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
You know, back early on in my WoW career, I played on a PvP server. A few times, I'd take the repeated increases to my rez timers, and just kept rezzing my body. Run back, rez, get ganked again. Rinse, repeat. Why, you may ask, did I do this? Well, I wanted to see something.
What I found out was that several of these folk -- you know, the level-capped characters in their tricked-out gear who were so far above me as to be laughable -- would continue killing my character for upwards of 20 minutes or more, before they got tired of it and wandered away.
I honestly do not know any other way to describe them than the description I listed above. I believe you would say I simply should have left it out; however, I gotta admit that those experiences really stayed with me. I mean, why? Why would one do that, for that long? On my end, it was to answer a question. What question where they answering?
Again, I think what's being missed here is the impact of Meaningful Conflict.
In Ashes, you may think that you're innocently gathering while you're actually having a negative impact on a rival node.
So, the avatars attacking you will actually be PvP adventurers with a legitimate reason for attacking you - more likely to be the case than random griefers.
Right. I'm not particularly worried about the PKers.
The type of stuff that concerns me is people attacking me after I've successfully defended my freehold in the aftermath of successful siege.
Defending a freehold takes 60-120 minutes - in addition to defending the city.
I am a casual PvPer. My threshold fo PvP combat is going to be way done by then. But we still have to wait for the combatant flag to cool down before we can switch to non-combatant.
I expect to want to go off gathering up resources to patch the damage on my freehold. I will become enraged if someone attacks me - even though, from their perspective it's a legit attack.
Probably even worse if my freehold is destroyed and then I have to wander off seeking sanctuary while still in the region flagged as a combatant.
People aren't going to be complaining so much about the PKers.
The flame wars are going to revolve around the different visions of consent - especially because hardcore PvP adventurers think that only PKers can be griefers.
@Dygz
Most games have a fairly fast cooldown for coming out of casual PVP. 30 to 60 seconds or so. This is appreciated by those that want to get back to their previous business.
Most games with structured PVP like guild wars, node sieges, etc... usually have a timer but with an end objective that, when "achieved" requirement ends the auto flagging for the participants. Some do not and just have that timer which auto flags you to the current "enemies" until it ends.
I can understand your possible reasons for frustration, Dygz, in these totally possible few possible occurrences in your examples. BUT....
They really are not any different than MMOs have always done these things AND when you participate in one of these things, you are giving your consent to be an available target until they are ended by the timer or any special button that the Devs have not revealed yet.
(i.e. when you have to "Queue" )
... then that's hurting that MMOs Potential & its possibilities to attract others Players.
Whatever problems that occurs, the Devs can always change & balance the Pve & PvP Aspects - and since they have the Experience of dealing with similar concerns in the past
(i.e. they are Seasoned-Devs )
then they'll be more assertive about it - with accuracy.
Besides, most of the Concerns I'm seeing are pessimistic-scenarios at best.
( Duly note: its best to try to anticipate these types of situations and have an answer for them. )
Bottom-Line is: Corrupted players will have their inventory looted - including their Gear.
"Zerg" Guild or "Big Guild" won't matter much - because a large group of Players can gather around and strike back. It's not Faction-Based, so your "Allies" can turn-on-you whenever.
But like i said ... Bustling & Sporadic
The core of the game is Meaningful Conflict. Pretty much everything we do involves PvP conflict and has the potential to result in PvP combat.
So, no.
In the scenario, the Nikua won't know the ramifications for their harvesting of the trees - at least not the first wave of Crafters that reach that level. They are just pursuing normal Crafting progression.
The scenario has nothing to do with building a huge freehold. It's just the necessary quest for reaching the next level of that Crafting profession.
What you're saying in that case is those PvE players who don't want to engage in PvP combat must be stuck as a 6th Level Crafter.
Milking a cow might not result in PvP conflict - finding and taming enough cows for your farm might result in PvP conflict. PvP conflict does not intrinsicly have to result in PvP combat. PvP conflict is just conflicting objectives between players - the actions of one player negatively affecting other players even when that's not the intention.
Of course, you're going to think that's poor and unimaginative game design because you aren't a hardcore PvPer.
Right. But the hardcore PvPers think that they can find a way to get you to see that PvP combat is fun.
You don't have to participate directly. Craft for them and they will protect you. Hire them and they will protect you. Hire them and they will revenge you.
You don't have to be paranoid about PKers because they will be rare due to the harsh corruption mechanic. Meaningless PKing is horrible, but everyone will have fun if there is meaningful conflict underlying PvP combat and all players have a role to play. That all sounds like paradise to the hardcore PvPers. Most PvErs will accept that. The few who don't won't play. That's an acceptable loss. The game won't be for everyone.
That is what you will be told.
