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
1. Protecting/Overtaking resources Greens are mining, you are upset because you can't kill them to drive them out. However, you can mine those same resources and no one will bother you because they are green. If they want to stay green you both get what you were after. If they turn purple, you get to turn purple and have your PvP experience. If you want to hog the resource you might just have a problem, but at least you still get to mine the resource and take it to market.
2. Green "bubble" around caravans There are greens surrounding the caravan you can walk thru them or stealth thru them. The only down side is they will alert the caravan you are coming if they see you. However, this is not much different than having scouts surrounding the caravan. You don't fight the greens you pass thru them.
If a green parcipate to a PvP event by scouting and you can't kill him otherwise you'll be taged on the map + get a debuff. So you have to let him scout your team, see what archetypes you got, how many people, your position and everything. Green is op.
Edit: There is no counterplay to a green scouting you. You automaticly got a strategic disaventage. If he was purple you just kill him and you are good.
Ashes wasn't marketed as a dungeon / hunter / gather game it was marketed as PvX that includes PvP.
I will defend not ganking until I'm blue in the face because there's nothing worse than joining a new game and getting demolished by someone with months of play time. If resource rich areas are designated as a PvP area (everyone is a combatant) 90% of my concerns with corruption go away.
The system in it's current design to our knowledge only encourages gatherers to stay green and take the exp debt (which doesn't effect gathering efficiency??? Unsure) and lose some resources to cause the DEFENDER of an area to receive corruption and be flagged on the map to encourage others to attack him with no repercussions.
just join me and my legion of fools
I actively encourage corruption for killing lower levels, and for repeated killing of same target over and over (griefing), but some players like @UnknownSystemError keep posting nebulous statements how I "want to do what the hell I want".
Honestly I see no point responding to such obviously false statements anymore.
All I ask is that meaningful OCCASIONAL conflict with equal levels, about resources is not automatically punished.
But regardless how well we argue, few thick players here will still post nebulous statements, because they think -- now listen to this -- if they write enough times that we promote mad PK sprees of lower levels, this make Intrepid people think that we do? Like if they were blind, lol.
IF you wanna be considered successful you need to play with realistic risk. EARN your success.
Farming in a risk free world, just shows you spent X amount of hours clicking on resource nodes, nothing more.
And no, world with punishing corruption isn't risky. You may want to pretend that it is, but it really isn't.
Also about that guild wars argument. Guild wars are nice, but they do not help at all with unguilded grinders who can still come and farm out entire zone risk free.
-- Again, with curruption that punishes even occasional equal player engagements, there is no real risk. Risk is when most of players are likely attack you. Risk is not when 1 player out of 1000 is likely to attack you, and just because he doesn' care about his character.
Again, I am that corruption applies instantly for killing lower levels, and for repeated killing over and over of same target.
-- I'm waiting now for @UnknownSystemError to come again and post how I want "gank and grief free murderbox" world.
But this is really strange that you become that agressiv when we talk about the corruption system. I mean the dev make possible the way to kill green people, meaning that they want it to be a part of the game. Why are you being rude to people who are discussing about that they want this part of the game to be a bigger part ?
I don't see any reflection, any argument from you
I understand that you don't like this idea. Why not let people talk about it without being rude to them (like you did on my post "Green are not inocent" and kinda on this post too) ?
I'll be glad to be corrected by anyone (including you) if i am stating facts about the actual corruption system that are wrong. But if we discuss about ideas we have to bring argument and not attack people personnaly for their ideas. Ideas are never a bad things, if we bring 1000 ideas in this forum and even only 1 interest dev what is wrong with that ? How an idea can be a cancer or even WRONG ? You can say an idea doesn't respect how the IS see the game because they previously talk about this or that. Or that you don't like this idea because you prefer to gather watching TV and don't want to be ready at anymoment to defend yourself everytime you go gather. These are argument i can freely accept, but how can you call people wrong without saying why or even call (or compared) people (to) cancer ?????
I'm new to this community, i discovered the game a week ago and you are the person who explained me most of the game mecanics through all you post and answered topics. So i'll still respect you even if you freely insulted me on my only post of this forum.
IS has already shown they will respond to concerns and the corruption system is one of them.... for you to dismiss people and call them cancer is absurd and just straight up rude. You can copy and paste all you want but everything is in development and nothing is set in stone.
I'm confident that IS will handle it correctly and properly address any exploits or advantages for staying green or going red. It needs to be heavily incentivized for both parties to want to be purple.
Sieges are not enough.
Caravans are not enough.
Mules are not enough.
Guild Wars are not enough.
Battlegrounds are not enough.
Killing a "green" and taking corruption is too much.
"Why wouldn't they fight back if they are equal level?"
1) they don't want to?
2) they are not built to handle well in combat?
3) personal feels at the time
4) time frame to play, really want to accomplish something and not get into it
*I am sure there are many more.
Caravans and mules will have more resources collected by the "greens" than a single green player can carry. Raiding a caravan will help your node and hurt theirs (or limit it's progression due to that caravan) if you are successful.
