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
People consider balancing whole corruption around griefers (meaningless continual attacking of same target), while griefers make up maybe 1% of the population. People are completely forgetting that this affects normal meaningful PvP game play as well (attacks for resources / defense of your nodes teritory / resources etc).
This is a problem with this community. The lack of foresight. And more importantly the lack of caring. As long as they are protected from PvP they don't care what this does to a PvX game.
Could you stop crying already? It is getting really annoying seeing you pop up in every possible place, complaining about a system that isn't even in place yet in a game we havn't even played.
How about we wait for alpha 1 and see what the system actually looks like?
Everyday of my life I sigh in despair about all the crap I have to put up with because of the (I am hoping) very small percentage of uneducated, inconsiderate, self-absorbed people that I run into in public, especially on the road, and rarely (but surely) at work.
I have not checked out of life, please don't check out of Ashes over it.
Things that annoy you are your own problem mate. You should stop crying about other people posting stuff in this forum. It's getting annoying you know.
If you notice, whitedude is crying cause my posts annoy him, and that's honestly his own problem.
No one is saying you can't PvP for things, Intrepid are just saying there are systems in place for when and where that PvP should take place.
It is also worth pointing out that this is only a "should". There is nothing phisically stopping you from attacking someone - it is just that there will likely be a penalty to do so. If that person is pissing you off for what ever reason, kill them.
Problem with Intrepids guild war system is that you can't proclaim war on some guild one sided. The other guild has to agree to a war if war will take place.
So if some guild comes to your nodes territory and starts harvesting resources, and you try to attack it, and ask for a war. Why the hell would they accept lol? They will just refuse it and continue harvesting while remaining green.
Now IF Intrepid studios would change the guild war system so that it can be activated without mutual consent of both guilds, that would be another story.
For now guild war (as it is) is useless for anything other than 2 PvE guilds having some objective based fun when they both want to.
PvP guilds will run around purple anyway, so they do not need guild war system to PvP amongst each other.
Many people might not see this, but AoC is very much tailored towards a PvE player, that occasionally wants to have mutually consensual PvP when he gets bored of grinding.
How do you know how the guild war system works?
I wouldn't look too much in to what we know about the system now, and consider more what the intention with it seems to be - as eventually the functionality of the system will match the intention.
AoC is a PvE game mostly, yes. All MMO's are. You can't have a persistent world that is mostly about PvE and have it commercially viable.
Commercially viable games that are all about PvP are all non-persistent - MOBA's, Battle Royale type games, and games like Crowfall, an MMO where the world is non-persistent.
That said, this game will have PvP. This game will have guilds that base themselves on PvP. Thing is, no PvP survives long.
My expreiences of PvP in MMORPG's are all similar. The game starts out with a fairly high amount of PvP, lots of guilds fighting and such. Eventually this all evens out to one or two guilds that everyone merges in to. These guilds fight, one wins and the other leaves (either the server or the game). This leaves the server with one guild that wants PvP, but no one left to PvP them.
This all happens in a time span ranging from 6 - 18 months (the more restriction on PvP in the game, the longer it takes - I would wager a game with no PvP restriction could do this in under 3 months), and ends up in a game with no viable PvP, and only the PvE aspects left to keep the game going.
Why would any developer develop a game based around PvP that is always going to end in one dominant guild with nothing to do? This entire scenario is exactly what Crowfall intends to reproduce every few months or so - people start out on the server, they all fight, one guild becomes dominant - then the world resets and everyone starts again.
There is only room in the market for one such game - I predict it will only last 24 - 30 months at that. Other MMO's need to highlight the PvE aspects of the game, as they are the aspects of the game that will actually carry it. PvP is there - it is there both for the players that like it to enjoy, and for the players that don't like it to have a sense of danger. it is not, however, the primary aspect of this game.
ON TOPIC: I'd be fine with it being either way.
Yeah, it's closed magic circle: Game get tailored more towards PvE, you chose it because of that and go play it, other PvE players chose it for the same reason, PvP players avoid it for the same reason, as result more PvE players end up around you.
The way the game is designed will dictate what type of players the game will attract more.
But to claim that is more PvE players in gaming world then PvP players is complete nonsense.
I assumed both guilds would have to choose objectives, but I never gave any thought to (or heard that) guilds would have the option of not accepting. A small consolation for you might be that guilds w/ castles will not be able to say "...no, we don't want you to siege our castle."
I didn't know if they released guild specs and I missed them.
We only have indications at best, leveling supposedly being slower paced and such so even a "small" penalty might be a bit of a dent after all, but well it's barely an indication at all.
One thing is for sure tho, being max level won't stop the penalty. There are to many other options that could be targeted. Skills still have a horizontal progress that can just as well be the target of a penalty. What about your armor? Staying green may just as well put a higher durability penalty on you which will cost you more to repair.
Maybe a mix of all of them?
Maybe there are other things still out there that haven't been presented to us yet. Who knows? One thing we know for sure, there are things we don't know, claiming otherwise is just ignorant.
