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.
What is left of the game for a PvE player?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Set backs are part of the game. You can suffer a huge setback when someone sieges down your node or stops your caravan. Steven gave you an example where someone could lose the ability to craft a powerful bow when their city gets sieged down.
You can also suffer setbacks from NPCs. We were given an example that a random boss could spawn, attack your town, and kill a npc that you need for crafting.
The setback you suffer to pking in the open world is small and the corruption system discourages it. With it being discouraged, it will naturally happen less and you will be less affected by it. You can decrease it even more by avoiding high value areas.
@CylverRayne You are over simplifying the feature, it's reason for existing, and the way it will be used. It's sad to me that you can see yourself as being on the "good" side of this argument when you really are the aggressor asking for change. On top of that, you are demonizing people for liking a feature that has been a part of this game from the beginning.
People will be people whether in a game or RL. Consequences are what we pay to play good or bad they are what rules the world both real and fantasy.
Were you referring to this statement I made:
"It's sad that so many feel or think the "taking" of anything for their pleasure alone at the expense of another is supposed to be the norm."
If that's what you object to, then I feel for you.
It is comparable - which is why I compared it.
Setbacks are part of the game - and I should be the one controls what those setbacks are - rather than some other player choosing what my setbacks are.
Which is why there is a penalty for players doing so.
If the penalty is deemed to be insufficient, players who do not enjoy non-consensual PvP combat will not play the game.
The setback from PKing in Ashes is not small. XP debt is significant. Resource loss is significant - else there is no point in including those penalties.
The setback from PKing in Bless Online is small and insignificant.
The setback from PKing in Fallout 76 is nill.
If the setback from PKing were not significant - people would care nothing about PKing.
Yes, that is what i objected to because it is a feature of this game and you trying to make people feel bad for enjoying it's inclusion. To me, that is like going into a COD forum and trying to make people feel bad for enjoying team death match.
I think an easier way to explain my point is by using other systems. Should players also not feel good if they siege down an enemy's city? What about taking resources from a caravan? We have all these features that affect each other, are we not allowed to enjoy the pvp aspect of the games because it negatively affects another player? That's silly, that's like saying you should never attack anyone in a fortnite game because the person they attack wont win.
@Dygz They aren't comparable. You have a choice to play a game. That's a huge difference.
In a game, it's the developers who choose the setbacks and how you suffer them, not you. In some games, you can get a setback because of rng. In Ashes, it can be a lot of things, on of those ways being a player attack you. You choose how to react to the set backs or how to mitigate them, not what they are.
The devs set the degree of setbacks programmatically associated with death penalties.
Each player chooses how much setback they are willing to risk during their gameplay session - that should not be decided by other players.
Which is why MMORPG servers where other players are allowed to do so freely have low populations and why MMORPGs like Shadowbane are niche.
And which is why doing so in Ashes accrues Corruption.
Reaction isn't really a choice.
I do get to choose whether or not I play the game.
Based upon whether or not Corruption is a sufficient deterrent for non-consensual PvP combat.
The meaning of condone is "pardon" or "overlook".
Ashes does not pardon or overlook ganking non-combatants.
Ganking non-combatants is penalized with Corruption.
Ganking is not put in the game by the developers, it is a choice or act some gamers make. They will suffer the consequences as will the player who chose to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time. Where as sieges or the taking of caravans is an integral part of the game.
There is a difference and yes there is a choice.
I would not agree or argue that set backs in the form of lost items/resources/progression should not be in the game. Games, imo, are not fun without risk and loss.
I'm still not on board with the term non-consensual PvP in a game where you know it might happen when you play. The community has gone with it though, so I have adapted.
As for real world examples like car theft and what not that, to me, is asinine. I can't just check out of real life for an hour and cool off and then hop back in. I can log out of the game and do something else. I can't just leave this world for a few hours, let all the problems I have settle, then log back in fresh and ready to work off rl setbacks.
PvP, in Ashes, is necessary. It, like PvE, should be balanced. Arguments of who are punished more by open PvP, rather or not corruption is adequate/weak/punishment, or '...if you don't like it don't play it...' seem tiresome and dated.
Ashes will have open PvP.
PvP vs characters that don't fight back will be punished.
PvE can prevent a PvP player's guild mate from their PvE activities that help their guild/node/buddy and that PvP player might want to risk corruption for that.
