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.
Comments
I'll try to remember where I (think I) heard it and see what I can come up with later on.
As i said before, it won't be a simple task. It will take time, I think the time should be close to corruption negative exp penalty.
When it comes to bounty hunters you are talking about stuff we don't have the details on. Not only do we not know the specifics but it's also something that can be adjusted if needed so making claims of it's effectiveness atm is a little silly.
Yes, bounty hunters can be thankful to players who call out corrupted players and the victims can be thankful to bounty hunters for hunting down their attacks. I think that kind of communication is a good thing. Part of the reason I think we need a system like this is to encourage people to chase corrupted players instead of letting them eventually be punished. When someone gives a player corruption, i want to spread the word of the target to not only get them punished but to also alert other people who might be farming in the area.
Currently, as we understand it, if you gain enough corruption to have a drop chance applied to gear, that drop chance WILL eventually be triggered.
It is a massive change to shift this to where that drop chance MAY be triggered.
Removing corruption without triggering that drop chance is literally a get-out-of-jail card. The drop chance is the only real penalty to corruption, and any addition to the game that allows players to circumvent it needs to be very carefully considered.
I've said I don't consider it to be something that can't be added to the game, I just can't see "how" it could be added to the game. I'll actually take that one step further now and say that I don't believe it should be in the game at release - but rather should e considered post launch if the corruption system needs major fixing.
That is all.
I have no problem with you discussing the game but calling me an elitest jerk is as far from the truth as you can get. I'm here to have fun that all I have ever wanted to do, that's why I don't get involved in these types of arguments anymore as it's always the same.
As i keep saying, they are still at risk and just because they can escape the drop chance doesn't mean they always will. If you are going to use the gambler's fallacy to say that players will eventually drop gear in the current system then you can use it to say players will eventually catch the corrupted player and make them drop gear.
No one said this is something needed right away as we don't know.
The corruption system is there to promote meaningful conflict by adding a risk to pking. What i meant by the second part(preventing killing sprees) is on top of the added risk, as you gain corruption, your (pvp) combat efficacy goes down so you can't kill forever. I realize i didn't need to add this but it was on my mind at the item so i wrote it.
While these kind of seem like the same thing - they aren't.
A corruption system where you can circumvent the only actual penalty (even if only a chance to do so exists) seriously degrades the effectiveness of corruption to discourage meaningless PK'ing.
Once again, I am not saying I don't think such a thing is possible, as I do think it could be added eventually.
While I am a fan of the macro approach, and looking at the overall systems, I am also a fan of keeping an eye on the micro - taking in to account the individual,
This is perhaps the best way to explain why I have trouble finding what I consider an acceptable way to implement something like this. From a macro perspective it's easy - if players have a 50% chance to complete the task, then doubling the drop chance for items with corruption and then the overall number of items dropped (aka, the total penalty for all PK'ers) should remain about the same.
However, this approach doesn't at all fit the micro view. The player with top quality gear stands to lose far more time and effort than the player with low quality gear, the player that lives closer to where this task could be obtained or completed stands a better chance of successful completion. The player that opted to not fight back in order to see to it that their attacker gained corruption would have every right to feel let down if that attacker then completed a simple task to wipe said corruption.
A system that only works when looked at in a macro perspective is a poor system - and I just can't get the micro to work.
Part of the reason I'd like an active system is so that a person who doesn't fight back actually has to see to it that their attacker be punished instead of the punishment happening inevitably. Instead of them staying quiet, they need to engage other players and get them moving.
The more corruption a character gains, the higher the chance of dropping an item (or multiple items). However, the chance of being able to complete the task to remove corruption remains fixed.
We've been told that the game will treat players with corruption as NPC's, but we don't know how far this will go. It could simply be that guards will attack you on sight - in which case it isn't much of a penalty for most players. On the other hand, it could mean that you can't group with people, can't talk in chat channels, can't talk to NPC's, can't progress quests, can't change gear - there is a whole range of things player characters do in games that non-player characters don't do.
If it turns out that the list of things corrupt players can't do is actually fairly significant, then that's all good. Thing is, in the context of the quote I've seen on the matter, it seemed to me to be specifically in regards to how guards will react to corrupt players - and nothing more. Without further comment, that is what I'm assuming will be the case - and that is no real punishment in itself.
The combat penalties are PvP only, so only a penlaty if you intend to carry on killing other players. Since the corruption system is designed to make you not want to kill players in the first place - without reason at least - this is not really a penalty either.
