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
Some of you can't comprehend it, because you pvped in this game one time and did such and such. I have raced and driven my cars fast too. Does not mean I get behind the wheel of a formula 1 car and race.
So instead of rejecting every idea hardcore pvpers have. Why not have something constructive and figure out away for common ground. Rather than exhaust energy figuring away to NOT have some form of open world Pvp.
If not so be it, I will fight until something else may grab my interest. For now it's a win win for me debating or trying to find resolve.
To be honest, I'm wondering how large the population of players that want to mostly PvP, aren't super excited by the large scale PvP epicness offered by sieges if they are done right, don't consider wars with opposing guilds to be enthralling content, can't enjoy the strategic value available to them in attacking or defending caravans, don't care for arena combat AND aren't murder-hobos actually is.
Because really, every one of the above needs to be true for discussions on why a player would need a change or exception to the corruption system.
Now, as I've said in this thread, I'm not against an area of the game being restricted from corruption - I'm actually all for it in some scenarios (and I personally think Steven is as well, not that you care).
Thing is, such an area needs to have no purpose other than that of PvP, or a PvP objective. If there are harvests to gather in the area, corruption should apply. If there are regular encounters in the area, corruption should apply. If there are quests that send you to the area (unless specifically labeled as PvP quests), corruption should apply.
I've not read too much of your back and forth with @Dygz, but my understanding is that you want an area that is corruption free, but is also free from organized PvP groups.
If this is true, it is the part that makes such content impossible in my mind.
It would be feasible to add a corruption free zone around a raid encounter and label it a PvP encounter.
It would be feasible to add a corruption free zone with a specific target relating to sieges.
It would be feasible to add a corruption free zone around a quest objective for a PvP quest.
Thing is, if these areas were implemented, people would organize to get them done in groups. Any reason that is good enough to warrant a corruption free area is good enough to warrant people organizing to do that content.
Should someone have an idea for content that appeals to PvP players, offers them a reason to be there, doesn't offer a reason for them to organize groups, and most of all doesn't appeal to ignorant players (not using that as a means of degradation, using it literally as it is defined - players that are ignorant of the content), then I am all ears.
From a purely practical standpoint, however, I think the best thing that could be done is for such players to focus on trying to get Intrepid to enhance the quality and relevance of the 20v20 ffa arena.
Much like an MMOFPS.
He doesn't really care about levels or killing non-combatants.
He just wants to be able to easily hop into Corruption-free PvP combat without having to worry about finding objectives or coordinating with teams.
And it doesn't really matter how well that fits with the design goals for this game... as long as people who enjoy that form of PvP combat get to have what they want.
I love Arena but as stated before it gets old after awhile....very old. Despite how much I love it I go into a dull cow eyed glaze hour upon hour. Of course people are prepared too, and the excitement of the unknown is thrown out the window compared to open world. Nothing says fun like a potted out arena player prepared for a knowing fight... ( sarcasm). I mean it is fun but again. Sitting silently on a ledge of a tree over a draw bridge covert style hiding in the shadows with the sun fading in the horizon. Even if I am the one crossing it the idea of that is exciting the ( what if)? prepared events can never give me that kind of adrenaline. Its an experience very hard to convey to casuals and Pvers.
There mindset is gank, grief, troll and only fixated on the negative based on past experiences. I am the guy I Pray someone jumps me out of the shadows. Being the hunted and turning the tables is the most fun and the best memories I have ever had.
I personally do not need a change for the corruption system as long as something else was in place for us (pvpers) Which was why I really never talk about changing it, because I do not see that happening anyways. But often times I speak I get a nope Steven wont do that,as if they have breakfast with him every morning. Heck I do not know what he will or wont. Most time someone even attempted to try to bring a constructive idea they get lambasted and shut down. Literally there was reasons for every single thing as to why you can not. Some of them were so ridiculous I loled for real.
One even suggested you can not have it because explorers like to explore and they can not explore a pvp area. The selfishness was on a new lvl.
You stated that a lawless zone would not negatively affect PvErs at all.
I mentioned that a typical response to that from PvEers is that explorers will want to explore such a region without agreeing that it's automatic consent to be attacked.
