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
How is it detrimental to be able to opt in to a combatant stage?
If a player attacks a green with just the intention of turning purple, in a way the same thing as opting in, there are various scenarios. Either the green player will not fight back and you would turn purple and be flagged for combat giving you the chance to just be on your way now flagged for combat like you wanted. You could also continue to attack the green player and turn red yourself if you kill the green. Also, the green player may fight back, himself turning purple, and potentially kill you. There is also a chance someone near by might see you attacking a green and decide to attack you back.
Being able to just opt in gets rid of the risks you have to take and leaves the game with just one scenario. You are flagged for combat without any risk to you. The risks you take to get flagged is part of the game and being able to just opt in takes those risks away.
Now the reason it's also important to not just have an opt in feature is because it will essentially mean that there's going to be more green players around that might have used the opt in feature but since there won't be an opt in feature, they may not want to take the risk right now to turn purple. But those green players that would have turned purple that are looking for fights might see a red player and they can now engage in combat with that red player that might not suspect an attack from a green as much as an attack from a purple. Basically having more greens around that will potentially attack red players makes it more dangerous to be red. Having that opt in feature could potentially make it so that it is very unlikely that a red player would be attacked by a green since they may be able to safely assume that if that green really wanted to fight, they would be flagged for combat if they could opt in.
The question now is, would being able to opt in really reduce the risks of attacking someone without the intent of killing them and would it significantly impact the risks red players have?
There's no real way to know that but if I had to guess, the red player risks wouldn't be impacted much but the risks of attacking someone just to turn purple would, which is why I personally do not agree with having an opt in system.
Ah so you don't mind context when you think it proves your point? LOL Is this more or less reason for me to make the post?
So I'm just pulling this out of your text because it read like it ran on a bit and was a little confusing outside of this.
You're suggesting that a player that opts to become purple has less risk because they did not have to attack a green to do this? While every green player including any they would or could attack, or the group of green who you suggested would see this player become purple - all of these players could attack this character with no risk to themselves of the corruption system. I'm not sure how that is less risk.
In general it seems like consensus against it is suggestive that everyone will be choosing to opt into combatant due to "less risk" which I think is hilarious because it does nothing but support the fact that the flagging system is backwards. If everyone should want to be a combatant because of "less risk" then it should be the default setting and we should actively have to opt out of that for the corruption system to protect or punish us.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
PvP is an integral part of Ashes and has various modes like I have mentioned before. A toggle is not needed because there will be no variation in server designations, no variation in outcomes and no variation in consistencies.
It seems to me that you are scared of the current system and wish to invite PvP to you through unofficial methods so you dont risk corruption. There is no gain from a toggle and only a loss of freedom in the grand scheme.
We have been told how to flag as a combatant. Now, I am all for asking for changes to the way the game has been stated to be designed (the combat tracker thread is a good example of this, my desire to see instanced raids is not an example of this, as they have been stated to be a thing). However, if you are asking for a change to the developers intentions, you need to provide far better reasoning than anything I have seen you pull off in any thread.
You have not yet provided a reason as to why that should change - let alone a convincing reason. Why it should be easier to flag as a combatant, which would mean more combatants in the game world, which would mean less PvP that is susceptable to corruption, that would mean the bounty hunter system is less viable - these are all things that need to be addressed.
What change will an increased number of combatants in the game world have on players, both those looking for PvP and those not looking for PvP. You've not addressed this at all, all you have said can basically amount to "herp derp, moar pvp is gud".
What change would this have on the amount of corruption being gained in the game, and what effect would that have on the bounty hunter system? Again, this NEEDS to be addressed if you want to ask Intrepid to change a system. You've not even acknowledged this yet, let alone attempted to answer it.
I think you're misunderstanding the goal of the corruption system. It is not meant to be a primary pvp system for open world pvp but rather as a deterrent for people to grief players in open world pvp without consequences. And no it does not support the flagging system being backwards because this isn't really a game that aims to have open world pvp everywhere, it actually discourages that but still leaves it possible for those that want it. And to answer your question one why it should NOT be a default setting to be combatant is because then being a red player will not be as big of a deal. Again minimizing risks which I still do not agree with. If you want to fight people in open pvp then there should be consequences.
You're essentially wanting to take all risk from being a combatant away from yourself to make the game easier for you. I do not agree with such a system. If you want to be flagged as a combatant but you don't want the possibility of someone fighting you back then isn't that a little contradictory?