We need to play Ashes with expectations that it will function as IS desires it to. Going in thinking something else might happen only causes us to disappoint ourselves.
Play the game. If you enjoy it play it more. If it's not your cup of tea find something better for you or deal. I want you to play because I want IS rolling in cash for a long time, but if you don't like it you are not forced to play it either.
As for my response to the OP, the game has more PvE things to do than PvP.
The car theft analogy sounds like it relates more to caravan and trade PvP, which I understand may look even more undesirable, but no one lives 100% risk-free or expects other to. So the more appropriate phrase would be "if you don't want to be robbed, play smart", just as you make calculated decisions about where park your car, cross the street, or buy your food. Of course people can be rightly upset if their plans are thwarted. I don't play thinking I have a right not to be thwarted (unlike the rights of property we assume in the real world), and that, I find, makes a difference in how I handle those situations.
I understand the need for a pvp element to any good MMO, but that does not mean I should partake in it just because it is offered.
That is the most unintelligent logic in this whole thread.
Is any adult in here actually worried a person would attack them in a video game? Is that, broken down logically, any different than a wild mob coming at you? There is no pay to play, so there is no uneven ground.
Let's also dispel this false phrase, "non consensual PvP" is not a real thing, since by logging on and accepting the eula you have by definition, given consent.
If you've never played this style before, sit down and be quiet. Watch and reserve judgement and comment on it after you have something worth discussing. If you dont like this style, thanks for checking in, dueces.
-CS
- However, it is meant to be a " Neutral Boundary " ... not solely favoring Protecting PvE but to also be viewed as a Boundary of PvPers
- Naturally, it is meant to reduced the likely-hood of PvPers getting out of Control
That is why the Corruption System & Bounty System will be tested ... the 1st iterations are expected to have loopholes - which will be during Alpha and Beta phases. However, in Beta, it is inferred to be more " refined " , but still being tested nonetheless- Everyone on your server wants to Kill everyone ... not caring about the Corruption System . Practically everyone has a Red Name, and there Corruption-Score is beyond comprehension ... " beyond redemption of no return "... just for the lulz ... the Server will be nicknamed, " The Hell Server " due to all of the Corrupted Red Names. And a brand new player unfortunately chooses the Wrong server
- ( this is all pure- assumption ... it could get worse ... such as Zerging a Node )
So whats the solution ?During testing phases, anything is possible. Intrepid could add to the Corruption System. For example
- Intrepid could make it to where ... if the accrued Corruption-Score is so high ... that it is beyond redemption ... if the Corruption is so high ... that not even Stat-reduction is working to keep the balance of PvEers ... then the individual(s) that has attained such a High Corruption-Score will be at risk of Death. Such as a Poison,or insta-death ( maybe something else similar to this )
- Another idea, is the Player " losing control of their character " ; they'll trans-morph into a NPC A.I. Opponent. And the A.I. will take control over any action of what they're doing.
( Sooo ... when they login, they can only give it some sort of direction and still haphazardly do other activities, but not likely (since the individual(s) will be on the Bounty Lists) The screen could be dark & eerie to further make the Player feel immersive - further emphasizing the Corruption )But i guess all of this would be based on what Citizenship the Corrupted-Player original had ? Or rather, if the Corruption-score is SOO HIGH ... that they aren't considered a Citizen anymore in any Node - nor unable to attain citizenship anywhere.
Curing the Corruption ( bulletins below )
EDIT: I know this scenario can easily be expanded upon. But i'm trying to detailed-out ONE possible worse-case scenario & ONE Solution of the many - to put things into perspective
For those who can't seem to fathom this . I'm basically depicting/ presenting a potential "Scenario-&-Solution" that'll - essentially ... the Player will start turning into an Actual NPC ; an NPC that the Player does not (fully) have control over. This ... "NPC" only " spawns" once the Corrupted-Player logs in. They can only moderately/ vaguely control where the "NPC" moves too. It won't be like the Monster-Token.. A player can control the Monster- Token, but not a overly-high-corrupted player. Only citizens of the Religious Node can accept them in only hopes of the Player ever-returning back to his/her former self. Or death
- I speculate that ... " whoever controls the Economic Node, controls the World "
But the Economic Node will most likely not be established first. Whichever is made 1st is entirely up to the Players of the Servers as to what happens ... which is obviously a " double-edged-sword " . Anything could happen. So Zergs can be destroyed from the inside-outSo i really don't think there is anything to worry about for PvEers
- Everything is PvE & Everything is PvP - one cannot exists without the other
EDIT: The RPers can thrive in either PvE or PvP .. but I think RPers tend to thrive mostly in a PvE-setting( due to a potential lack of Subs )
But i doubt this because No other Devs in the MMO Industry can boast the experience Intrepid has in making MMOs
Hears hoping that Pantheon still succeeds too though, just in case
I never got the impression that AOC is predominately a PvE game.