Despite being auto-flagged for PvP when they enter the zone.
And Steven would have to decide whether he wishes to introduce that frustration into the game and alienate those players.
That's a not really an argument to shut down the suggestion of a lawless zone - that is merely pointing out that there would be a significant amount of PvEers who would feel negatively affected by such a zone.
So, it's not as simple as you state it is.
If you own a castle, you have to face a siege every weekend. For three weeks, your three nodes attached to your castle are open for being sieged - one each weekend. On the fourth weekend, it is your castle proper - and then you are back to week one.
Thing is, it isn't just a weekend activity to defend your node, as during the week the guild that owns the castle (and any helpers they may have) need to build up each node.
One at a time.
And then when the siege cycle ends, you have to start again from the beginning.
If they fail to build a node up enough on any given week, they don't have their defenses in place at the weekend. If their defenses are not in place, they will have a hard time winning the siege for that node. If they lose a node, they will have a harder time defending their castle.
Basically, if you are in a guild with a castle and are trying to maintain ownership of it, it will take up most of your game time.
Since we have been told that sieging a castle requires as much effort and resources (at least as much, I believe was the wording used), then it is safe to say that if you are in a guild trying to take over a castle, that is basically all you are doing.
And then when you spend that month of effort sieging a castle and take it over, you are now in a position where you need to start working on building up your defenses - which will take up a whole lot of your time.
And all of this is without even looking at node sieges. Or guild wars. Or the arena.
Basically, to people that want to spend time with sieges, sieges and preparing for sieges will almost be their entire game - all other content will act as a side distraction to that singular goal of successful a siege. While I see arguments both for and against such areas, I don't see this as an effective argument.
Intrepid have already stated that they are implementing content that only a small percent of players can achieve - there is no reason at all to think they couldn't do this with explorers by adding areas that they expect only a small percent of explorers to ever actually explore.
While such an area doesn't "need" to be PvP based, there is no reason at all to think it "couldn't" be PvP based.
( screams you do not have my consent!) the cringe is real.... Muh feewings
Even hardcore Pvers get the concept you are going to die if you enter a area designed for pvp. It has been that way sense the beginning of every open world pvp. This is a literary playing the victim. You go into something knowing full well what will happen. Then get upset for the very thing that by in large most gamers already know. Doesn't matter you see it as fps or however, thats how it is.
People who disagree with me on everything I have said, understand at least that much. You stay on your side of the world thats 90 plus percent for you, will stay on our small side. But if you cross that line its automatic consent. All of your ethics, non consent, moral dignity is out the door when your dead at someones feet. Preach to them how immoral it is, I am sure it will go just fine.
Dygz said: My understanding is that CopperRaven just wants a place where he can log in and jump into PvP combat as a solo character whenever he wants.
Much like an MMOFPS.
He doesn't really care about levels or killing non-combatants.
He just wants to be able to easily hop into Corruption-free PvP combat without having to worry about finding objectives or coordinating with teams.
And it doesn't really matter how well that fits with the design goals for this game... as long as people who enjoy that form of PvP combat get to have what they want.
This is a mixture of Yes and No. I do want to log onto a game and Pvp in a open world. I have no interest in Nodes, Castles and whatever. If I am ready to pvp outside of Arena thats really the only way to hop in and go.
I do care about levels as I did even with games that gave me no negative effects if i killed a lowbie. In fact as I have stated before, I am a rare breed that likes being the underdog.
Non combatants. Typically games have factions when it came to open world pvp. If you were red you were dead ( unless you were to low I felt to bad) that was the consent. I am not on some others factions land to say hello, need some help fishing? You bet they were sure going to come after me too.
In your mind all you can see is just me mindlessly on a killing spree. I can not express to you the feeling of the hunt or being hunted. Misadventoures seemingly out of no where because of small infractions. I can write a book of of a series of events only the open world pvp could provide. Mmos offer depth and create wars and coalitions that never existed before. Teams of people hunting me down, I can go on. Watching your back with every step trying to get a quest done. I even made trade packs just so I have someone jump me, I could careless about the gold. Pve is incredible boring to me, I can not imagine how fighting a pre programed npc is eventful to anyone. (oh he just raised his head means he is about to do a foot stomp) runs back..... stomp... Ok attack.