I am part of your choir.
Might be possible to get all the playstyles playing happily on the same servers. I would love for that to be the case. We've got 2 years to try to figure that out. I doubt we will, but doesn't hurt to try.
I can typically out run a mob.
For one thing, they have predictable behavior, so it's easier even to just find safe spots where I'm unlikely to be attacked. But even if I get chased, my human intelligence, way more often than not, can devise a successful escape path. And, mobs are not as relentless and conniving as human players.
I don't have to worry that a mob is chasing me into an ambush, etc...
Hardcore PvPers love the hardcore challenge of human mind v human mind.
I have been saying for years that once the AI is so good that mobs/npcs are indistinguishable from human players, I will probably quit playing MMORPGs.
And now, we have monster coins!!!
That would be an incentive to gank; not a deterrent.
Not EQ, not EQ2 and not WoW.
In EQ, EQ2 and WoW the flag lasted at least 20 minutes - if not longer.
In those games, I eventually move to PvE-Only servers - even though I like PvP combat sometimes.
Asshats with my perspective, eh? That's not very nice!
I'm simply trying to point out that this problem you describe about PVP, when flags fall off and when/how long you have to wear them isn't different from any OWPVP game. Not different than almost ANY game with even just Guild PVP either.
There is no such thing as "meaningful conflict". It's two words that never belong together.
I lived a life of conflict. I play games to get away from negative press, social media, poliotical bullsh!t and real life issues. I play to relax, so leave me the fk alone. What's is so hard to get thru peoples thick skulls about that? I don't want to be your victim! You ruin my gameplay and make me leave games.
Many of us don't want your stupid PvP. We are your GREAT customers. We probably spend 3 times more money than any PvP player ever will. We will stay in your game longer (we even have statistics to prove it). We will not pollute your chat with insults and drama. We will not divide your community, we will unite it. We will create websites, fansites, video channels, social media and even advertise for you. We are the majority of the gaming industry and the largest source of its revenue. We are PVE players and we want to play Ashes of Creation. You're just not giving us a reason to. @Steven
There should be safe areas in cities so players can go afk. But it can't work that way out in the open world. The penalties for corruption needs to be strong enough to reasonably discourage that, but it can't be removed from the game or the entire system breaks. Can you see how safe pve could be exploited in the node system?
I play mostly pve games because I don't like mindless ganking. Most open pvp games are like that and I hate it. However I can see how those game only work with open pvp. The problem is that they encourage being a psychopathic serial killer with no consequence. Intrepid indicates they will be designing differently.
No need to be so hostile. It's not like our arguments are going to sway the course of their entire design goals.
PvP resulting from people cutting down trees is not 'meaningful', there is no malice or intent within it. It is in fact, pointless conflict. Its like having people start a fight over someone waving to another person. Just because they can figure out a way to saddle every action with PvP conflict doesn't make it meaningful, INTENT is what brings meaning. 'Meaningful conflict' is not a magic bullet to allow more PvP and get carebears on board. Its basically just a world where everyone is easily triggered, violent and have short fuses. Not meaningful.
Getting PK'd while not intending to PvP is whats called a 'non-starter' for PvE players. There literally is no way to consolidate it. It's like trying to convince a dog lover to routinely torture puppies. Even if you accomplish it the resulting amount will be an extreme outlier several standard deviations from the norm.
Here is not what is going to happen:
"I don't wanna PvP, I just want to kill mobs, harvest and craft"
"Yeah but THIS PvP means the town will get bigger."
"OMG ARE YOU SERIAL SIGN ME UP WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PK PK PK PK"
Nope. Others have tried similar tactics and failed.
With no true way to prevent PvP while doing PvE this game CAN NOT be PvE friendly and is a PvP game, up and down, left and right, through and through. Any statement made by the developers saying it is 'PvE' friendly is ignorant at best and an outright scam at its worst.
THIS is what worries the most about this game. For them to have both open PvP and even ENTERTAINING the idea it will be PvE player friendly only looks bad for the developers speaking for it. Its like hearing an MMO developer say "Not many players even know what PvP is so we aren't going to bother with it."
With corruption, and many other games that use similar system, they have a chance of allowing both OWPvP AND accommodating PvE focused players but it will rely SOLELY on how harsh corruption is. Given the games they cite and their bias to PvP I am quite confident their ideas for corruption will be insufficient.
I'm actually being quite civli. Y'all will know when I make it to hostile.
Y'all be flagging all over the place.
Again, no need to call people names. Maybe there are other perspectives you haven't considered. There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
I mostly like to do pve content, but that doesn't mean I won't enter combat with another player. Conflict isn't usually my first choice at a solution, but it's one option.
