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
Like others said, it removes players from the world and inserts them in a specific zone (like a prison) in order to have what they want. It's also the question of how many people are going to actually play in these lawless areas.
Would you go into an area from which you have nothing to gain, with medium-sized "free for all" PVP in which you can get surrounded by several people and killed instantly, then them fighting each other and so on? What about when you barely see 1-2 people in such an area because no one else cares about it?
I think we can agree that the issue is having something to fight for that is worthwhile for everyone so it doesn't become stale in time. But you can have that in the world itself, without segregating players........ and now we came back to the beginning of the discussion
full circle 
I specifically used AA's Red Dragon and Leviathan as examples (look them up). I've been part of multiple 200+ people battles for the dragon in the past - so you can't tell me people won't use content like this.
In the vein of anything is a possibility until the game launches.
Steven has said that he wants to add ocean/ship based PvP content to the game - that would fit in perfectly with the Leviathan from AA.
Also, don't forget that AA is actually a fairly large portion of the influence for this game - both what they got right and what they got wrong. These encounters are the epitome of both what AA got right and got wrong. Even if just based on that, I'd expect them to want to add in similar content- but done right - basically as a way of giving the middle finger to XL/Trion.
PKing non-Combatants is what generates Corruption, not inherently PvP. Thus, a solution for the lore issue in regards to free PvP zones is to write in a reason for the area to turn everyone into Combatants. Put some objective as the central idea behind the zone that has PvP as an integral part of it. That way, your presence in the zone can be enough to make you a Combatant.
@CopperRaven
I am not trying to sound like the "voice of reason". I don't consider myself right or wrong, I just wanted to state the issues that I saw with the idea of a PvP zone. While I still believe that it conflicts with the idea of not separating different kinds of players, that point is not strong enough to negate the possibility of having such a zone. The discussion has lead to a (hopefully) viable solution to the lore issue above. Yours or others' thoughts on this solution are greatly appreciated.
I dislike criticizing something as a whole unless I or others can come up with a viable solution ourselves. I couldn't find a solution for why PKing passive players should generate Corruption in one zone and not in another. That is why I was against the idea. But this last comment made me reconsider the angle of my approach. What justification do these other events have for not having Corruption? That justification is a direction or purpose that makes everyone a combatant. You want something, others do too. Everyone has an equal part in fighting over it, so no one is just killing "innocents" (green players). That's one of the justifications a PvP zone can have for existing without Corruption.
It may seem nit-pick-y, but it's just how I like to discuss things. Modern discourse is often mired in opinions and inarguable generalizations that make it harder to come up with a solution. This is how I like to try and avoid that.
I appreciate all of the thoughts and criticisms from this thread. This type of discussion improves communication skills that are very important in any world.
- Sikuba
And why would PvE-ers just be served everything on a plate without needing to PvP? PvP only being optional for them?
Can PvP-ers avoid PvE? No. They wouldn't have any gear for start, they wouldn't even level up, and lots of other things.
So if this is a PvX game, then PvE-ers NEED to be "forced" into PvP as well, without being protected (by punishing mechanics or by being able to use mules X rounds, and avoiding caravan system like that, even if it takes more time, etc).
PvP CAN NOT be only optional. And currently it is. All PvP can be avoided if player wants to.
And then, for 1 type of PvP that you can NOT avoid, PvE-ers ask for punishing mechanics all the time, so they would practically avoid that as well.
Yeah... PvX... right.
AGGELOS: In this post-World-of-Warcraft era, the term battlegorund has become very specific... as in instanced Pvp zones.
If this is true? How are your battlegrounds going to function? And how do they relate to what you've already said with the arena system? And how are you going to link it and make it meaningful to the rest of the world?
STEPHEN: Well, just a quick clarification with regards to our terminology when using the term battleground is, because we're instituting a flagging system that allows for PvP to erupt anywhere, I consider battlegrounds as kind of interchangeable with: "a zone that exists within the open world that does not include our flagging mechanics, but flags everyone for battle." It's a battle ground. It's open PvP.
