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
Like I told the girlfriend, if you touch it, it gets bigger. Having problems reading the quote? Click on it.
Though now the attackers of the caravan are left with resources in a node where those resources are likely of little use - hence the reason they were being moved.
This is a different version of the same situation I was talking about in regards to players that take over a node having to take those resources to somewhere they can make use of them - the only difference is that time is not an immediate factor.
I mean, it is obviously possible that you will be able to make use of those resources at that node, but the odds are against it.
It just adds another consideration factor to the whole caravan attacking system.
Often the objective will be to prevent the resources from arriving at strategic locations rather than looting resources for personal use (beyond sale value).
Looters probably won't need caravan resources in bulk - keep what is needed for personal use and sell the rest.
Thanks for the quote @Dygz
This also means that those that raided the caravan have to transport their goods to a different (likely home) node. So there is a chance at recovering an even smaller portion. This makes sense to me.
It feels like you had a problem with what I said, but then concurred with the parts you quoted.
Other people seemed to have ignored the main point of my post, and focused on the last part where I infused some RL advice. Keep in mind, at no point was that meant to be an insult to anyone. Nor am I calling anyone names by describing behavior.
Although if you were offended it's likely because.......ahh... nevermind.
-CS
XP loss and XP debt are significantly different. So, I want newbies who read this topic to clearly understand that Ashes does not have XP loss.
Because I probably would not play a game with XP loss.
And, you can't really gank a caravan.
So, yeah, I cleared up misrepresentations of the game design but didn't necessarily have an issue with your overall post.
In regards to the first half of your previous post, you are certainly entitled to your opinion on how game mechanics may work (or not), and how you feel about them, as a player. If there's one thing these forums are not short on, it's opinions, lol.
But, it's the second half of that same post that has drawn some ire. Expressing your opinion about potential gameplay is one thing. Expressing your opinion about how people should/would/could live their lives, as RL advice, is another. Though you may not have intended any insult, that kind of stuff can usually rub people the wrong way, and make the poster sound sanctimonious. Just some friendly perspective, friend.
I spoke with Steven about Ashes game design.
At some point, I spoke about PvP combat in the Ashes game design specifically.
As far as I could tell -and others should feel free to weigh in if they wish- Steven appeared to agree with my assessment of the PvP combat in Ashes. He did not say, "Nope. Clearly you know nothing about PvP combat."
Also, interesting that you equate me with a virgin, even though I am a casual PvPer.
Might be closer to a lesbian discussing BDSM differently than a straight person would, but...
I am no virgin to PvP combat.
Anyways... I'm gonna check to see if there is some pertinent point to return this thread to...
You may describe yourself as "no virgin to PVP", yet - to borrow from Brendan Behan - you're still the proverbial eunuch in a harem. You think you know how it's done, you see it done everyday, but you're incapable of doing it. You're a carebear who has openly expressed disdain for PVP and the moral character of those who engage in it. Why do you think you have any right to continue gabbing about it and mislead new readers of this forum - intentionally or not?
Yet somehow he seems fine with attempting to destroy weeks or even months of progress of potentially dozens of people via destroying a node - for the sole reason of trying to get said nodes architecture changed.
In my mind, that is blatant hypocrisy which I personally consider to be the single worst trait a human can have. Combined with the way he tried to talk down to Steven in regards to PvP during the livestream, and he has become the only person I have ever ignored on *any* forum - even though doing that here took some actual effort.
The forums have been much more pleasant since.
Actualy the game is much more PvE friendly so far than PvP friendly....
bwahahahaha
LMFAO
I haven't said anything like "solely to get architecture changed."
But, can't change the minds of people entrenched in their own bias.
PvP combat in battlegrounds is fair play.
Sieges are fair play.
Griefing by killing greens via non-consensual PvP combat will be punished with Corruption.
No hypocrisy there. Those are the facts of the game design.
I don't know whether Eve is a murderbox.
I asked Steven what he considers a murderbox.
Murderbox is not my term so I don't know which games are considered to be murderboxes.
Maybe Shadowbane?
Eve is too PvP-centric for me.
I am not "all up in arms" about any of the PvP combat in Ashes.
If I get griefed to often, I simply will stop playing Ashes.
If PvP combat in Ashes is similar to Eve, I'm pretty sure I won't be playing Ashes.
Same for ArcheAge.
And that will be fine with me...and everyone else.
Don't play games you don't like.
But luckily many of these comments have alleviated my concerns due to the harsh penalties of killing without reason.
I don't mind PvP, I mind gank squad PK-ers and the inevitable 10-16 year olds who think this is PUBG and will camp the entrance to a cave so they can kill you for the lulz.
If I am in a group and another comes in to pvp. I am green and do not fight back but the others do. Will it place me into pvp mode or keep me green?
I don't think Intrepid wants a situation where the choice for pvp'ing is taken out of an individual players hands. So, if you decide to stand down, while your group fights, you should remain "green".
Unless, there's information to the contrary.
<Speculation not confirmed> Since they are "monsters" to the system, you will not be able to heal corrupted characters either, just like you can't heal mobs. Games in the past that allowed healing of monsters found out that people love to grief others by healing their mobs and causing them to wipe. Haven't seen that mechanic in a game in a good long while. Until they state either way though, it is unknown.