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.

Content/Meta for players choosing to go red

2

Comments

  • Casually committing murder sounds like a pretty valid reason to give someone corruption, particularly if all they're doing is minding their own business and bothering you none lol.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    Crysta said:
    Casually committing murder sounds like a pretty valid reason to give someone corruption, particularly if all they're doing is minding their own business and bothering you none lol.
    No.

    Committing a single murder is a valid reason to put bounty on someone, but it's definitely not a valid reason to automatically decrease his stats and put on him a chance to break his gear...


    Corruption penalties should be inflicted for ganking (killing lower levels) or griefing (following and repeatedly killing same target)... Corruption penalties shouldn't be inflicted on someone who kills someone just once or twice.

    That's what bounty system is sufficient for.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    Id also say that differentiating is important when it comes to open world pvp, someone who ganks/griefs should definitely get another kind of punishment than someone who's trying to claim territory thats important for leading progress(new discovered high end dungeon areas/farm spots etc.) which could lead to meaningful conflict between alliances/guilds/nodes.
    These area's arn't necessarily pvp zones by default, such kind of conflict can happen everywhere and possibly shift to other areas during the fight.
  • I definitely think the corruption system will change quite a bit after we start testing it. After debating about its pros and cons since July, there are many parts of the system whose effectiveness and fairness will need to be tested. For example, how much corruption must a person acquire before they have the chance to drop gear? I am sure us testers, both the pvp and pve centered people, will be giving feedback extensively once we've tested the numbers of the system.
  • I would like to eventually see something similar to the pirates of Archeage. Something along the lines of,

    Outlaw
    Permanently Red
    Severe xp penalty on death
    Severe item  durability lost on death

    But
    Cannot drop gear
    Power penalty removed
    You are marked for bounty but no long appear on maps

    Honestly it would be more fun to make it so that these players have substantially increased bounties like the pirates and outlaws in the old days.

     
  • Artimus said:
    The one thing I cannot wrap my head around in this game is the fact that the devs are allowing a flagging system in the open world, that is technically completely pointless to have. No one in the right mind will flag up if someone attacks you, I have seen it a thousand times in other mmos like Black Desert, and Archeage. Whatever the reason may be the way the system is set up now no one will do it, mainly for the reason that STATS and GEAR LOSS is a thing, get rid of that and add content  severely limited for players choosing to go red. For example give them a bandit town, but every other town guards will kos, or maybe only allow them to be at sea were they can pirate trade ships. Just give a player some reason to go bandit. But then what kind of sandbox would that be? 
    Well your fact is false. Of course some people will fight back even some players wont. Its totally dependant of players and the situations. Now if someone attacks me in open world it depends totally of the current situation if i am going to fight back or not. If the situation looks like i have a chance to win, i will fight back, because that way i will loose less stuff from my inventory if i die. Also if the attacker is corrupted, that will drop more loot if i manage to kill him. I only run if it looks like i have no chance againts ganker(s) or i carry some really valueable resources, that i dont want to drop even the minimum number.

    And if i go for ganking, i will choose my target wisely. Most likely that non combatant garherer with mule and maybe full of resources is my number one choise. The corruption system prevents me to go for killing spree players for fun and encourages me to choose my target more wisely and more from profit pov. Also i can freely fight with other red and purple flagged players without any penalties. So the corruption system looks really good to me and it seems to work like its intended. Protect newcomers, low levels and non-combatant minded players, but still leaving room for occasionally happening OWPvP action. 

    In otherhand some kind of bandit hideout or bandit organization could be considerable suggestion. Totally depends how it will be implemented, but i can see there some possibilities. ;)
  • While I understand why those who favor open world pvp could/would really hate a corruption system. There has to be balance. While I can get that you guys want this to be a full pvp game. If it is you lose a lot of player base.

    Just like if PVE'ers want no world pvp they would lose a chunk of player base also.

    And for the developers this really just doesn't make sense. Hence the corruption system. I puts just enough brakes on world pvp to get someone like me to give it a chance while not completely depriving those of you who would want to be an asshole and gank me and steal my stuff.

    While I am not ecstatic about the compromise, I understand it is needed for the health of the game overall and can live with it.

    If it were to go away then myself and probably a lot of players like me would go away also.
  • @Ferryman

    What I can't wrap my head around is, that people insist on calling whoever attacks them gankers...