And that includes the caravan system, that includes castle sieges and node sieges and objective-based guild wars and stuff like that. But, in addition to that we have arenas, so...
AGGELOS: And that's why I wanted clarification because when people hear battleground, they think of 10-v-10s, or whatever the case may be, but you've already mentioned arenas or scenarios.
STEPHEN: So, yeah. Again, a battlegrounds is just a way for me to refer to open world systems that relate to everyone being involved in a PvP situation specific to that occurrence.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, there is a specific reason to think that Ashes won;t have instanced battlegrounds - other than arenas. Because Stephen defines battlegrounds in Ashes as open world content plus arenas.
And, when given the opportunity to discuss other forms of instanced battlegrounds and their mechanics - Stephen avoids doing so, while clarifying his view of what constitutes a battlegrounds in Ashes - as opposed to what they might be in previous MMORPGs.
Ocean/Ship based PvP combat will be similar to land combat.
Ship v ship - green/purple/red.
Guild wars.
Ocean-based caravans.
The incentive of loot drop is what the devs are trying to counter. If there were no regulation, you'd see non-Combatants as the new farm for PKers. Everyone would have to PK all the time, and fewer people would gather. Why gather when you can be killed and have all the time and energy that you put into gathering stolen?
No regulation is analogous to the natural food chain in our world. Carnivores eat herbivores who eat plants. PvPers loot PvEers who loot resources. A balance between PvP and PvE means that both types of players have equal opportunity and difficulty of progression. Having one type of player higher on the food chain contradicts the idea of balance.
With regulation, it can be arranged that PKing can be profitable, but only if the PKing is done properly (i.e, pick your targets, avoid getting killed etc). I agree that the system doesn't currently appear to be balanced, but I feel that it is workable, even if other, more eloquent solutions may have existed.
Corruption is a part of the lore, and so we're probably stuck with it, at least to some extent. But it's not as bad as people are making it out to be. I consider myself a PvPer, but I still firmly believe this. Feel free to voice your opinions to the contrary, just remember that stagnation and repetition is death for a thread.
tl;dr: I can't shorten what I said so you'll just have to read it or ignore
- Sikuba
Any ideas on what the added objectives might be for the Battlegrounds? I assume they turn purple for a reason.
Edit: Ah, I had assumed they meant something additional besides features that already exist. Misinterpretation of their use of the term.
Caravans are mobile.
Castle sieges are purple.
Node sieges are purple.
Arenas are purple.
Those are Stephen's examples of battlegrounds in Ashes.
Guilds that declare war against each other will have objectives.
The only examples we have for those are locations or items guilds may own as victory/surrender conditions.
Whether those locations can be something other than a castle remains to be seen.
And, we'll have to see what other types of objectives might lead to victory/surrender conditions.
Also, it would behoove PvEers to participate in node caravan PvP to protect their goods and to participate in node sieges in order to prevent their homes and freeholds from being destroyed.
It's a PvX game. There should be no non-Combatants.
Atm. ALL forms of PvP can be avoided.
- you don't have to join the siege, other citizens do it and you still benefit if your side is victorious (there is no penalty if you don't join to defend your node)
- you don't have to join the castle fight, if you are in guild where your guild members cap a castle, you still benefit form it even if you didn't participate in fight
- even if your guild does not own a castle, you can still play game normally without noticing this
- you can use mule runs X times to avoid caravan system (if will just take you a bit more runs) but you can do everything
- world PvP, if you gather naked you can avoid repair expenses if you die, you do not deleve from max level so that's not an issue as well, in same time attacker gets punished severely, so you can basically avoid 90% of world PvP while green
Even if punishments are re balanced, this is still the only form of PvP that can be required of you to play a game that is supposed to be PvX. Corruption simply should not exist in the ONLY form of PvP players could be asked to do, let alone be this punishing.
Meanwhile, PvP-ers have to embark in LOADS and LOADS of PvE, to even level up, get gear, get proffesions to earn gold so they can buy (or craft consumables),... They can't avoid a single PvE thing.