However, since all of these things go away the second you lose all of your corruption - they aren't penalties at all. Gear loss is permanent, and thus a real penalty. Since it is the only potential permanent penalty, it is the only one that matters.
A week after killing a player, you aren't going to lament over your inability to get in to town to do some crafting or look through the market, but you will lament the loss of a raid level item.
As far as I'm concerned, if it is something that a player has completely forgotten about a week later, it isn't a penalty.
It should never be the burden of a player that has been attacked to see to it that the player that attacked them is punished. That player has already been inconvenienced by the player in question, and should not need to be further inconvenienced. The entire system is designed from the perspective of THIS player, not of the player that attacked this player.
It is the attacked player that needs to be considered first, not the attacker.
I am new to the forums, but I don't have much to add. Truth is we need to see this working and test before we bash it. The concept of the corruption system looks promising, and the idea of punishing random and meaningless ganking (especially of lower level characters) is noble.
The specifics need more context. We can find lots of "holes" now, but it seems that way because the picture is incomplete. If these problems remain throughout alpha and beta then I think we should talk about them extensively. Right now all we are doing is finding problems in the hypothetical scenarios of each other...
Yes, we don't know the specifics of the corruption system so there is no point in assuming what it is. Not only do we not have the details, it is not set set in stone. I feel like this talk about an alternative way to remove corruption should focus around that. If you don't like it and think that everyone who gains corruption should suffer a death from it then cool. If you like the idea of giving corrupted players a goal to remove their corruption but think the penalty of corruption should be increase or altered then that's also cool. Trying to predict what the corruption system will be and then basing your opinion off that is silly.
Penalties don't have to be permanent to mean something. I disagree with the idea that the corruption penalty needs to be as punishing as you claim. You don't need to give someone a punishment that they will feel for weeks because they killed someone, wasting 10-30 minutes of the victims time. That is a little over kill don't you think? As you said, it can be that punishing if the attacker decides to risk something extremely rare but i don't think every person who gains corruption needs to feel that way.
The system is there to promote meaningful conflict. I don't think it is designed for players who don't want to pvp. They might like it because it decreases the overall pvp and allows them to punish their attackers but it's not designed for them. Just like the system punishes the attacker, it is designed to also punishes them with an increased death penalty for not fighting back.
If giving corrupt players a "goal" is even a part of the idea of adding something like this, then I'd be 100% against it.
Meaningful PvP in Ashes is provided for via caravans, guild wars and sieges. Corruption based PvP is not meaningful, for the most part it is petty. When Intrepid talk about PvP being meaningful, they are not referring to open PvP like this, they are referring to the systems above.
A corruption system doesn't promote meaningful PvP anyway - it doesn't "promote" PvP at all. It discourages PvP - and nothing else.
To people that are going to attack a given player, it adds some weight to their decision. That doesn't make it meaningful PvP though, as there is no actual meaning to the whole thing.
The system absolutely is designed for the player that doesn't want PvP. This is a 100% certain fact. I mean, corruption will never - EVER - get applied to a character unless they fight someone that literally doesn't fight back.
Players have to literally refuse to PvP - even when it is forced upon them - in order for this system to even be in effect. Yet somehow you don't think this system is for players that don't want to PvP?
All pvp systems are intended to promote meaningful pvp in the game. As you said, corruption adds weight to pvp so people are encouraged to have a reason to pk. Not all world pvp that uses the flagging system will be pointless ganking. There will be things (resources/land) to fight for that don't fall into a battleground and the flagging system is there to allow us to fight if we feel it's needed.
The flagging system is there so we aren't always attacking each other on sight because we can but still allow us to fight if we ever think it's worth the risk. As i said, people who don't like pvp might like the system because it decreases pvp and they can use it to punish everyone who attacks them but they are not the reason for the flagging system.
Think what really is happening open world pvp will be hampered and so will open world pve (everyone can attack every one maechanic with exceptions) so really you will not have either thus Ashes is just shootting themselvevs in the foot.
It would be really easy for them to have both open world pvp and no open world pvp if they left it up to the players to flagg themselves as a pvp world. Do not feel there is a need for me to type pages and pages on how to do this.
And just as a follow up for those people that think resource loss is not a real pvp deterent. Well think just about every one been at the point were they literally cannot pvp cause they do have the resources to (unless you never played that type of game.. Even if you keep everything in the bank there will still be a durability loss and like I said you will more often in pvp than pve so.......