    It's same like me calling you thief, just because you bought last shirt in shop in front of me, and I wanted that shirt.

    Are you a thief for that?

    Pls go learn what ganking is, and then come back and start discussing normally, like a man.
  • Gothix said:
    @Ferryman

    What I can't wrap my head around is, that people insist on calling whoever attacks them gankers...

    It's same like me calling you thief, just because you bought last shirt in shop in front of me, and I wanted that shirt.

    Are you a thief for that?

    Pls go learn what ganking is, and then come back and start discussing normally, like a man.
    If I beat you to buying the shirt and you cry like a little b++++, oh well, I got there first. That is life.

    If you turn around and stab me to get the shirt, then yes, you are a ganker, a murderer, and pretty much an all around a++hat.

    At that point, you do deserve to have very severe consequences attached to your anti-societal actions.

    Those of you who focus on ganking as only being low level killing and multi-killing of the same person completely miss the point. 

    If you force combat on another non-consenting party, therefore depriving them of the enjoyment of a game, you are in essence performing game ****. While this is a very extreme analogy for the behavior, It is essentially correct.

    Trying to justify a bad behavior by saying "Well, it doesn't violate the rules" doesn't make the behavior right or moral. It just makes it legal.

    I actually could respect the sentiment (while still not agreeing with it) if you just came out and said "This is a game and not real life. I enjoy ruining other peoples' days, it brings me joy, and since this is a game I want the right to be an asshole consequence free."

    At least that would be honest.
  • Uao said: 
    Btw somehow offtopic but since we're talking about guards and hostility: are players hostile to node guards if theyre not a citizen of that particular node?
    If no what prevents them from gathering inside the node at its main objective points just before a siege starts?
    If yes how do they trade with caravans if they're getting slaughtered when they reach their destination?
    My idea would be to be hostile by default but theres a option to buy a permission at the entrance of a city to visit legaly, however the permission disabels your weaponslot until you leave the city.
    If I remember correctly I think they mentioned at one point that a siege has to be declared and both sides are given a period of prep time.  
    I assume that after the declaration anyone who is part of the attacking node or anyone who isn't part of the defending node is no longer welcome within the city or it's territory and would be attacked on sight.
  • With the current information we have I think a military node could be close to a bandit haven.  Rather than gathering resorces they capture caravans and reroute them to their node.
  • Uao said:
    Open world pvp with griefers becomes more fun if theres possibilitys to hide from said griefers.. Most (all) games so far dont provide you a serious option to escape griefers before he killed you. So i think everyone should have some temporaly invisibility skill/teleport that gives you 4-5 seconds to hide without the griefer seeing where your going. 
    That would also require griefers to be unabel to see nameplates, which is in my opinion a better penalty than stat reduction. (the world would need many objects to hide behind too)
    Maybe reduce the range at which red players are abel to see nameplates as corruption increases.
    The chance to loose gear should stay however, so its really important for red players to play carefully.
    Maybe prevent high corrupt players to use mounts aswell?

    In return they should be abel to:
    steal limited amounts of goods/money from vendors within citys if they manage to get into the shop without beeing noticed,
    buy things without taxes from shady vendors,
    manipulate votings (by small degree like 1-5%)in scientific nodes, (stealth play parkour+reputation with specific npc's)
    steal money from economic node votings, (difficult stealth play parkour)
    assasinate candidates who try to become king of a military node/divine node which if successful makes these candidates unabel to win the outcome for that month..

    So it isnt all about griefing players who farm stuff but more about stealth play and actual game conform stuff.
    Assasination is some kind of griefing, but
    1. it has to happen only once and
    2. the candidates know about that mechanic and can gather friends to protect them,
    3. A worthy leader should have friends that support/protect him anyway.
    These are great ideas. Opens up the options to be an assassin for hire, a cat burglar, or grifter.

  • Gothix said:
    @Ferryman

    What I can't wrap my head around is, that people insist on calling whoever attacks them gankers...

    It's same like me calling you thief, just because you bought last shirt in shop in front of me, and I wanted that shirt.

    Are you a thief for that?

    Pls go learn what ganking is, and then come back and start discussing normally, like a man.
    Thats not my problem if you dont understand what people meens by ganking. I already gave you lesson earlier about the etymology of word ganking/ganger and its originally meens gang up and not just attacking lowel levels like you are saying. 