I still don't understand or have really found an argument saying why opting in is beneficial other than people saying "it doesn't hurt". But we've clearly stated possible problems that come with opting in but there isn't really any benefit that I see from having it in the first place so why bother with such a useless system that can only hurt the game or not make any meaningful changes at best?
edit: just to clarify a bit on why it is less risk. You claim to not see how it is less risky for someone to opt in to combatant as opposed to having to attack someone to turn into a combatant because you believe the same people that you would have attacked or would have attacked you while you were trying to turn into combatant could still attack you. The reason that's not really true is first off, if you no longer have to initiate combat with someone then they will have less of a reason to attack you which means less risk, and second, if you can opt in to combatant mode there literally does not have to be anyone else around you for you to do so meaning those people that would have attacked you, would not be there in the first place.
This is exactly it, and the only reason I see anyone having for the option of opting into combatant is because they want a more fair fight or something along those lines but in that case, wouldn't it just be better to have a fight arena instead?
I appreciate the philosophical stance of 'you shouldn't be able to halve your risk,' but it's going to happen anyway. The core idea laid out here just makes it less awkward.
If you want to try and blend the two, maybe this will get some % of folks not to game the system:
Combatant Flag Duration Timer [ 10 min, 30 min, 1 hour, until I log off ]
Yeah, and this just seems like a rather inelegant "solution". A system that encourages players to walk around swiping at one another once just feels like it hasn't been thoroughly thought through.
That's a lot of "th" words! Try saying that fast... "Thoroughly thought thoooo, thoroughy thlought through, th...."
There isn't a big enough incentive to flagging pre-combat to want to piss off other players - especially not in a game where local reputation actually will matter.
If, and this is a fairly big *if* that did happen, I would expect Intrepid to implement something along the lines of not being able to ride mounts while flagged as a combatant - since that is intended to be a fairly temporary state to be in.
Lol so you're solution is then to punish anyone who is flagged combatant? For someone who claims to be standing up for "core" values of the game you sure are quick to disincentivize combatant flagging.
The game design that can change because it doesn't exist in a final version? A game design aspect that was copied from another game? There is no room for improvement on a system that as it stands currently would punish solo/low level players the most which is the exact opposite of what it should be doing. Since it'll be fairly easy to avoid "risk" by attacking low hanging fruit to flag for combat. Say leaving the city and you see the low level fighting a level 5 mob, or the solo player while you've got a group of 8? Is the design of the system to promote this to flag for combatant? It seems odd that people think being combatant is "less risk" and this would never happen. Do you not agree?
So you think that the guy arguing to flag into combat is scared of going corrupt? No, I wouldn't use the word scared, but if that is how you want me to be then I'm scared of having to flag corrupt for the wrong reasons. I plan to do a lot of group pvp and find it absolutely scary that we would flag corrupt for any reason outside of griefing and attacking players that have no intention to fight back. I have no issue with going corrupt under the circumstances it's designed for. Unlike @Noaani I do not see the added benefit to coordinate a group attack to kill a non combatant before they can fight back for "more loot" - sure I get that there could be more loot but going corrupt for it would seem like a bad decision especially if it ends up flagging the entire group with corruption. If it only flags the character who got the "kill shot" then that person forfeits the loot anyway right? I mean if they're going to be flagged corrupt they won't be going back into town to bank, and they would drop "more loot" when they get killed too so frankly it seems like a backwards argument (again).
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
I understand the desire to PvP and the nuisance the extra considerations may cause. However, the tactics and strategies will be complex at first and become second nature at best. The issue I have with Toggles revolves around regret. I would hate to regret flagging or not flagging which is why I advocate for freedom. It is more conducive to free-flow PvP if you can flag through action and not through pre-requisites. In terms of Caravan PvP you will have to select whether you want to attack the caravan or not, and, in terms of open world PvP you will have to select whether you want to attack a non-combatant or not.
The issue is complex because I have only theory to match theory. I have no practical applications to show and no NDA should be lifted until Steven agrees. I'm all for the adrenaline rushes and rewards PvP can offer. In my opinion, the risk of corruption is extra adrenaline and another layer of complexity to the PvP Systems. We can refine the Open World PvP Structures throughout the upcoming tests, I'm not saying the current system is either infallible or perfect. The issue remains that the Open World PvP Systems are complex and relate to other core systems and should not be changed in blanket terms.
A PvP Toggle works in games like WoW because WoW has defined lines between factions. Ashes has no pre-defined factions and so the pseudo factions are more fluid. A PvP Toggle is static and not fluid. I would rather have the fluid nature of the current proposed system than a rigid disposition which will narrow the on-the-fly responses and outcomes.
Regret seems like an odd thing to base your stance on the issue around especially since you could choose to not flag for combat and the game wouldn't change from the current system for you at all. I'm not suggesting anyone who wants to flag for combat has to actively toggle it themselves I'm suggesting that those of us who would prefer to be flagged (nearly all the time) should be allowed to do so manually. If you or anyone else wants to play the game under the "fluid" concepts of the system by all means, but I see no reason to inconvenience other players to flag myself OR receive punishment due to a flagging system that (imo) is flawed by not allowing this to create a more target rich environment, more player agency and limit the abuse on low level and solo players.
