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
The castle’s tax collection entourage will be prime real estate for rival guilds. Personally I’ll be mighty inclined to attack those for a cut of the cash. Those are going to be far more valuable that any kills in the wild.
I'd rather the war system be an actual war system. Wars typically aren't friendly competitions.
I don't at all disagree.
As I said, I am making an assumption based on how what we know of the system so far, and extrapolating from that exactly what the intent behind it is.
As a system, what I am assuming they have in mind for the guild war system does make sense from a gameplay and game design perspective. The main issue I have with it - if my assumptions are correct - is the name. This system is not a "Guild War", and would perhaps be better served if it was called a "Guild Frucas", a "Guild Quarrel", or perhaps even "Guild Kerfuffle".
That should deal to that specific issue - and I think if I am right as to how this mechanic will end up being used, I will refer to it as a Guild Kerfuffle rather than guild war once the game goes live.
As to actual guild wars, in terms of two guild deciding they really shouldn't both be playing on the same server, I don't think a mechanic is actually needed to facilitate that. This is why I don't think I ahve a specific issue with the timer on the Guild Kerfuffle mechanic - the two parties are not just going to build a camp fire and sing kumbaya together when it ends.
Seiges and attacking caravans will be more effective than a guild war mechanic that can't be opted out of would ever be anyway - if your plan is to actually hurt that rival guild.
Wouldn't you rather them just make an interesting war mechanic to help facilitate 2 guilds who actually don't like each other to go at it as often as they can? Like on top of sieges and caravans? It would make for a healthier game. 3 hour long windows of war at primetime sound pretty wack to me. Definitely not a "war" like we said.
Oh, the guild war system will used to do that, I'm sure. It just wouldn't be a permanant, all the time thing.
The key thing here is to remember that just because the Guild Kerfuffle timer is up, doesn't mean the war is over.
In terms of guilds at actual war with each other, I'm currently looking at the Guild Kerfuffle system as an ancillary system on top of sieges (node and castle), caravans (personal, node and castle), and attacking players at content locations - as well as it being used by friendly(ish) guilds as a means of competition/content.
I am fairly sure that no amount of losses in Guild kerfuffles would upset a rival guild as much as a successful siege on their node followed by looting the bulk of said guilds members freeholds.
I don't actually think I would want a game system having any control at all over how I should wage a war against another guild, nor do I think there should be anything in regards to rewards for it. If we are at war with another guild - proper war - the reward is driving that guild either out of a node cluster, or off of the server.
I don't think it would be in Intrepids best interests to have a system built in to the game to facilitate this either.
Yeah I hear you and all but I would still prefer an interesting guild war mechanic. If it's a 3 hour window during primetime it's a guild battle mechanic at best. It wouldn't even have to be an indefinitely long war I would be happy with at least a week, we can meet somewhere in the middle between forever and only 2 or 3 hours. You said earlier that they wanted to improve upon the Lineage 2 clan war system and that's fair, but 90% of Lineage 2 players most likely look back fondly on the wars they had. Players and diplomacy forged the peace treaties and that is EXACTLY what this game is about: Player driven content.
I plan on waging war on the enemy one way or another like you said, but if they have a "Guild War" mechanic it should be actually kinda war-like.
I would say that 90% of the L2 players that stayed in the game would look back fondly on them, for sure.
I'm sure you can see what I am saying there.
From a business perspective, if Intrepid are able to keep the bulk of that alive via caravans and sieges, then they should be able to create more fond memories for those same types of players, but may be able to make a game where a more varied type of player stay around in the game for longer.
That seems to be the goal of PvP in this game, from what I can see - allowing players to still have those experiences, but encouraging (without requiring) that fighting to take place in specific aspects of the game so as to not chase away as many players.
Put another way, with what I have seen Steven say about the game, and with the description of the game systems we have been given, my take on this game is that Intrepid want it to be a game with open PvP, but with a much wider potential audience than any other open PvP game so far (you may see some of the reasoning behind some of my points in various debates we have had with that last sentence).