And yet, for this only for of PvP, PvE-ers might have to occasionally do (world PvP), they still complain, because they don't want to do even that.
Again, I will say, if this game wants a hop to be considered PvX, a huge changes must be made, not only minor tweaks.
Starting with:
- gathering should flag people purple
- extra rewards for those who actually helped siege or defend a node (this is tracked, one would not be able only to AFK through a siege) and (if you didn't partake, no housing placement is allowed - only after all those that partook placed their own, if room remains)
- corruption reworked so that it EQUALLY punishes death of green and red player
- bounty hunter system reworked so bounty hunters have an actual challenge hunting down targets (and not 2 shoting them) - exploits are possible here if stat dampening only ignores bounty hunters, bounty hunter just comes with a non hunter friend, that attacks target weakened by corruption brings him low and then bounty hunter finishes the job (so equalizing only bounty hunters with corrupted players will not work)
- allow PvP activity to also enable you to earn in game currency, gear and experience
- ...
As I said a huge deal of changes is needed so this game becomes an actual PvX game.
Now players here (or Intrepid) can tacticize with words as much as they want. Call this game PvX. Say system is ok. But it boils down to this:
If there are no significant changes to the better PVPers will simply NOT PLAY AoC.
AoC will end up played by PvE crowd (and maybe small amount of very casual PvPers).
Game may be tagged as PvX, but very little of actual PvP will happen. PvE-ers will occasionally fight over caravans against other PvE-ers. Sieges will be done by PvE-ers vs PvE-ers, etc.
PvEers will think how good and successful they are with their "success" in PvP, but this will only be because there are no real PvP-ers actuall playing AoC. Perhaps that's what PvEers want, that most of PvPers go play something else, so they can boost their ego against sub-par competition.
Now I know most PvE-ers want this. Question is does Intrepid want this, or not.
Cause if they want an actual PvP crowd to come and play, they are doing it wrong.
Peace.
That's life.
Such is Life
You missed the entire point of what I was writing and focused on a single line out of my whole response so you could say what you wanted to. It's not a question of whether you should or should not PK or have world PvP. The point that not a single person has even attempted to refute is that unregulated PKing would make it impossible to gather or farm. You would spend hours trying to acquire materials from the game through some means only to have part of it taken from you by a stronger player.
This would not happen to just "PvEers". Filling your inventory with mats would be a surefire way to waste a huge amount of time and effort. People would have to take short trips along unpopulated routes so as to avoid being PK'd. This would suck for everyone. Why invest the time or effort when you can just steal it from someone? Conversely, why bother gathering if it's going to be stolen anyways?
A deterrent of some kind is needed to prevent this situation from happening. This deterrent is Corruption. Whether you agree with Corruption or not, the intent of balancing the high incentive to PK with regulation is the correct path to ensure stability. The extent of Corruption is debatable, the goal is not. PvX does not mean both PvP and PvE are equally present in all aspects of the game. That is a misconception, and one that far too many people have.
I love PvP to the point where I have done almost nothing else in some games. I understand the desire to freely PvP. But when loot is dropped by player deaths, a system is needed, or the game breaks. Imagine if all of Runescape was the Wilderness. How fun does that sound to you? To me, it sounds like a mess. I would hope that we can at least agree on that. Argue the extent, not the existence.
tl;dr No regulation means the game breaks. Talk extent, not existence.
I get a little irritated when people quote with minimal context and go off on a tangent as if that negates my whole point. If that shows in the post above, I apologize.
- Sikuba
Not impossible, but challenging, dangerous, risky. This game is supposed to be based on conflict, and not on avoiding the conflict.
Others could steal from you, but you could also steal from others.
Also you would not be attacked 24/7.
Also it's a MMO, this exact reason is why you should make friends and play in groups.
PvX game = you have to fight.
World PvP is the only PvP you can not avoid, everything else you can (like in my previous post). So if this is PvX game, there should be no punishment for world PvP.