I'm completely fine with waiting to see how the game plays out through the Alpha/Beta process however this is also the time for "discussion" is it not?
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
How would you expect a Toggle to interact with other systems in Ashes?
If you are Toggled as Combatant, I foresee exploits occurring. At present, you are protected from Green Griefers by the fact you have to force attack a non-combatant. If you are automatically toggled as a Combatant and always active in PvP as a consequence then a Green Griefer can stand in your attacks and give you corruption if they are killed.
There are situations and areas where you will be toggled as a Combatant for the duration in the current system. A toggle in such a circumstance would be redundant. Also, you would still have to force attack Caravans and would find your Toggle won't work against Affiliated Players. A toggle implementation will cause massive upheaval to the system and the system is complex already.
A Toggle would in effect require a 4th Condition to be coded and the 4th condition would have to be synched to the other 3 conditions. In my opinion it would be a lot of work for such little gain. You won't lack PvP even without a toggle. In fact, you would lose the element of surprise with a toggle.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
In the current system you can't be purple when you engage a red, unless, you are already purple and you engage a red. In such a circumstance, the loot and experience debt would be lessened because you are never in green condition, merely purple condition. In terms of PvP it would be an exploit because you won't ever be green. Furthermore, a Corrupted Player wouldn't gain more corruption for killing a Purple.
From my perspective, you'd be better off becoming a Bounty Hunter and living in a Military Node. Bounty Hunters can flag and Corrupted have no combat penalties against Bounty Hunters. I myself will be a Bounty Hunter because I love to PvP. There are options to cater to multiple playstyles in Ashes of Creation.
Edit: I appreciate multiple options and I'm pleased with the current options.
^ Exactly the same thing. A check box to flag ourselves for combatant (if checked) or unchecked the game plays under the current flagging system with no changes. Checking the box would forfeit non-combatant safety within the corruption system from other players without having to attack another player to activate combatant status.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Non-Combatants have no safety. Combatants have no safety. Corrupted Players have no safety. The system is not about safety at all. If a toggle was introduced then everyone would use the toggle because the toggle would reduce the losses by half. No-one would ever go corrupted and no-one would ever stay green. PvP would be on rails and the whole Hunting Grounds system would be a side note.
Opt in ruins the PvP overall experience. It just doesn't make sense in a world where the entire concept is that you've made your alliances. There's no reason why I'd ever be able to run past someone in a rival guild and NOT be able to kill them. It doesn't make sense.
Here we go again another person suggesting that EVERYONE would toggle into combatant - you really are proving my point that the system is backwards and we should be in combat mode at all times unless the player opt-in to non-combatant or kills a non combatant and flags corrupt. Edit: Players should start with the "lesser" penalty and have to actively choose to receive a harsher penalty not the other way around.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
You don't argue for a toggle, you argue for the complete removal of certain players from the Hunting Grounds System. It would be the same if a player asked for the ability to auto-loot or auto-harvest. Everyone would auto-loot and auto-harvest. MMOs are competitive places and as such competitive people will not handicap themselves if they do not have to (Those that want a handicap will go Corrupted).
You haven't played Ashes yet or experienced the hunting grounds. There is little reason to add a toggle to the systems and most backers haven't asked for a toggle. Most games with toggles do not have comprehensive PvP Systems and the comprehensive PvP System in Ashes should not be replaced by a toggle.
I can almost guarantee a healer or a buffer healing or buffing a flagged player will flag them.
I think @Tyrantor really just wants open world PvP to be plentiful and healthy at the end of the day. The flagging system worked incredibly well in Lineage 2. However, there was plenty of incentive for players to fight each other in that game. If the AoC devs can incentivize people flagging on each other outside of caravans/sieges/and anything else that autoflags you and the meta game doesn't become "Stand still and let them go red on me" for most of the playerbase then we all have nothing to worry about.
In Lineage 2 a lot of the world PvP was sourced from clan wars that were indefinitely long lasting and bypassed the corruption effects. Right now the information on the wiki points to guild wars in Ashes quite possibly being a few hour long event at primetime. I too am worried about this because of the sheer amount of PvP that came from clan wars in Lineage 2. As a side note, if anybody is confused and having a hard time visualizing the flagging system in action, please feel free to PM me and I can send you a video of it in action and explain it to you. Flags won't last very long after you attack a player, most likely will go away after 30 seconds-2 mins or so of not attacking anybody
Will experience debt and losing materials be enough incentive to get a majority of the player base willing to PvP? The corruption system is there to protect lowbies from being ganked and people who truly do not want to PvP from being camped and killed 15 times over to my understanding. There needs to be an incredibly strong incentive for players to be willing to PvP in AoC. If the devs do that there should be open world PvP aplenty between that and the already robust caravan system which should induce a lot of open world PvP.