Again, I may well be wrong with that, but that is what I see them trying to build, and most (though not all) of the systems they have talked about fit in to that general idea for a game.
And I also agree about your last point there - that is why I am referring to them as Guild Kerfuffles from now on. If I am right, I would rather that term than calling something a guild war that is clearly not warlike - even if I agree with the system from a design and gameplay perspective (though I am still not 100% sure about that).
---
I would be all for a longer duration system as well, but I wouldn't want it to be a system where one guild can declare war on another guild without reason or recourse. That would see larger guilds picking on smaller, there would be all sorts of mess.
What could work is some sort of Casus Belli system. Before you are able to declare war on another guild or alliance, they need to do something to provoke you in to declaring war on them. It may be an amount of caravans raided, it may be a number of sieges on nodes your guild members call home, it may even be a number of players killed in open PvP - but if it is going to be an actual war system, there needs to be a real reason for that war to exist - not just over some drama or whatever.
With a system in place like that, Intrepid would be able to implement an actual and real war system in to the game.
Well you have told me before you didn't play L2 so I don't think you are in the best position to judge, and we have also discussed previously the success that L2 had over it's lifetime is absolutely nothing to sneeze at. It is still played to this very day by some crazy people and lasted way longer than dozens and dozens of other MMOs. I don't know why you talk about it like it's a bad game or failure often, if it was bad steven wouldn't have put a bunch of time into it and modeled a bunch of stuff in AoC around it. I suppose when most of your MMO experience is WoW and final fantasy.
You would rather them rename Guild Wars into Guild Kerfluffles instead of them making a functional war system? I mean I really hope you are just at least MOSTLY trolling me. We'll see what happens in the Alpha. I'll personally raise my concerns extremely often and to the point where you get sick of hearing about it on the forums for having a more functional war system if it's a big stinker, and I doubt I'll be alone.
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
Oh I'm not saying that L2 wasn't successful, just that Intrepid want Ashes to be more successful. I will happily say that L2 is the most successful PvP focused fantasy MMO of all time (at least that I am aware of), but it is also fairly easy to notice there are many other games that wanted that crown and have failed, and it is easy to see that the MMO crowd is far less easily satisfied now than it was then.
Making a game today that is as hyper-focused on a specific type of player as L2 was is probably not a great business move. MMO players these days are a lot less inclined to only have the one thing to do, and are a lot happier to move on to other games (or back to other games) than they used to be.
Even just the fact that Intrepid are going to have open PvP in Ashes is causing them to lose a lot of potential players (my experience would suggest around half of the MMO playerbase in general won't give this game a second look because of that one fact). Sticking to that is great, but they really do need to cast as wide a net over what is left as is possible.
As to the guild war system, what I want is irrelevent, as is what you want. All that matters is what Intrepid want. I can see their reasoning behind what they want, but once again (for the third time in the last few posts) I am not sure I am 100% behind the idea myself.
What I will say is that if that is what Intrepid want, you can make all the noise in alpha or beta that you want, it won't change. Steven has said a number of times that he doesn't really care what we think - he is making his game (the second most influential statement made when I decided to back this game - we shouldn't be listened to at all). If he has thought about it, and that is what he wants, that is what the game will have.
Alpha and beta are there to find bugs and flaws, not to convey opinions on game design.
That said, as per my previous post, I am not at all against the idea of a longer duration war mechanic, if done well. That isn't the mechanic that Intrepid have in mind with the current system they are calling guild wars though.
You seem to still be getting confused with what I would like and with what I think the developers are trying to do. These are not the same thing. I am generally supporting Intrepid in what they are trying to do, even if it isn't what I would like. There are exactly two exceptions to this.
With the risk/reward aspect of this, I'm not sure how you are seeing that. It sounds like the system is going is another way to impact a guild's progression in some way. This seems like node wars/sieges but for guilds.
That is the problem. There are too many systems.
They have talked about having a guild fortress as the objective and reward for guild wars, but this has numerious problems. Guilds with a castle won't care about them, which means that having a fortress means nothing more than your guild not being top 5 on the server for PvP - which a few years in to the game may prove to be an issue if there are less than 5 serious PvP guilds per server.