AOC is a nice balance between the two. There is plenty to do in PvE which is critical in building up a town or becoming a leader in a Religious, economic or scientific based node , or simply just building your own business outside of town. Or becoming a master crafter or farmer of some sort.
You can not take part in any PvP sieges or Caravans if you don't want , but yes you might lose your land etc due to a larger PvP battle that takes place.
This is the dynamic world we were promised. Your impression of a PvE dominant world contradicts EXACTLY what the aim of this game is ...a World that changes , and is changed by its players...every server is different.
From my perspective that was how the game was marketed from day 1.
I do hope that players preferring 100% PvE or 100% PvP can come to terms with Ashes and find their happy medium in the game.
The concern in this topic is about how well Corruption will curtail non-consensual PvP combat. Which we won't really know for certain until we are able to play.
Right. That is the issue. Gamers believe that they have the right to do anything that a game allows them to do - until they are banned. There is no such thing in MMORPGs as "good sportsmanship" and "common courtesy" towards other players. Which is why hardcore PvPers are typically segregated to separate servers.
And why those servers are typically low population.
A wide myriad of ways to RP crime and simulate power struggles via consensual PvP combat rather than non-consensual PvP combat - which is why Ashes focuses heavily on consensual PvP and hopes to severely limit non-consensual PvP combat.
The car theft analogy does not correspond to caravan and trade because the expectation with caravans is that the caravan will be raided on every excursion - which is not the expectation in real life. And just as I expect to not be punched in the face if I'm a non-combatant, like photographer or referee in a boxing ring simply because it's possible for a boxer to do so, I expect other players in an MMORPG to not attack me simply because it's possible. Rather, that was my expectation in the early days of MMORPGs, but of course, that form of good sportsmanship does not exist in MMORPGs - which again is why hardcore PvPers are typically segregated.
What you feel isn't necessary reality.
There is plenty of player interaction without PvP combat.
In Ashes, there will be plenty of impact and influence from consensual PvP combat.
That will make the world feel very alive - and like an evolving world.
Whether non-consensual PvP makes a game feel more alive is going to be subjective.
Abusing other people makes some people feel more alive, sure.
NON CONSENSUAL PVP - does not exist.
The act of logging in and accepting the eula upon every loggin, assures this is fact.
By accepting and logging in you agree to play AoC and are subject to all the rules of the video game. Including.......PvP.
Non consensual means I came to your house and through a means of mine own making, force you to loggin and pvp me.
Just simple English guys. All I ask for is GED level discussions.
-CS
Just like we aren't always logging into an MMORPG to fight.
Consensual PvP combat, like caravans and sieges will lead to meaningful conflict.
Pretty sure everyone agrees with that much.
Which is why Corruption is being implemented to penalize and minimize non-consensual PvP combat in Ashes.
Yes, caravans and sieges are part of meaningful conflict but so is the corruption system. The corruption system adds a penalty to killing someone who does not fight back which encourages the attacker to have a reason to kill the person. The point i'm trying to make is there is more to the corruption system then decreasing random pvp(which is will do). That reason the player has to kill the person who does not fight back is where the meaning comes from. Meaning is subjective. It could be because they want the resources the player has or because they are defending a farming spot but it can also be because be for social reasons. Maybe they recognize the player as someone who has attacked them in the past or they are part of a guild they do not like.
The attacker decides if it's worth it and has to pay for that decision. The corruption system will decrease pvp and steer it towards areas the players value. It is there to allow for conflict but puts a penalty on it so conflict isn't everywhere.
LMFAO
Inherently "joining the fight" isn't even true of faction MMORPGs, like WoW.