If PvP isn't incentivized enough and the meta game for a large chunk of the playerbase becomes "Stand here and let them go red on me" and say "I will never PvP" like some people on the forums in the past I worry about the game personally. I truly have faith that the devs will make it so that it's better to PvP rather just stand still and let people go red on you.
Just to clarify, a soldier in uniform is always considered a combatant at any time - not just in a determined battle space or theatre. That's why military v. civilian targets are defined thoroughly in the Geneva convention, and prosecuted accordingly in cases of asymmetric warfare such as insurgencies or terrorism.
As an analog for this argument, a soldier in uniform is always flagged purple.
Edit: @Neurath - small correction. The theatre and area of conflict has to be taken into account for the definition of combatant.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule3
Purple denotes active combat. Some may want to change this fact but at present it is a fact. I was a reserve soldier in uniform but active soldiers would not say I was an active combatant just because I wore a uniform...strange times we live in where fact and fiction seem to merge without thought or reason.
Edit: I thought the analogy was a good analogy considering Node Wars and Guild Wars. In these circumstances the Hunting Ground Flags don't apply and all related players would be in an active war state but they still wouldn't be active combatants except when engaged in actual combat. They would be In Active Service and In Active Status in preparations for Active Combat.
But seriously though this is wrong.
The comparison could not be further from the truth. A soldier in uniform is and always will be considered a combatant. Do you really think they will not be shot if they enter enemy territory or are spotted by an enemy? I would seriously reconsider having this be apart of your argument.
Now, I agree that the system as is works fine and rather than inviting pvp at all turns it puts a real risk into attacking another player just to flag, there is a distinct risk that they say F**k it and go in on you in return. I think i like that more than a toggle system and that is purely preference and not me saying one is mechanically better for the game than the other.
This is going to get off topic a bit, but let's go there for the sake of argument. Keep in mind, I'm not the one defining a 'combatant,' I'm pulling directly from the Geneva convention. So go research that if you want (here's the link: Customary IHL Rule 3).
To your points above, it sounds like there is some gray there. A soldier in any uniform that is within an international area of conflict can be determined to be a combatant. So if the dance is held on a base in Tikrit v. Chicago? If the parade ground is in Kandahar v. Benning?
For Ashes, for this analogy, it might depend on how you define the international conflict zone to determine whether it's apt or not.
If it turns out that people are trying to circumvent core aspects of the game by attacking random players every 2 - 3 minutes in order to maintain the combatant flag, then yes, that is the sort of thing I would expect to see happen.
However, if something along these lines did eventuate, the people to blame are the people attempting to circumvent the system.
The thing is, Intrepid have taken the idea of L2 PvP and made changes to address some of the issues that game had (as they see them).
One of the issues was the almost limitless open world PvP. They don't want that in Ashes. They want all the PvP, and they want some open world PvP, but they want limits on it.
That is why they have moved the focus of PvP from open world to caravans and sieges and such - the parts of the game where PvP is not subject to corruption or flagging. That is where they want PvP players to be focused.
In terms of guild wars, I can kind of see what they are looking at in regards to making them prime time only events. If you are at war with a guild, the actual guild war system is only a small part of that. A much larger part of it revolves around attempting to deprive the guild of materials, and in destroying the node cluster they call home.
This is something that could be a multi-year endeavor if players wanted it to be, even if there isn't a single game system running through the entire length of that time. The concept of guilds and alliances being at war with each other isn't going to go away because some timer says the war is over.
By restricting these wars to shorter time frames, the idea seems to me to be that they understand that many players find it tiring to be at war (in the game system sense) every time they log in to a game. By limiting guild and node wars to specific windows of time, it means players will know they are able to log in to the game and not be subject to the additional rules of that war - even if the guilds in question are still considering themselves to be at war with each other.
I'm not 100% sure I am behind the idea (though I am 100% sure Intrepid don't care if I am behind the idea or not), however, I can kind of see what they are thinking with it.
It's more that they think the traditional system of allowing two guilds to kill each other with a score showing up at the end is a little boring.
guild wars
As they say, they are still fleshing it out but it sounds like they want more of a risk/reward component to it. They give some examples of stealing an item a guild might have gotten from a raid or capturing a quest item at a guild's keep.
Oh, it's absolutely going to be a fully fleshed out system, I'm just saying that if your guild considers itself to be at actual war with another guild, the guild war system isn't going to be the main focus of that war state.
Seiges and caravans are.
I see the guild war system as being used more between somewhat friendly guilds as a means of competition than I see it as a means by which you can actually hurt a rival guild.
At least, that is how I see what they are trying to do. As you say though, it isn't fully developed, and changes to how it gets developed in the future may better reflect their intentions with it if I am off.