( small firework pops) pip.
Wooo man exhilarating.
But Pve is not that way to you, so be it.
Here is where tit does matter for the design of the game. It does not mean every single person that enters the zone is a freebie to kill. The game has a history and based on decisions we make on the game and the paths we choose can devise factions. Otherwise as Noanni said people will just group up then you have ppl just camping a entry zone too. There is going to be war so clearly there has to be some sort of conflict anyways.It be easy enough to have several different paths and explain a part of a area as to why its is a lawless land.Only those who chose that path would go there anyways.
I have lore written way beyond anything Ashes will ever have. It is not overly complicated to come up with an idea that fits perfectly into the narrative of the story that already exists. I think its an excuse honestly on some part for people to just flat out not wanting pvp.
Hey Steve I will write it for you for free, if its to complicated for your writers.
Shh this is my verbal Pvp
But, you know, don't feed the troll.
I think it would be more interesting for corruption to be a more persistent attribute, where rather than getting reset when someone kills you, it reduces by an amount. Seems ridiculous that could go around murdering lowbies for days and get the slate wiped clean with one death. The deeper you go, the longer it should take to get back. I also think there should be an opposite side of the spectrum, where you get positive karma (which gets wiped if you do a corrupt action), or some such, for killing corrupt, doesn't have to amount to anything, just a badge of honor sort of thing.
You don't necessarily get all Corruption removed with one death. One death will remove somf of your Corruption, not necessarily all of it.
Depends on how high you Corruption Score is when you die.
It might take sevral deaths to remove all of it.
Just offering an insight into why I might ever attack a non-combatant. That said, I'm happy with the corruption system as it's currently conceived.
Dark Elves are killing NPC dryads in Kithicor Forest in order to siphon the Nature magic of the dryads and transform it into Shadow magic for use in enchantments for gear that will augment Shadow spells and abilities, like Stealth.
But, siphoning the Nature magic of the dryads not only depletes Nature magic from Kithicor Forest, unbeknownst to the Dark Elves, the dep;etion of the Nature magic from the region also weakens the shackles of the Shadow Demons who will destroy all Life in the region should the Shadow Demons break free of their bonds...including Dark Elves.
My Rogue character would be all: "If I need to kill some dryads in order to increase my Stealth abilities, I'm going to kill some dryads because that's how I safely explore the world."
My Druid character would attack and possibly kill any player characters killing dryads in Kithicor Forest. Because that is what's best for the region overall. The PvP combat is really not a primary focus...it's just a possible byproduct of protecting the region from objective harm.
In Ashes, I think of scenarios like dedicating Temples in the frontier to rival gods.
If I am a citizen of a Scientific Metropolis and having nearby Temples on the outskirts of the region dedicated to the god of Exploration is part of the mechanism that allows fast travel in my home region, I'm going to do whatever it takes to make sure those Temples remain dedicated to that god.
If some rival player characters decide that they need to break the dedication of the Temple to the god of Exploration and rededicate the Temple to the god of Combat in order to strengthen their Military gear and abilities, we will be in conflict.
Technically, the players who are breaking the dedication to the Exploration god are just engaging in PvE and are non-combatants, but if I want to maintain fast travel in the region, I will kill their characters regardless of how they are flagged and regardless of whether my character gains some Corruption if that's what I need to do to maintain fast travel.
That is meaningful PvP conflict, meaningful PvP combat and meaningful roleplaying.
That way, the people who really want to PK can do so, assuming they're really willing to commit.
Not so much a suggestion - really just a thought I figured I might as well spitball.
Imagine a game with immense regions with vastly different opinions on what is "good" and "bad" behavior. Now THAT would be cool. Something like that could only be sustained by a really really massive concurrent player base though.
I can't see it being as predominant as it is in other games, but I see it happening.
/sacasm off they will unisntall fast....
They might aswell just remove world PvP and make it imposible to attack other. What they do currently is lying that it's a open world and you can PvP freely, while in reallity, that aren't a viable option at all.
Not like it would matter much, they only deceive the people who backed them, but with that deseign, the outcome ain't hard to foresee....
open world pvp*