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
That said, it does not mean that it cannot function, and I think we all can agree at this point that some form of regulation must exist for the game itself to be stable, functional, and appealling to everyone.
My reason for no longer arguing for a different system is that back several pages in the thread, it was mentioned that Corruptions is tied into the lore of the world itself. The depth and implications of this relation are unknowns, and I don't feel that I have the information necessary to determine whether or not Corruption can be removed without negatively impacting the stories or quest lines, etc.
That is my personal hangup that prevents me from looking to replace or significantly reduce the scope of Corruption. For me, now, the point of debate has moved on to how the system can be further balanced or improved upon so that everyone can be satisfied to some extent.
- Sikuba
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/252860173?t=49m23s
If you are minding your own business harvesting materials for crafting, and someone comes up to you, interrupts you and takes a portion of what you have gathered, the game needs to provide a way for that harvester to give the PvP'er the proverbial finger.
If gathering flags people for combat, a new system needs to be added to give the harvester a path of recourse.
So many games lack this, and this is why players (PvE'ers and PvP'ers alike) get frustrated with a game. If a PvP'er with better gear, better game knowledge and/or better ping decides you aren't harvesting today, there is literally no path of recourse.
This is an inherent, draconian design flaw. This is why so many games that put a focus on PvP end up with massive population drops after 3 - 6 months.
If gathering resources were to flag people as combatants, a system would need to be put in place where a player wishing to harvest was able to do so, where that player had a course of action to take should someone decide that player is their content for the next hour.
Without such a mechanic, adding your flag suggestion is a non-starter.
Risk vs reward.
Now, corruption, if you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player which is not fighting back, basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It's not going to be a very beneficial place to be. You going to have the potential of losing your gear, your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue. So, it is a comfortable balance between player agency - and griefing removing player agency from players."
Personally, I think that speaks for itself.
Steven is perfectly aware of this thread. But more importantly he already knows the different perspectives in regards to PvP - there is nothing in this thread that is new.
So knowing all of the perspectives present, the above seems to be his his opinion.
How can you guarantee players will police themselves and not take the exact opposite route? Sure, there will be some "policemen", but how do you guarantee their numbers are going to be way more than the problem makers?
And, "self-policing" doesn't really solve the issue. It just adds more PvP combat to a MMORPG already overly saturated with PvP combat .
Relatively few casual PvPers and non-Pvpers would be playing the game, so "self-policing" wouldn't really be necessary.
It would just be a free-for all murderbox for hardcore PvPers.
"I don't want/like any pvp and it should be deterred at any costs, you just want a murderbox >:("
and the :
"It should be free for all, PvE players just need to suck it up"
leads nowhere.
However I do have to say discussing the impact of the corruption system is valid and interesting. Since over-tuning it in one or the other way will have unpleasant effects.
I still think adding lawless zones to the mix, would be a good compromise without touching the corruption system. Put some more rewarding resources over there, to create a risk vs reward act. PVE players will not have to ever set foot in these zones if they don't want to (unless they want to risk it of course ^^), and more pvp oriented players can still get that open world pvp + fights over resources.
Now i am not speaking behalf myself, but i can put myself to examine this from other players perspective. I know your intend is only to change current system cater your personal playstyle and to get more easy kills so your comments are never valid.
2. On your dreamworld ganking means killing low levels, but welcome to play hardcore open world PvP games where ganking is common word to generally mean playerkilling.
The current game design might have flaws, certainly at this stage things will be subject to change. Discussing mechanics might potentially lead to new insights.
Anyway me typing this is already completely off topic, and I will not respond to anymore childish finger pointing games, of who said that or who put words in whose mouth.
Exploring can be made dangerous also with PvE if needed. But it should not always be dangerous. One part of exploring is chance to stop enjoy the environment and make it chill. That will give more value to beautiful landscapes and such. If you need all the time look over your shoulder and be ready to move, then lots of this aspect will be lost. In games like Albion it does not matter, because the world itself is mostly shitty copy paste and there is basically nothing to see.
I am not a player who categorize myself to one type of gamer. I have played lots of different kind of mmorpg's from PvE centric to HC PvP and everything between. Even i like to play full loot PvP games, i dont expect every game be the same. I respect and share IS' vision of their game and OW PvP rules. I could easily play more hardcore version, but most of players would not like it and i guess i wont too.
