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.
The Corruption system and Improvements to it
ArchivedUser
Guest
All,
There was a thread started by Stabby that has devolved into a cesspool of "what ifs", whining with some good constructive thought lightly dusted in there. As pointed out by Dygz, I have given up on that thread and am instead starting a thread where we can cook something up as a community and refine it and then see what the Devs will do with it.
TL:DR - New thread to minimize PKers messing up my PvE fun time.
This is what we know:
Will I be able to mess around, "flag", on a guild member like in some MMOs, or will they be immune to all AOEs and targeted effects even if trying to purposely attack them.
Currently our flagging system has several lockouts. People whom you may not flag on. This order follows a simple affiliation progression in the system. Party member, Raid member, Guild member, Alliance member. If any of these 4 affiliations are present then the player may not flag on the target.
What type of flagging system will be used for PvP in Ashes?
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). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant.
TL:DR - There are three flags (Non-Combatant/Combatant/Corrupt). You get flagged corrupt when you kill a Non-Combatant (We don't know when. Either on attack or on killing) and you can work corruption off in a number of ways.
The goal is to come up with a system that we think will work towards protecting our sacred PvE lives.
I will kick this off:
I think that corruption should be applied on attack with an increase in corruption on death. This gives you the option to pullout if it was a mistake. Also, from what has been said about the combat system, its not going to be as fast paced as some other MMOs we may have played.
I do agree that killing up to (2?) non-combatants for guild vs guild, head hunting guilds or whatever RPing may occur should be allowed. After that there should be strong ramifications. I am not against a system that has a 25% stat reduction after 2 non-combatant kills and then tags on an additional 30% or something for the following kill and maxes out at 100% for the fourth kill.
I think engaging in gathering activites, guild quests, regular quests, dungeons etc should reduce corruption at a time rate maybe. It should take hours to work off max corruption.
As for dying to remove corruption this should be limited to at the death of bounty hunters or some other really small pool of individuals that can remove it. Trying to avoid friends killing friends.
This is what I got. Let's try and be constructive and improve on this system to make it a productive game for everyone.
Thanks for reading,
Lex
There was a thread started by Stabby that has devolved into a cesspool of "what ifs", whining with some good constructive thought lightly dusted in there. As pointed out by Dygz, I have given up on that thread and am instead starting a thread where we can cook something up as a community and refine it and then see what the Devs will do with it.
TL:DR - New thread to minimize PKers messing up my PvE fun time.
This is what we know:
Will I be able to mess around, "flag", on a guild member like in some MMOs, or will they be immune to all AOEs and targeted effects even if trying to purposely attack them.
Currently our flagging system has several lockouts. People whom you may not flag on. This order follows a simple affiliation progression in the system. Party member, Raid member, Guild member, Alliance member. If any of these 4 affiliations are present then the player may not flag on the target.
What type of flagging system will be used for PvP in Ashes?
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). This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
While a player is marked as Corrupt, they may be attacked by both Combatants and Non-Combatants. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupt player, the non-combatant will not flag as a combatant.
TL:DR - There are three flags (Non-Combatant/Combatant/Corrupt). You get flagged corrupt when you kill a Non-Combatant (We don't know when. Either on attack or on killing) and you can work corruption off in a number of ways.
The goal is to come up with a system that we think will work towards protecting our sacred PvE lives.
I will kick this off:
I think that corruption should be applied on attack with an increase in corruption on death. This gives you the option to pullout if it was a mistake. Also, from what has been said about the combat system, its not going to be as fast paced as some other MMOs we may have played.
I do agree that killing up to (2?) non-combatants for guild vs guild, head hunting guilds or whatever RPing may occur should be allowed. After that there should be strong ramifications. I am not against a system that has a 25% stat reduction after 2 non-combatant kills and then tags on an additional 30% or something for the following kill and maxes out at 100% for the fourth kill.