    That thief example is so poor and totally out of context so i am going to skip that. 

    Regards,

    Ganker
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    @BlackCat75

    Your example lies on premise that we are both civilians.

    However in war, when one warrior kills another, that is a fair kill REGARDLESS if one of the warriors managed to pick up a gun to shoot back or not.

    And IF you want to be considered CIVILIAN in ASHES, then you shouldn't play a character that has any offensive abilities, or weapons on him.

    As long as you CARRY WEAPONS, have combat training, and fight for benefit of certain node (regardless if you made no kills, a single kill or 1000 kills), in world of hostilities, the kill is WARRIOR KILL not a civilian kill, and thus does not go under same rules. Regardless if you reacted to fight back or not.

    I hope you understand the fault in your logic now.

    @Ferryman you should also take a lesson from this. If you don't want to be considered a warrior and a fair kill, then do not carry any weapons around, and then OK, we can call someone who kills you a murderer.
  • Gothix said:
    @BlackCat75

    Your example lies on premise that we are both civilians.

    However in war, when one warrior kills another, that is a fair kill REGARDLESS if one of the warriors managed to pick up a gun to shoot back or not.

    And IF you want to be considered CIVILIAN in ASHES, then you shouldn't play a character that has any offensive abilities, or weapons on him.

    As long as you CARRY WEAPONS, have combat training, and fight for benefit of certain node (regardless if you made no kills, a single kill or 1000 kills), in world of hostilities, the kill is WARRIOR KILL not a civilian kill, and thus does not go under same rules. Regardless if you reacted to fight back or not.
    This isn't Warhammer Online. There is no state of total war. There are no factions. There are no hostilities but those we make. 

    If you choose to play the game as if every player you see, outside your guild and alliance, is a hostile warrior that you must kill, then go right ahead. But please do know that this is an artificial construct of your own making. You cannot force other people to accept it, or to even know this is your play style unless you go around yelling your declarations of war at everyone. 

    Just because someone carries a weapon does not mean that they are ready, and willing to attack you. That is a terribly paranoid way to look at the world. Many people will carry a weapon simply for protection. From things like, oh say bears... or zombies.

    Just because someone has a stick, doesn't mean they want to beat you with it

    I like PvP, and I will be participating in it for more than half of my time in this game. What I won't do, however, is attack random people out gathering or exploring. I will attack people who have shown their willingness to participate in PvP - as I recognise that there are real people behind those characters just wanting to have fun.

    The exception will be if there is a guild war and I see someone from the other guild. Flagged or not, I'll attack. But that will be a nice little agreement between our guilds :)
  • Bajjer said:

    There are no hostilities but those we make. 

    Same as in real life. And when 2 countries engage in such hostilities they made by themselves, then warriors carrying arms killing each other fighting for their country are considered kills of war, and not criminal act.

    Only killing civilians of other country is criminal act.

    And again, if you want to be considered civilian, then you gotta live like one, carry no weapons, no offensive abilities. And then it will be a different story.

    As long as you carry weapons and offensive abilities, and are a warrior, you are a legit kill by another warrior.
  • Gothix said:
    @Ferryman you should also take a lesson from this. If you don't want to be considered a warrior and a fair kill, then do not carry any weapons around, and then OK, we can call someone who kills you a murderer.
    You are now pushing the whole conversation really weird direction. You are basing your argument to attack people freely, because they are carrying weapon with them? Do you even realize how poor example that is? Carrying weapon in games is quite common thing like it was in middle ages. It does not meen automatically that you are hostile warrior which can be killed at sight. *sigh*
     
  • Ferryman said:

    Carrying weapon in games is quite common thing like it was in middle ages. 
     
    Actually in middle ages, pesants (civilians) never carried weapons on them. Mostly only knights did, man of battle, warriors, who then protected nobility, or worked as mercenaries, or were criminals themselves. Civilians didn't.
  • Gothix said:
    Ferryman said:

    Carrying weapon in games is quite common thing like it was in middle ages. 
     
    Actually in middle ages, pesants (civilians) never carried weapons on them. Mostly only knights did, man of battle, warriors, who then protected nobility, or worked as mercenaries, or were criminals themselves. Civilians didn't.
    Were you a civilian in the middle ages?  Many weapons were used for hunting as well as protection.

