I would say that there is lore behind the corruption mechanic that is based on the gods which includes themes of dark and light.
People will disagree on everything you or I say because that's the nature of the gaming community. I've watched every video and have the exact same information of the game as everyone else.
I already stated some of my points could be wrong. I'm watching the videos like everyone else. I'm not going to take notes, save timestamps or make a project out of the info they're giving us. I have better things to do with my time. That's why I added the disclaimer to the bottom of my post.
I didn't say you are advocating for anyone.
If you are going to denounce the game design, you should at least have a correct understanding of what the game design entails.
Instead of just making ish up.
People will disagree with you if they don't share your values and philosophies.
But, we need to at least agree on the facts - the actual content and mechanics of the game design.
Sooo. You want to take the time to QQ about mechanics that don't function the way you think they function, but you don't want to take the time to investigate how they actually function?? Even when someone is sharing links and dev quotes every other page??
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to at least get the facts straight.
In a game like this with risk and reward I think the potential for being a victim is important. But as important, if not more so, are the consequences for victimizing (corruption).
That is the PK mechanic. This is an open pvp non-full-loot game with a fairly light death penalty. If someone doesn't want that in their game then they are going to have to come to terms with that here.
On the other hand this game also has character progression tied to pve and pvp focused on resource contention. If someone just wants pure horizontal equal purely skill based pvp then they're going to have to come to terms with that as well. If someone only likes full loot free for all gankfests then they're going to have to come to terms with the consequences of corruption, and all that should entail.
I'm not sure about anyone else, but that was the core concept buy in for me. It's the same foundation first gen MMORPGs were built on (UO, Lineage, AC, EQ). Lineage was my first MMORPG and this game has a lot of those same design concepts matured. I wouldn't want to see it any other way.
Well shucks!
<Bringslite dismantles large stake and piled wood>
Just kiddng Stabby!
I think it was on Page 22 or 21 of this Forum. I'll check ...
@Krojak
Better yet, I'll post it (above)
I re-post it (above)
( its darkened, move Cursor in it )
For one of us sufering many will sufer , inocent incudet so all can hate pk.
BRING IT ON !!!
Arrghh!! You Get them Baddies!
<snip>
In any case, all this comes to a head via death penalties. A Non-Combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which includes experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a portion of carried raw materials (which can then be looted). A Combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the Non-Combatant rate. A character who has a Corruption Score on the other hand, suffers penalties at three times the rate of a Non-Combatant, and has a chance to drop *any* carried/equiped items based on their current Corruption Score.
So someone who isn't flagged for PvP suffers a HIGHER penalty on death than someone who is. That doesn't seem right. And dropping materials, great. This corruption better be pretty aggressive from 'go.'
I mean even other answers from this article make this an outright lie or at least 'unknowingly false.' And its something I have heard MANY times before only for it to be proven completely false when a game went live. Nothing I have heard up to this point indicates you could both advance in PvE greatly AND influence the living world without having to step foot in PvP. The fact anyone is attackable by another player in the open world pretty much squashes this out, not to mention the various other statements.
But if some how this Is true that means a 'pve' server or one that just allows stricter flagging (non-combatants can't be attacked at all) is ENTIRELY possible.
Far too many times I have seen people, including myself, lured in with promise of being able to live a 'pve' lifestyle only to be 'bait and switched' some time after buying the game and being a few dozen or more levels in. Go in, having a perfectly good PvE experience but then mid to high level SURPRISE you have no choice to PvP or all the best stuff requires directly participating in PvP.
All of which were relatively manageable.
For the players that are apposed to open world PvP scenario proposed for Ashes, what games had open world non-consensual PvP that had an overbearing amount of ganking to make the game uncomfortable to play?
In truth, just how often were you pk'ed ?
/home/leaving?target=https%3A%2F%2Ferrantpenman.com%2F2017%2F01%2F11%2Finterview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life%2F" class="Popup
I re-post it (above)
( its darkened, move Cursor in it )
In any case, all this comes to a head via death penalties. A Non-Combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which includes experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a portion of carried raw materials (which can then be looted). A Combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the Non-Combatant rate. A character who has a Corruption Score on the other hand, suffers penalties at three times the rate of a Non-Combatant, and has a chance to drop *any* carried/equiped items based on their current Corruption Score.
So someone who isn't flagged for PvP suffers a HIGHER penalty on death than someone who is. That doesn't seem right. And dropping materials, great. This corruption better be pretty aggressive from 'go.'
I mean even other answers from this article make this at least 'unknowingly incorrect.' And its something I have heard MANY times before only for it to be proven completely false when a game went live. Nothing I have heard up to this point indicates you could both advance in PvE greatly AND influence the living world without having to step foot in PvP. The fact anyone is attackable by another player in the open world pretty much squashes this out, not to mention the various other statements.
You are having a hard time figuring out the difference between taking PvP out of the GAME and having a PvE SERVER?
Let me ask something, why do PvP'ers always seem to have a problem with the idea of having a PvE shard/server when they don't have to participate in them? They'll be dull? Boring? Broken? Again, you can completely avoid them. I can't think of a time when a game throws up a PvP ruleset server and the PvE players start shouting and rending garments, unlike the reverse.
/home/leaving?target=https%3A%2F%2Ferrantpenman.com%2F2017%2F01%2F11%2Finterview-ashes-of-creation-wants-to-bring-the-virtual-world-to-life%2F" class="Popup
I re-post it (above)
( its darkened, move Cursor in it )
In any case, all this comes to a head via death penalties. A Non-Combatant who dies suffers normal penalties, which includes experience debt, durability loss, as well as dropping a portion of carried raw materials (which can then be looted). A Combatant who dies suffers these same penalties, but at half the Non-Combatant rate. A character who has a Corruption Score on the other hand, suffers penalties at three times the rate of a Non-Combatant, and has a chance to drop *any* carried/equiped items based on their current Corruption Score.
So someone who isn't flagged for PvP suffers a HIGHER penalty on death than someone who is? That doesn't seem right. And dropping materials, great. This corruption better be pretty aggressive from kill 1.
Even other answers from this article make this at least 'unknowingly incorrect.' This is something I have heard MANY times before only for it to be proven completely false when a game went live. Nothing I have heard up to this point indicates you could both advance in PvE greatly AND influence the living world without having to step foot in PvP. The fact anyone is attackable by another player in the open world pretty much squashes this out, not to mention the various other statements.
There is a pretty distinct difference between having a PvE server and removing PvP from the game entirely. I suppose you could argue it removes PvP for some of the players but it is completely optional.
Why do PvP'ers always seem to have a problem with the idea of having a PvE shard/server when they don't have to participate in them? They'll be dull? Boring? Broken? You can completely avoid them. I can't think of a time when a game throws up a PvP ruleset server and the PvE players start shouting and rending garments, unlike the reverse.
Completely different sets of gear for PvP and PvE are not needed. Massive changes in design are not needed nor new 'PvE' only zones. You wouldn't even need to set up a PvE server. You would just need to change 'non-combatant' to be untouchable or come up with a new 4th state like 'Peaceful' or 'Passive' or 'Hunter' to indicate they are only going after NPCs. If you refuse to to go to a 'pvp' status you can not participate in PvP events or have it only apply to small scale/1v1 type scenarios.