Killing a green player, just one, produces some corruption (as post have stated nobody currently knows how much). So why not risk some when it is necessary?
It's odd, players that are mining should be at "risk" of getting attacked and killed even if they don't fight back because of PvP.
A player that attacks a character that doesn't fight back shouldn't have to risk "red" or corruption because of PvP. The game is not being marketed as only a PvP game, so where are the other play types?
I can't say which side is the minority, is the more vocal side the majority just because they are more vocal?
As for the Spy/Scout concern. I think this is a legitimate complaint. IS has mentioned guild spies being possible, this seems to confirm that along with adding scout/spies.
I don't know what the best answer is. I think it should be addressed, although the marching on a city or spying on a camp are not my play styles.
Sounds like both sides keep posting the same points of view. Neither is willing to budge, both think they are right.
I like the corruption mechanic as it is currently described. I am sure it will be altered during playtest. If they remove it completely then, as others have stated, "RIP Ashes" welcome to "Gank War."
Game designers want it to be a part of the game otherwise you wouldn't be able to attack any greens.
A problem for caravans for example. Personaly with the current system, if i have to do a caravans betweens nodes/metropolis or w/e, i'll definitivly take a second account/computer and log a second caracter wich will scout the road, every chokepoint and everything. If i see a group of thiefs or just people who stick there on my caravan way, i'll be able to know every archetypes they use/are, how many they are and then adapt my strategy (temporarily stop the caravan to gather more friend, switch gear to be more prepared or w/e new strategy). My green scout will be able to scout any of their movement. If they kill him, they will be taged on the map, got their stats lowered etc.
How would you counter that kind of strategy ?
When you take the populace and introduce a great mechanic to avoid griefing or ganking and its easily and obviously more favorable to one side more than the other its not serving its intended purpose. I haven't seen anyone ask for the removal of corruption, simply for it to be used for its intended purpose = preventing the continual killing (camping/griefing) and the attacking of people with level disparities. (ganking).
My concern comes with the ability to abuse the mechanic. Both sides should be encouraged.. greatly... to be purple. There is very little motivation for a gatherer to flag up because ultimately the negative effects on the person trying to chase them away far outweigh the effects on the person remaining green. I keep going back to the phrasing "Chase them away" because as corruption is currently set up people know... "Hey if i dont attack back they will either kill me and get corrupted, hunted and chased away then i can come back and take these materials OR they stop attacking and i can continue taking these materials."
Either way, feel free to do so. The stat and skill penalties will degrade your abilities to the point you might just want to create a new char.
As someone enthusuiastic about gathering and if someone attacked me, these would be the thoughts in my mind
- A combatant attacks me. I could choose to ignore and allow them to kill me. Risk: I could loose my farming spot and receive 2x death penalty. Reward: I could die and feel trolly satisfaction on corrupting the attacker.
- A combatant attacks me. I can choose to fight back. Risk: I could die and loose my farming spot but I receive half the normal death penalties. Reward: I could win and feel like the Queen of the node! I won't loose my farm spot. No death penalities. Might get a percentage of raw materials (yeay)
- A corrupted player attacks me. I could choose to ignore and allow them to kill me. Risk: I could loose my farming spot and suffer 2x death penalty. Reward: I die and be satisfied with the trolls satisfaction of increasing the attackers corruption score.
- A corrupted player attacks me. I can choose to fight back. Risk: I can die and loose my fighting spot and suffer 2x death penalties. Reward: I could win and feel like the Queen and hero of the node! I won't loose my farming spot and might get some juicy loot aswell as a percent of dropped raw materials.
For me as a player fighting back rewards outweigh the risks in comparisson to if I stayed green. Ofcourse this will depend on each players preference. If you're a troll there is not much that can be done. If I'm gathering near a green player that's doesn't defend their spot - shame on you green. Goes the same for those that just just run away. You're just passing the attacker to another player within the gathering area. Not cool but hey ho.In addition as a gatherer I hope the risk of being attacked encourages gatherers to group together and be more social. This to me is an overall win in terms of how I want to see gathering in Ashes. ( Thread on gathering hopes)
I do believe the corruption system will have loopholes and I'm in agreement with all that state that. We are a very lucky community to have various opportunities to test as much as we can so by time launch comes the system will work as best as it can.
1 and 2: if you are gatherer, or you are max lvl and can't delevel (it comes to this point sooner or later) you do not care about exp penalty. Giving part of your mats and getting most of his (die green, return, kill) is what most gatherers will do.
The problem with n4, you do not become combatant attacking corrupted.
So 3 and 4 has only 1 choice: fight, risk is same, reward is either increasing corruption of attacker, making him weaker with debuff penalty for 2nd attempt or gaining his loot from 1st try.
So yes when I die I have to weigh up the costs of losing materials I've gathered and death penalties, for me at late game I may not want to risk durability loss on valuable gear ( Ofcourse I could choose to wear less valuable gear but I also need to defend against PvE mobs so lots of testing to be done).