In games, which have gear drop and gear trash, it is quite easy to handle economy with that. In games where this is not an option it can be more challenging, but still doable. Here is few examples:
So, yeah, I am flinging poo at the folks who are whining about the inadequacy of features they haven't played yet.
Once we get in the game and see how prevalent PvP combat actually is, we can have some meaningful discussion about how the game design should be tweaked... including whether or not the Corruption system is working as the devs expected.
Point fingers all you want.
But, you know, best if you point them accurately.
Additionally flinging poo is never a good way have constructive discussion. Instead of trying to understand the other's point of view, useless debates have been made based on personal preferences of play styles.
Again I am not getting dragged into these games of childish accusations, as both sides (while at some points making valid points) have just been screaming at each other.
Has nothing at all to do with a sentiment that there should be no PvP, or that PvP combat should be deterred at any costs.
That actually is hardcore PvPers making stuff up so they can whine about caravans and castle sieges and node sieges and guild wars not being enough PvP combat - in addition to complaining that Ashes should not have a Corruption system.
For some reason, those of you who want to discuss having a designated battlegrounds want to lump yourselves in with the people who are saying there should be no Corruption. You present your point as if everyone who supports the Corruption system would reject the inclusion of a designated battlegrounds.
I haven't see anyone outright reject the idea, but...
It doesn't seem to be something that Steven currently wants in the game.
I don't necessarily care whether one is in the game, but...
According to what we know of Steven's game design philosophy, it's highly unlikely that we will get one until Steven assesses the current systems during Alpha and Beta.
It's not like Steven has never experienced designated battlegrounds before.
IIRC, ESO had open world designated battlegrounds.
Once people start twisting reality and making stuff up, in addition to flinging poo, the discussion is no longer constructive.
If people wanna fling poo, I am happy to fling poo back.
If people want to return to having a constructive discussion, it's easy enough to just return to facts and evidence associated with the Ashes game design and refrain from flinging poo.
People will follow suit.
You keep dragging yourself into the poo, despite saying you refuse to go.
If you focus on what you really want to discuss on the topic, we could probably have the meaningful, constructive discussion you're craving.
as I said already two times, lawless zones would not hurt pve players nor the corruption system, while providing more hardcore orientated players the option for full on open world pvp.
I'll admit I might have gone overboard myself in the last two posts, my bad should have stayed on topic. At least I am not so stubborn to admit it.
I would not say "better" resources as in higher tiers, but just better yielding resources.
As harvesting in those zones would have the added risk of being killed and dropping said resources.
Basically a risk vs reward thing,
"should I go to the lawless zone? I might get more resources but I might return empty handed"
or
"Should I go the the safer zone where I will have a consistent yield"
Personally I don't even think the bonus loot drops would hurt PVE players, as the risk of being attacked will be always present.
It's called sand box.
I am neutral on that, except I highly doubt that Steven will implement anything like that until after he assesses the current game design during Alpha and Beta.
And Ashes is a themebox.
- rock paper scissor system in 1 vs 1 = RIP 1 vs 1 arena
- "a process" is required to change secondary class (that could possibly help you out vs certain other classes) BUT you can't do this on the spot when arena match starts, and you don't know the future, so you don't know what opponent you will face until match actually starts, so once 1vs1 arena match starts seeing who you have against you, you already know did you win or lose = RIP 1 vs 1 arena
- this also means RIP 1vs1 anywhere (for the same reason)
My Bartle score is:
Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
The first thing I do in a game is uncover as much of the fog of war/mini-map as possible before getting insta-killed by a mob.
Explorers are going to want to explore the lawless zone and will not agree that exploring the lawless zone equals consent for PvP combat. So, there will be unrest in the community that I think Steven hopes to avoid.
Also, to be fair, there would have to be a lawful zone where PvP combat is impossible.
Which would segregate the population in a manner I think Steven wants to avoid.
And if they do attack, they eventually get corrupted and then those players laugh at them even more seeing PvPer gameplay is rekt now, or even worse, if gear is lost.
Nice system, where greens are protected, but PvPers are allower to be trolled across the board.
This just confirmed this game will not really be for me, or for other PvPers really. It will really be for PvEers, that sometimes on occasion want to join in to optional PvP.
I wish you fun all of you, but I am out of AoC. It's not for me.
Peace.
Peace.
See you in game
If the amount of people that stopped playing WoW over the years equaled those who wrote about doing it on the forums, it would be a dead game.