Intrepid may well find something worthwhile to fight over in a guild war, absolutely. However, I personally doubt that, as there are already enough things to fight over.
As such, my assumption is that guild wars will end up being prime time only events with 4 hour time limit cap, and with three potential war types; kill specific player to win, kill player holding specific item to win, collect token from specific location to win.
Of the above, the first goal will result in no real penalty or reward for either guild. Bragging rights amd counting towards the PvP season ladder are the main factors. I expect this to be the type of war that is used most frequently, both between somewhat friendly(ish) guilds, and also for attacking players in the open world without corruption (which the guild war system absolutely will be used for).
The second from above I expect to see being time limited. If a guild kills a specific raid encounter (which may as well be instanced), a serverwide notice will pop up, and the first guild to declare war on the guild in question then has to try to find and kill the player carrying the dropped item from said encounter. If they kill that player, the raid item is 100% guaranteed to drop - and as such it functions as the reward.
The last from above I am a little less sure about the details of in terms of what I would expect. I don't see this as being overly exciting for anyone involved, but Intrepid have talked about it.
Most of the above is simple extrapolation from the information we all have access to. I may well be wrong on a number of points, I fully accept that, but this is how I expect it to eventually play out.
To me, it sounds like it's stuff like this that are supposed to be able to be targeted by guild wars. That's kind of the reason to make them prime time events, similar to sieges, you want to lose your stuff while you are asleep and can't defend it.
I went through all of this in my thinking, and I don't see it.
Intrepid want players to consider nodes as important as guilds, and if guilds are replicating or replacing much of the services nodes give players, then nodes won't be that important to players. To me, this completely cuts out things like forges as being guild based (you can disagree if you like).
I do see things like weapon enhancements and skill augments as being viable guild rewards, but my assumption with them is that they will be tied to guild level and guild perks, respectively. Now, I absolutely see Guild Kerfuffles as a means of gaining guild levels, but by no means would they be the only method of gaining levels (this would just encourage people to game the system).
This is what I mean by the game having too many systems - everything is accounted for. This is why I only really see the appropriate rewards for guild wars being the reallocation of items gained via other systems (raid loot and such).
Again, I may well be wrong. We don't know enough about the design of guild wars, and thus can't extrapolate the design goals of them. I'm not really trying to convince anyone that what I am saying is right, because there is no obvious intent as to what guild wars are supposed to be, and as soon as we get more details on guild wars, I am more than happy to adjust what I think they will be accordingly.
Its been a long wait for an answer but here it is my dude, from Toast herself on this forum post.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/259970#Comment_259970
Let it be known from this day henceforth that it has been formally confirmed that Open World PvP is not condemned by Intrepid studios, only griefing. I need a drink.
Open world PvP is a massive part of what Ashes is.
I think you are twisting things around here. You should stop doing that.
When did I say that PvP is condemned by Intrepid?
What I have said is that the focus of PvP in Ashes is around PvP that has meaning - such as caravans, sieges, and wars. These are Stevens words, so as I have said to others in this thread, if you want to disagree with that point, do so with Steven, not with me. I have also said that obviously other PvP will happen, but is not the focus, nor is what Intrepid want to encourage.
No where at all have I said or suggested that open world PvP of any kind is "condemned by Intrepid", so asking that in a question to anyone at Intrepid and then suggesting that the answer in any way contradicts anything I have been saying is disingenuous at best, outright dishonest at worse.
I am assuming disingenuous.
"Additionally, absence of comment on a topic should not be considered positive proof of an assertion. To argue this point, you really do need a comment that Intrepid plan to promote meaningless PvP in the open world - otherwise we could all argue anything Intrepid haven't specifically commented on, and that is clearly an absurd notion."