There are ways around the system but it's up to the player to make their choice on weighing up pros and cons
I personally think fighting back is more rewarding than not ^^
They can choose to fight back or not, you can choose to stop attacking of finish them off.
I don't know how this isn't open world PvP. Because it doesn't want you to kill players that don't fight back?
The corruption is a deterrent, not and end all.
@Ghost0, I specifically said the scouts being green is a valid concern and that I have no thoughts/suggestions on how to fix it.
Imo caravan routes will be long, so by time you scout the area and make it back to your other alt to run the caravan a lot of those groups might have moved on, players might have also switched alts, your concern is valid. I don't think your plan is flawless as far as prepping goes.
I think this might have to be addressed during the Alpha's.
@Argentdawn, I suppose the big difference is if a MOB kills me they don't get corrupted if I don't fight back?
Also, not all mining spots will likely be swarming with MOB's, so if a player finds a nice quiet mining ground w/out MOBS but then a player comes around to attack them that would be different.
Killing MOBs will likely generate more xp and resources than killing other "purple" players.
I don't know, seems different to me.
Except that the main argument of anti-PvP people was not that other players do not give enough EXP or loot.
Their main argument was that they do not wish to fight.
From THAT context, having to fight a mob or a player isn't any different.
They can choose to fight back or not, you can choose to stop attacking of finish them off.
I don't know how this isn't open world PvP. Because it doesn't want you to kill players that don't fight back?
The corruption is a deterrent, not and end all.)
-corruption is a deterrent.. to what? It's meant to prevent ganking and griefing. So what role does it serve in a single fight with 2 people of equal levels out in the world over resources. To me that sounds like meaningful conflict over a limited resource.
(I suppose the big difference is if a MOB kills me they don't get corrupted if I don't fight back?
Also, not all mining spots will likely be swarming with MOB's, so if a player finds a nice quiet mining ground w/out MOBS but then a player comes around to attack them that would be different.
Killing MOBs will likely generate more xp and resources than killing other "purple" players.
I don't know, seems different to me.)
-So the difference between myself, a wolf, and humanoid npc is the fact I get corruption if I attack and kill a character open world and possibly negligable experience gains. Regardless of a person being in control of the character or the script controlling NPCs you may be attacked in the open world.
The point I'm trying to get across is a PC character is nothing more than an intelligent AI according to your response. When your out wandering about and you run into a wolf you don't expect for it to attack you for getting near it's den and then stop when you have 20% health left it MAY stop if you run far enough away. As a player we get punished for initiating and finishing combat against someone unwilling to fight for the ability to gather, or farm, tame or kill in an area people may already be operating under current know mechanics.
Let's say I take the time to seek out and find resources. I find it, clear out the enemies and start to loot the (let's just say) 200 resources and someone comes along and just starts to loot. Now out of the 200 resources I secured they have grabbed 20 and are continuing. They didn't take any risk to attack and clear enemies. There was no durability damage to them and they reap full reward of approx half the resources if they can successfully gather at the same rate as me.
If I attack them to defend my claim and they chose to ignore me because of how the corruption mechanic works they drop (let's just say) 10 because they stayed green, resources out of the 20 they looted.
Using that as an example I'm now red. They dropped 25% of the carried resources X2 because they stayed green (5x2=10). I gathered the remaining resources and I walk away with 190. Now I get killed on my way back to my freehold. I'm flagged red and drop more (I'll use 3x just for arguments sake.) If I drop 25% of my resources like the green I'm dropping 48 units. With the red multiplier (the x3) I end up losing 144 resources 190-144=46. When all is said and done I have 46 remaining resources. So where does that 144 resources go? To the person who killed me with no initial investment in anything they just happened across a "red player"
That seems to me to be heavily in favor of one side of this situation. The problem with this situation is noone will want to flag up and there are stalemates everywhere just waiting for someone to attack first... with the exception of dedicated PvP areas.
I think two assumptions are being made in these arguments that negatively cast light on both sides.
Some post are suggesting that those who wish to PK are only in it for the lol's.
Some post are suggesting that those who are gathering/mining would rather die green than move on or fight back.
I think there might be equal numbers each of those examples.
I also think players like me, who would rather gather/mine and fight back or run if I rather not deal will be more common.
I also think players like @Gothix who would rather PvP for a reason even if that results in PK (ending in PK probably not the most common case) are more common.
I was asked what I thought was different between a player and a MOB. I didn't apply the same context @Gothix mentioned because to me that was not part of the question.
In response to the context, the difference is I can kill a MOB gain experience and loot. If the person attacking me is in a situation like Gothix uses for an example (looking for resources) and they have no raw materials what do I gain if I win? A few extra minutes of mining before they come back? That sucks. Waste of my time and theirs to be honest imo. Although the thrill of the fight might have been worth it for one or both parties.
I can't guarantee fighting back benefits me, so when I am not in the mood (especially having a bad day) I might think, "Screw you, I'm staying green. I don't even give a ____ right now." I don't have those days often, but I can't say I never have those days.