    Today, civilians in many countries carry weapons legally for protection.  Country folk, hikers, ranchers, and  farmers among others.  Men and women carry weapons for protection against animal predators or to hunt.  This does not mean they are warriors.  

    It's not the weapon that makes the person but how and why it is used.   




  • Those civilians do not have advanced combat training, and knowledge of powerful magic. They also do not accept combat quests from government etc.

    The point being, Ashes of Creation does not have "civilian class", every class you can pick is an active powerful warrior, and with job to help out his node thrive over other nodes (competition / hostility).

    As such, there are no civilian players in Ashes, there are only warriors. Some warriors will be more active in combat, some will be less active in cobat and more active in other stuff. But they are all warriors none the less.

    The point being, if you are max level, you can not consider yourself a "poor victim" because you didn't pick up your weapon (that you have) and "shoot back". You should be a valid target for anyone.

    The point being, max level fights should not be subject to stat reduction, and chance to break gear.

    Only killing lower levels should be subject to such penalties, and perhaps, griefing (following around same target and reepeatedly killing it many times over).

    Equal level fights that happen on occasion should only be subject to bounty system.


    I know you wish all attacks be punished, because you wish be "protected" in open PvP game. But this is not the way things should work in this type of game.
  • Why does every extended post turn into a running debate. Please use what we know and don't speculate its save time and drama.
  • way I see it is that on or near lvl peeps being attacked  will fight back as its in their interest to do so(lower death pen/loss of res )with a chance of winning,lower lvls attacked by people of significantly higher lvl that have no chance of victory will stay green and if the higher lvl persists they take the consequences by going red at which point they will be the one watching there back for the bounty hunters .the idea of high lvls running around 1 shotting low lvls with no comeback is just bad bad bad and game destroying all actions need consequences just like the real world ..be a bully pay the price when the bigger bully comes to call :'(
  • nagash said:
    Why does every extended post turn into a running debate. Please use what we know and don't speculate its save time and drama.
    You've missed little in this debate while you were on hiatus.  It's a select few that continue to insist that we, including Intrepid Studios should bend to their ways.
  • CylverRayne said:

     It's a select few that continue to insist that we, including Intrepid Studios should bend to their ways.
    It's interesting how select few people always use exaggerations, and unfitting illustrations to support their desires, afraid of any changes that would incentivise PvP a bit.

    We are not talking about bending anyone to our ways. We are discussing very minor tweaks to the system.

    So that when you kill one green player you do not instantly break your gear and loose all your stats, like these select few players would LOVE. A mechanics to basically eliminate all the danger in the world for all green players.

    Hopefully this is not how it will be.
  • And before someone again says that I just want grief and gank, let me quote a part of my post from another thread:


    Gothix said:

    *and this is why I want Ashes to not punish equal level fights. Not because "I want" to be a ganker or griefer. But because I want to feel being in danger. I want this atmosphere or dangerous world, where I might die at every corner, and need to care about what I do.

    I do not want to feel that very little people will attack me, because I know most will not want to go red and break their gear. This just kills this feeling of danger in a huge huge degree.

    *and no, just flagging purple and playing purple does not give the same feeling. It's because most of other people will be green, and will have no desire to attack me to not get flagged themselves.

    But when everyone is flagged by default (or when attacks do not punish people) then when you meet other people in the wilds, you have to worry, because they might strike you just as preventive measure. Because the one that strikes first has more chance to survive vs someone that is not ready.

    Most of fights on PvP server happened because people did just that, striken preventively to kill enemy to remove chance of them being attacked and dieing. And playing like that, you have a real danger in the world. This is the feeling I would love to have again in a MMO.


    (Ofc. every time I argue for this, people by default call me ganker and griefer. Because what other reason could I have to want this? I must be ganker and griefer and troll for sure.)

  • Gothix said:
    And before someone again says that I just want grief and gank, let me quote a part of my post from another thread:

    I really do get where you are coming from. I think a lot of people are on a similar wavelength, but maybe not quite in total sync. I think you have delved a little too deep into hyperbole of late and a few people have started to ignore the issue and focus on some of these statements, which can be a fun tangent but we just have to remember the heart of the issue here is the corruption system.

    We will have to wait and see how the corruption system plays out in testing, but I think they will find a nice sweet spot where you can kill a person every now and then without it really detrimentally affecting your character or abilities. 