World PvP should require for you to play smart, aware of your surroundings, play with friends, call for help when needed.
Also by dying purple you only drop smaller part of your resources, and then respawn elsewhere, so no You would not lose everything if someone kills you.
Remember, it's a PvX game so you SHOULD fight for resources. If you just want to be a gathering bot you have missed a game.
What you want just does not fit in here. And what you (and others like you) want is to be able to avoid ALL forms of PvP in a PvX game.
As I said, Intrepid could make this, sure, but then I'll be playing something else, together with the rest of PvP crowd. So GL to Intrepid with their desire to bring all types of players into their game.
Gathering is an essential part of any MMO economy. Putting such risk behind such a basic, essential element is guaranteed to make any economy unstable, and progression through the game difficult. PKing, on the other hand, would have little-to-no risk, especially if the PKer isn't carrying anything on him. Sure, you could die. But it's not like you lose much, and if you're dying to someone you attacked, you probably are pretty bad and deserve it.
The punishment of Corruption may be harsh, but that can be balanced. Having no Corruption, or other system that serves the same purpose, would make this just about as far of a PvP MMO as you can go.
Obviously, I see why this would appeal to you. But it would be chaotic and unfun for a lot of players. I wouldn't find it fun, and I'm someone who can spend 10 hours or more grinding out Arenas. Beyond being unfun, it would make the game harder in many ways, for everyone.
If you don't have confidence that you can make your money's worth PKing before dying under Corruption, that's your own deal. We already know that killing greens of similar level gives minimal Corruption, so the debuffs are hardly an excuse. Right now, it just sounds like you're asking them to make it easier for you.
You are forgetting that while purple you only drop a smaller part of your resources.
So things may be very well balanced that you can get more resources by gathering yourself then by stealing from others.
Also, you would first have to find others to steal from then, and it's a big world. AND you could (and probably will) die yourself during the steal attempts many times.
So in no way will killing others to steal get you more resources then gathering yourself on your own.
PvP around resources is just an extra, and not a main source of resource income. It is also a way to place a claim on resource area while you are there.
And since this you are able to fully avoid all other forms of PvP, you really shouldn't be able to avoid at least this one.
PvP-ers can't avoid any PvE, leveling, getting gear, earning cash for consumables,... they have to do it ALL.
So how is it fair that PvE-ers are able to avoid ALL forms of PvP. And then call THAT a PvX game?
You keep saying they are avoiding PvP. I keep telling you they aren't. They will get PK'd. People will PK despite the deterrence. The goal is to balance it so that a certain amount happens that is enough to keep PKers reasonably satisfied, but not enough to drive PvEers away from the game. And a system is needed to balance it, hence Corruption.
I repeat, people can and will be PK'd still. And some of them will fight back and become purple, where others will accept death and give the PKers Corruption. But the PKing will still happen because it is a part of the game. It's just a limited part to allow both communities to exist in the same world.
- Sikuba
Edit: Also, purple players don't contribute to Corruption. If they flag, it's a fair fight. Reduced loot is a part of it, but the consequence of PKing them becomes null.
These three things are not up for debate, they WILL happen,
Yet somehow, you still look at the game as if PvE'ers don't have to PvP, simply because the PvP system in AoC isn't to your liking - even though you know full well that no persistent MMORPG could survive with the PvP system you want in place.
Your arguments make no sense.
You say PvP can not be only optional - PvP can be avoided in AoC in the same way a player can avoid PvE. Both players will be severely restricted. It may be theoretically optional, but in practice PvP is as compulsory as PvE.
Such is life.
Easy method from previous models is to have PvE-only servers. Similar to WoW.
Or PvE servers with designated instanced arenas or battlegrounds. Similar to NWO.
But, Ashes is forcing us to play on the same servers as hardcore PvPers. With Corruption acting as a deterrent.
It's very likely that there will be so much forced PvP combat that casual PvPers and PvP haters will not play Ashes.
But, Ashes will not have separate PvE-only servers.