Not at all. Short duration competitive matches make perfect sense in almost any genre. It is the longer - yet not permanent - ones that don't make sense to me. Think Crowfall.
In terms of the idea of corruption affecting all characters on your account, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. I don't think griefing and you being a douche should just go away simply because of you changing to an alt character, but..
@Gothix is a firm believer that killing someone in their node, stealing their resources, and taking them back to your node is a meaningful PvP (even if it would be red vs. green). Like how Vikings expanded their coffers and funded more Viking activity. In this case it would be meaningful PvP that unjustly punished PvP while protecting PvE.
Having an entire node use that philosophy, imo, would be detrimental though. I believe it would lead to all PvP players being encouraged to kill greens in other nodes because they would be worth more resources and not fight back. So I am still on board with the corruption mechanic.
I like to think that some players can make douche-bag alts (or a main) but then also make super friendly and carefree characters. Their corrupted avatars will be hunted and suffer (imo, as they should) but their helpful friendly characters should not. The problem with having an alt designed to drop corruption by just dying, as has been mentioned, would be a big concern of mine.
Basically this, yes.
Although if someone left to other node, followed same green player around over prolonged period of time and killing him repeatedly that would still be considered griefing, and apply corruption, so griefing would still be detered by corruption system.
However, meaningful conflict (even if vs. green) that does not turn to griefing would not apply corruption.
The following is what my assumptions about PvP in the open world in relation to nodes in this game are based on.
Nodes and the area around them are not intended to be exclusively for the members of one guild - nor even exclusively for the use of the citizens of that node.
The player in charge of a node (as far as we know) has no say in who can and can not be a citizen of their node, that is up to individual players.
The resources present in a node are not completely based on what citizens of that node do, they are equally dependent (potentially even MORE dependent) on what non - citizens bring to that node via caravans.
Nodes do not contain all resources in the game, and the resources present fluctuate considerably. This means it is even more essential to keep caravans coming in to the node to provide resources that are not present at any given time.
It is entirely possible that if you see a solo player with a caravan of goods your node is lacking, and they are heading TO your node, the best thing you could do for your node is to escort them, rather than attack them.
The node system in this game is not a simple case of "GET OFF MY LAWN!". The system, along with who and when you should attack is far more complex than that.
If a node does gain a server-wide reputation as the typical "get off my lawn" type node, other players will simply cease trying to take caravans there, constricting that nodes growth and leaving it to wither into nothingness.
The corruption system has two main functions, the first is to stop you attacking players without reason. Someone harvesting resources in "your" node is not a reason to attack them. Someone taking a caravan to "your" node is not a reason to attack them - it is a reason to thank them.
That said, going out and hunting caravans that are not originating from or heading to "your" node, attacking them and taking their contents back IS valid PvP. This is where the second functoin of the corruption system comes in - to provide a cost to balance against the attack. If there was no cost to the attack, initiating the attack is essentially free. If there is a chance of you failing in the attack but still earning corruption, it lends some weight to the decision to attack rather than simply being a case of no reason to not attack.
This is game based on conflict. So yes it's a reason. You personally and your node grow stronger. Rest become weaker.
I take your resources, I get monetary reward, you lose it. Pretty tangible reason to attack I'd say.
If you want to hold hands with others and sing kumba yah, this might not be a game for you.
No it isn't.
There is no reason for you to assume this is the case, the developers have never once said the game is based on conflict.
We are both making some assumptions about the game - some of which will no doubt be right, some of which will no doubt be wrong. However, an assumption that is absolutely wrong is the assumption that the game is based on conflict. The game has conflict, but it is not at all based on it. The developers have said no such thing, nor have they hinted that the game will be based around conflict. You may play the game based on conflict with others, and that's fine - as long as you take the mechanics as they are.
If this is the case, you take my caravan and turn it in, you and your node get less than you would have in terms of resources than you would have if I had have completed the route myself. Remember, caravans are not about taking resources from one area to another, getting gold and then those resources disappearing - they are about taking resources from one area in the game to another so that the other area now has those resources to use.
And as to your closing sentiments about this game maybe not being for me - I'm not against PvP at all. In fact, I was a pirate in Archeage on one of the heaviest populated servers in the first 2 years of the game - at times I was the ONLY pirate on the server (aka, I was red to literally ever other player by choice).
I am trying hard to not cloud what I see this game being with what I want this game to be. They are different things. When I post about my assumptions on this game they are based on what developers have said directly about features, and generally about the tone of the game.
We likely won't have floating text that tells players what node we belong to, except for maybe a flag mechanic during a siege.
So this could be even more detrimental to the goal of the PvP player that risked corruption. Now the goal might have to be to only kill greens in your node and prevent them from leaving... but we have come off topic a bit.
Does this line of thinking jive with anyone else?
My point, don't forget it's not all about progressing a node, but about progressing your self as well. So stealing resources from other person, regardless of which node he belongs to is still beneficial to the players progress, and thus meaningful to that player. It's a theft with a real reason. Reason to get richer.
And as long as it's not repeated killing of same target who might not even have resources on him, it's not griefing. It's meaningful attack. Regardless of node affiliation.