I think engaging in gathering activites, guild quests, regular quests, dungeons etc should reduce corruption at a time rate maybe. It should take hours to work off max corruption.
As for dying to remove corruption this should be limited to at the death of bounty hunters or some other really small pool of individuals that can remove it. Trying to avoid friends killing friends.
This is what I got. Let's try and be constructive and improve on this system to make it a productive game for everyone.
Thanks for reading,
Lex
0
Comments
To me it seems very fair and well thought out by the dev team.
</blockquote>
^
To me it seems very fair and well thought out by the dev team.
</blockquote>
I agree. I think they can tweak a few things but so far being a PvE person myself, I have to agree with the current set up of things.
I agree and I also like to be able to pull out when it's a mistake....so important.
I disagree here. Point of view, player flagged as noncombatant: Once my attacker already has or takes on corruption I am no longer able to shift my flag up to "combatant". I am doomed to the 2x exp debt if I lose the encounter. This is problematic also if my attacker already has a corruption score before attacking me.
I think that they can do better than that.
I disagree here. Point of view, player flagged as noncombatant: Once my attacker already has or takes on corruption I am no longer able to shift my flag up to “combatant”. I am doomed to the 2x exp debt if I lose the encounter. This is problematic also if my attacker already has a corruption score before attacking me.
I think that they can do better than that.
</blockquote>
I don't understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
I think that they can do better than that.
</blockquote>
I don't understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
I think that they can do better than that.
I don’t understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
</blockquote>
The noncombatant flag has a 2x exp debt for dying. A combatant flag has regular exp debt for dying. A corrupted player has 3x noncombatant (or 6x regular debt.) for death.
"A noncombatant that attacks a corrupt player will not flag as a combatant"
They would have to make some kind of exceptions. Weird complicated ones.
I think that they can do better than that.
I don’t understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
</blockquote>
The noncombatant flag has a 2x exp debt for dying. A combatant flag has regular exp debt for dying. A corrupted player has 3x noncombatant (or 6x regular debt.) for death.
"A noncombatant that attacks a corrupt player will not flag as a combatant"
They would have to make some kind of exceptions. Weird complicated ones.
I like your compromise.
I think that they can do better than that.
I don’t understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
</blockquote>
The noncombatant flag has a 2x exp debt for dying. A combatant flag has regular exp debt for dying. A corrupted player has 3x noncombatant (or 6x regular debt.) for death.
"A noncombatant that attacks a corrupt player will not flag as a combatant"
They would have to make some kind of exceptions. Weird complicated ones.
I like your compromise
"A noncombatant that attacks a corrupt player will not flag as a combatant"
They would have to make some kind of exceptions. Weird complicated ones.
I like your compromise
Abusing the system like this has been done for ages in other games. Heck I've done it myself to people before I realized it was bad. Especially in games that offer no penalties for PvP deaths. Griefers, by their very definition, find ways to ruin other gamers' experience in game with the intent of making them mad to the point of quitting.
Is someone beating on a player until just before death, letting them heal, and then beating on them again ad infinitum covered with the corruption system ?
It seems to me you can grief the hell out of a player without killing them.
With no penalty.
Abusing the system like this has been done for ages in other games. Heck I’ve done it myself to people before I realized it was bad. Especially in games that offer no penalties for PvP deaths. Griefers, by their very definition, find ways to ruin other gamers’ experience in game with the intent of making them mad to the point of quitting.
</blockquote>
So my choices are: Be resigned to take a 2x exp debt if I am flagged noncombatant or be resigned to take a 2x exp debt if I am flagged noncombatant. haha! If you go corrupt or are corrupt when you attack me I can't "up"my flag, so far as things stand now. Maybe that is the real problem.
You bring up a valid point but it is just too devilish to believe that players would do that! lol
You would kind of hope that people of your own node are actually there for mutual prosperity.... and welfare.
2: The corruption system really only helps Artisans - players who are likely to be non-combatants most of the time.