Ashes will not have separate PvP-centric servers devoid of Corruption.
People who play Ashes of Creation will have to accept that... or play some other game.
Hardcore PvPers complaining about Corruption and how open world PvP combat should be is like people complaining that soccer players in the field should be allowed to catch the ball with their hands whenever they wish because that's how ball games (like football and basketball and baseball) are played.
With that said I don't really care if they use a corrupted system or an open world pvp system. In other games if someone ganks me I just come back(switch to equal lvl char if on lowbie) and kill them and camp them a few times just too show them how pathetic they are. So either way works for me.
They will happen, but they don't need to be done by you.
Someone else can do all of that, and YOU can avoid all of it. And still have your node defended, and benefit from that even if you weren't there yourself.
The point is that a particular PvP-er Marco Marcus can't avoid ANY PvE, he must do all of it to level up, have gear, have consumables, etc.
Meanwhile PvE-er John Johny can avoid ALL PvP. Others can do sieges, he doesn't have to, he can use mules to transport stuff instead of using caravans. He has cash from PvE, exp from PvE, and gear and consumables from PvE.
Meanwhile Marco Marcus doesn't have almost nothing from PvP.
Oh wait, he does, corruption. So he looses stats, looses gear and looses cash while tryint to do THE ONLY THING in PvP which can give him something (few resources). PvEer John Johny can just stay green, and Marco Marcus LOOSES stuff even there.
AoC is a "PvX" game where PvE gives you everything, and PvP punishes you, where PvPers must do all PvE if they want to have something, while PvEers can avoid all PvP if they want and still have everything.
So please stop using BS arguments how "PvP will happen somewhere sometimes", that's not the point.
The point is that game is made so PvEers can be kings, while PvPers are treated like second class people. Often even insulted in forums, compared to rapists, criminals and what not. Meanwhile, game is also made to punish them, while letting PvEers have whatever they want fully avoiding all PvP.
And someone even has a face to call this PvX.
You think PvPers will play this? Think again.
Nothing more to say to you cause you will again use BS statements that have no connection with reality.
I'm out from this thread. Have fun in farmville being a grind bot with other PvEers that will play it.
For example like Dygz here, who explained it well.
Farmville inc. Have fun.
You are just making stuff up to complain about with no actual support.
Complaining just to complain.
How many times over has it been explained time and time again not only from me, but from others. Those types of pvp events takes time, planning, guilds, more than one person and above all does not come close to real world pvp aspects.
Serious question you and people like you. Would it bother you to have some open lawless areas within the game? Not saying you have to go to it in order to lvl or progress in the story.
I am curious to know would that suffice if that could be a reality.
The reason there is so many pvpers are speaking out. Do not assume it is just aholes who want to grief ppl for kicks. I myself have explained it many times over what pvp is for me. I can stand to argue most pvpers are reasonable and have the same mindset as I do. But both sides have bad apples. I helped a guild ( not mine) out that had no tank online. I ran them through the raid it took hours. We get to the end and the lead kicks me off so I can't roll on the loot. So yes pvers can be aholes too. I have many stories with pvers as I am sure you do with pvpers. I tend to find pvers are self righteous elitist pricks. Where as pvpers can be trolling lil dip shits.
A lot of us pvpers are not exactly happy with pvp events that are essentially mini games. I can not express to you because you are not really a pvper whatbitbis to really have a true open world lawless land. I know to you that's nightmarish. All we ask is something for us that in noway will effect you.
Do not give me a weak argument that it will somehow weaken the game. It utter bs and just a scape goat because you really just flat out don't want it. We are not 11 pages in on this topic. Still going a year out before the game because we just want to argue. There is a serious audience who are hungry for this.
Edit: to answer your question NO it's not enough, not even close. It is easy for you to sit there and speak on what's enough for something you have zero passion for. Like me saying a game where it's difficult to Pve functionally and I tell you heyyyyy you can craft and mine some ore so stop complaining. Look they even have fishing! Now get out there and have some fun!