    I see the corruption system start to be debilitating when a person continuously, and in a short period of time, kills non-flagged players. This demonstrates a willingness to consistently engage players who have no interest in pvp. I find this more than fair. This will then create some player agency in making decisions on how much corruption they are comfortable with.

    I think there will be more than enough opportunities for pvp in Ashes so no one will ever cry foul because they can’t find anyone to fight. I think that people like you will end up being completely fine with the corruption system as it will allow you to play your style. I think that it will definitely piss off the griefers and gankers and hopefully either change their mindset and allow a wonderful community to flourish, including an incredibly active PvP community, or leave the game entirely. 

    If they can’t contribute anything other than hate, frustration and toxicity, I think the game is better off without them. If you are here to have fun, great. If your idea of fun is to cause another player, another human being who is also only looking to relax and have fun at the end of a long day, frustration to the point they log-off then you should not be rewarded for that behaviour. 

    You wouldn’t go up to someone reading on a bench and knock the book out of their hand, so why you think it is ok to do this in a virtual environment is beyond me (and when I say you, I mean the griefers, not you Gothix).

    One thing I do believe though, is that the stat reductions should be very temporary – and by this I mean 5 minutes. I think this should only be utilised to stop camping. I would much prefer the in-game penalties to grow – a much larger bounty that lasts for longer and longer and allows more and more of your own wealth and goods to be looted upon death. 

    Say you get to a bounty of 1000 gold, this would degrade 100 gold per day, but 5000 gold would only degrade 50 gold per day and 10,000 would only degrade 10 gold per day. No idea of real numbers but the bigger prick you are, the harder it is to move on from that stigma. I could this becoming a point of pride for some players – see how high they can get their bounty. This is more of an in-game system than an arbitrary game mechanic. 

  • I feel like this thread is starting to stray away from the original point that I was trying to make which was, the devs should create limited/exclusive content for players that choose to go full bandit. Some of the ideas you all have are great. Stealing, Burglary, corruption of politics, etc. I would also like to point out that I would not want to see bandits in any main land node but like I said in an earlier post about an exclusive hideout were bandits are free to socialize with other bandits and what not. They could even have there own island, "AA pirate island?" just sayin...

    Anyways the point I am trying to make is that I just don't see players ever going bandit if they have no reason to do it. The only motivation that I would see to PK someone is because you want there loot. PKing for no reason just doesn't happen in MMOs anymore. Someone will want to kill you for a reason, Loot, something you said, something you did, the way you acted. I would say that maybe your guilds are at war but the devs already said guild wars are going to be a thing so no need for non consensual pvp in that aspect.
  • I think the biggest deciding factor is going to be how many kills does it take to become corrupt.  If just one killing of a green makes you corrupt, that seems overboard. But if it takes a couple or even 3 or 4 that's reasonable. I don't think they're going to make it a single kill makes you red especially since they're giving you incentive to kill other players in dropped materials. 
  • DevonMeep said:
    I think the biggest deciding factor is going to be how many kills does it take to become corrupt.  If just one killing of a green makes you corrupt, that seems overboard. But if it takes a couple or even 3 or 4 that's reasonable. I don't think they're going to make it a single kill makes you red especially since they're giving you incentive to kill other players in dropped materials. 
    Well actually killing one green player will make you corrupted straight away and it makes the most sense. If this happens after 3-4 kills, then we have that ganking/murder box game what SI wants to avoid.

    Artimus said:
    I feel like this thread is starting to stray away from the original point that I was trying to make which was, the devs should create limited/exclusive content for players that choose to go full bandit. 
    I guess devs does not want to cater full bandit playstyle, because making that happen would meen more free and rewarding ganking to make this kind of playstyle possible. Its nice thought from roleplaying point of view, but it would change the open world PvP too much towards gank/murder box. I think your suggestion will work much better in full loot games or with more rewarding partly loot systems. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited September 2017
    Ferryman said:

    Well actually killing one green player will make you corrupted straight away and it makes the most sense. If this happens after 3-4 kills, then we have that ganking/murder box game what "IS" wants to avoid.

    (fixed it from SI, I'd rather not Sony Interactive take over Ashes, lol)


    You have to understand folks and ladies, according to @Ferryman as soon as you kill 2 people, that is already griefing muder box hell world, ruled by worst scam that man kind has to offer... lol.

    When you discuss things with him, you have to understand his perspective to be able to respond appropriately. :)


Sign In or Register to comment.