3: The corruption system does nothing to help PvErs - players who take on adventurer classes because they love to fight mobs but don't like to fight player avatars.
4: The corruption system does nothing to help casual PvPers - players who like PvP combat sometimes but who hate being forced into PvP combat when they aren't in the mood.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5: The text describing how corruption works is quite clear: A player gains a corruption score when they kill a non-combatant; not when they attack a non-combatant.
When a non-combatant is attacked they have the option of not fighting back. if the attacker kills them, the attacker gains a corruption score.
If the non-combatant attacks back, they auto-flag as a combatant. If the attacker kills them, the attacker does not gain a corruption score.
6: If the attacker gained a corruption score merely for attacking a non-combatant, there would be no incentive to stop attacking when the non-combatant fails to fight back.
7: The corruption system is designed to encourage the non-combatant to flag as a combatant. If they don't flag as a combatant and they are killed, they receive the normal death penalty. if they attack back and flag as a combatant, the death penalties are halved if they are killed. Also, they will remain flagged as a combatant for some period after the battle is over...which encourages PvP combat to continue for some time if more enemy PvPers are in the vicinity. The non-combatant could choose to not fight back and cause the attacker to gain corruption if the attacker kills them, but the non-combatant would suffer the normal death penalty rather than half the death penalty for flagging as a combatant.
8: To be clear: <strong><em>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/equipped items based on their current Corruption Score.</em></strong>
Also look people, if someone is playing that way fairly often, they should get reported. If Intrepid is serious about managing toxicity they should get warned and the banned if persistant. Realistically though, nothing will beat player ingenuity to be bicycle seat sniffers if they are determined.
You would kind of hope that people of your own node are actually there for mutual prosperity…. and welfare.[/quote]
There will likely be quite a bit of political conflict even among citizens of the same node - which will, from time to time, lead to citizens combating each other.
You would kind of hope that people of your own node are actually there for mutual prosperity…. and welfare.
</blockquote>
There will likely be quite a bit of political conflict even among citizens of the same node – which will, from time to time, lead to citizens combating each other.
</blockquote>
I see your point.
But surely that applies to guild and alliance too.
Not everyone on the team will be singing from the same hymn sheet all the time I would have thought.
I think that they can do better than that.
I don’t understand the 2x exp debt that you are referring to here.
Let me propose a counter idea: If a non-combatant is attacked by a player with corruption stacks they can defend freely with no repercussions including the exp debt.
</blockquote>
What is experience debt? It sounds like an annoying mechanic. Non-Combatants shouldn't be punished for dying at all.
</blockquote>
I was thinking of a city/node wide vote (citizens only of course) to kick out certain toxic players. (this would have to be very hard to achieve though to avoid it being abused) Also this 100% cant fall into the hand of city leaders to avoid a type of tyrant power.
My biggest fear in suggesting this; is my fear of it being used on me lol.
</blockquote>
I was thinking of a city/node wide vote (citizens only of course) to kick out certain toxic players. (this would have to be very hard to achieve though to avoid it being abused) Also this 100% cant fall into the hand of city leaders to avoid a type of tyrant power.
My biggest fear in suggesting this; is my fear of it being used on me lol.
</blockquote>
I was thinking of a city/node wide vote (citizens only of course) to kick out certain toxic players. (this would have to be very hard to achieve though to avoid it being abused) Also this 100% cant fall into the hand of city leaders to avoid a type of tyrant power.
My biggest fear in suggesting this; is my fear of it being used on me lol..
</blockquote>
I was thinking of a city/node wide vote (citizens only of course) to kick out certain toxic players. (this would have to be very hard to achieve though to avoid it being abused) Also this 100% cant fall into the hand of city leaders to avoid a type of tyrant power.
My biggest fear in suggesting this; is my fear of it being used on me lol.
(my posts never work right =_= (5th time trying to post this))