But you're right, anyone who wants a purely pve experience won't find it in this game. I've never heard Intrepid say otherwise. I've only heard them say that people who like pve will have fun stuff to do. I like pve, farming mobs, getting drops, killing bosses, and character progression. In this game all that's framed within the potential for personal, group, and community conflict.
I'd point out that there is plenty of conflict in pve only games as well. So it's not like no pvp guarantees an asshat free environment.
It's not about being a good customer. Everyone who plays the game, pays for their sub, and abides by the community rules is a good customer. Waving a wallet around in a game that doesn't promote P2W isn't really an argument point for you either.
The game is built around conflict. How do you have a pve only multiplayer game of Civilization V? You can't because the potential for conflict is inherently built into the core mechanics of the game, just like Ashes.
Delivering design ultimatums is one, sort of contentious, way of engaging. Another could be by making alliances and cooperating to make the pvx experience fun.
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing. If anything it's catering to the smallest and most destructive part of any player community. It's a horrible concept in every way, shape and form.
EVERY GAME IS BUILT AROUND CONFLICT!!! You guys keep quoting this as if it's something new and special.
People play games to have fun. PvP ruins the fun for many players. End of story.
@Dygz
"When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat I don't want to have to fight a player or stop what I'm doing to flee simply because some other player wants five minutes of fun."
So what are you going to do since that exactly will probably happen sooner or later?
The game design isn't going to change. If you are pretty sure that you will leave because of that, why are you here poisoning the forums?
The Nikua need that specific type of wood for their ceremonial rites of passage.
Harvesting that wood will cause the spirits of the dryads that reside in the wood to attack nearby villages.
So, the Elves are not attacking simply because they want to gank people. They are attacking people who will cause strife to the nearby villages.
This mirrors the kinds of conflicts between cultures that foment battles in the real world.
It's not like people fighting over waving at each other - rather it's like tree huggers tying themselves to trees to prevent foresting. Or building a camp to protest and prevent a pipeline from being built.
Those are the kinds of conflicts that we will be engaging in Ashes.
They don't all have to result in PvP combat, but due to Ashes flagging system, they can't just have some players being immune to attack. That would be a drastic change to the design and coding.
I'm not asking you to like it. I'm just pointing out that immunity isn't a viable solution. Now your solution seems to be to get rid of one of the games' core pillars: Meaningful Conflict.
Intent isn't always key. Drunk drivers kill folk unintentionally. Sometimes as repeat offenders.
Steven's solution for my scenario is (without immunity) for the Nikua to bring along PvP adventurers as bodyguards to protect them from PvP combat. That way the crafters won't have to participate in PvP combat. They can just focus on harvesting the wood. The adventurers will benefit because the crafters will then be able to craft better gear.
Steven believes that will be meaningful and fun for everyone.
Dog lover torture is a great analogy. I feel ya.
When I listen to Steven hype Meaningful Conflict and how PvE folk will love it because PKers won't want to PK, I'm thinking he is naive and ignorant and blinded by his love for PvP combat. Yes.
*meh*
Pantheon is PvE only, right?
Saga of Lucimia is group only and starting launch with healers only able to bandage - healing spells will come in a later chapter of the story.
Steven thinks Ashes is not a "PvP game". If they can rival EVE in numbers, then they will still be happy.
The first week of advocating for the PvE server, I was thinking I really had no interest in playing on it because I love the Meaningful Conflict pillar.
Then I remembered that my interest in PvP combat only lasts for 60 minutes while I play for about 8 hours.
So, seems likely I won't be playing Ashes.
But I backed Ashes so designers can develop the tech necessary for the successor of EQNext's concepts, like PvP conflict and the node system which is the successor of StoryBricks.
It's fine with me if I don't end up playing Ashes, I will just hope future games bank off those concepts and either find better solutions for all the playstyles to play on the same server or include a PvE server.
When I was a noob, at the beginning of my wow days, I enjoyed running around Southshore and finding little hordies to mess with. Eventually it got so bad that I had an entire raid group after me, it was a lot of fun.
With the corruption element and players being able to become Bounty Hunters, this adds to a very exciting time. I'm sure there will be players who run into each other quite often with this system, almost as though these two players are the Antagonist and Protagonist in their own story, aside from the world around them. This is appealing to me. I might even make an alt just to experience the cat-and-mouse aspect of the Bounty Hunter and Corrupt Player system ((Not sure if I want to be the hunter or the hunted
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing.
There are people who like pve and pvp and to us the game being pve friendly means there is meaningful pve content to do.
Three of their four "pillars" are PvE. Matter of fact almost everything we know about the game is PvE. Yet the PvP ruleset is designed in such a way that one "pillar" will negatively effect players experience in the other three "pillars". There's nothing meaningful about that. Nothing.