You never outright said it word for word but you were saying that simply because it wasn't formally stated that "meaningless" pvp was being promoted that this meant it wasn't necessarily condoned. You said a comment was needed, so I went ahead and asked for one. If nothing else, simply take it for what its worth, you never once in your heart thought or hoped open world pvp was condemned by intrepid, awesome. It is simply a confirmation that "meaningless" pvp has a place in AoC, and intrepid has confirmed that they want these conflicts to play out, which I would argue makes it quite meaningful.
But, for the sake of the conversation, why not explain to me what exactly you meant by all of that? You were going on and on about how "meaningful" pvp was the focus and that "meaningless" pvp was not, seeming to be implying that since it isn't a focus that it is in turn condemned. Apparently I am wrong in this assumption so I would like a clearer explanation if you wouldn't mind.
An action that is condemned is one that Intrepid would take action on the account of anyone caught performing that act. Your question was basically asking if open world PvP is looked at in the same lilght as botting, RMT'ing, hacking and other exploits - all of which are condemned.
This is what a condemned action is.
I said absolutely nothing at all in this regard, and again, you suggesting that I did is either disingenuous, or dishonest.
I said it is not the type of PvP that Intrepid want to encourage. I didn't say it was going to be something that could get you banned -as you are suggesting I was saying - I simply said they want the caravan system, the siege systems and the war systems to be the focus of PvP in Ashes.
That is the comment I made - if you want to ask Intrepid for a quote to prove me wrong, then ask them this;
Would it be fair to say that the intention of PvP in Ashes is that the focus of such activities is based on the caravan system, sieges and guild/node wars, with other forms of PvP being present in a secondary capacity in the over all grand scheme of things.
That is what I am saying, and if you want to get a quote to prove me wrong, you absolutely NEED to get what I am saying right first. You also need to abstain from using strong words (like condenmed) that I never used in the discussion.
Not doing so is - once again - either disingenuous or dishonest.
I acknowledged that, if that is the case then at the very least we got it in writing that it isn't in any way condemned. And while I see a point you are trying to argue the "focus" of PvP systems, but I would say that you don't actually need to openly focus on open world pvp because it isn't a designed system in the same way a siege or a caravan is design. It is basically a switch that gets turned on with the game and the players determine the amount of focus it actually gets during play. Intrepids focus on open world pvp would be reflected through the corruption system, it is a very important system in the game, and is directly related to open world pvp. So I guess I would argue that the same amount of focus that is going into meaningful conflict systems also includes the corruption system, and carries over to open world pvp.
What this means though, is that because of all of this, there is no need for a toggle for the combatant status in order to aid players in finding others to PvP with without any other meaning to it - which if you go back to the OP of this thread, is what was asked for.
The focus of PvP is the caravan, siege and war systems, and open world PvP (aka, corruption based PvP) is there as well, as a secondary system, that doesn't need additional encouragement to be used because players will use it when it is needed.
Players are already determining how often that system gets used - as it is purely a system that is there to be used when needed. There is no need to encourage open world PvP further than that, because the active encouragement of PvP in Ashes is in the caravan, siege and war systems. The corruption system is there to fill in the gaps, not to be any sort of focus.
This kind of thing is what happens when you argue an individual post, rather than arguing a full point of view.
The toggle idea is just to toggle always being a combatant in the system that exists, it doesn't aid in finding others to PvP, it simply allows others currently around you to engage without fear of getting corrupted. It doesn't promote griefing or anything negative to people other than the ones opting to turn it on. So what is the issue with the toggle?
but you're wrong.
It is, but it also isn't something most players will do.
Most players will realize very quickly that there will almost always be a chance to flag up, and those rare times that there won't will be so rare, that less than 0.01% of the population will ever see it happen. I guarantee that if you go in to the game with the intention of doing this, that intention will cease by the end of your first day.
Making your flag state 100% based upon your actions is a reasonable mechanic.
It isn't something you will do, or it isn't something most players will do?
I'd be interested to see your evidence for that comment.
There won't be any evidence until the game launches - at which point every green player you see will be evidence.
What we have between now and then though, is logic.
If you attempted to keep up your combatant flag all the time, how much time and effort do you think you will spend on that? Contrast that with the very, very few times (likely never) that you are attacked in a manner where you are unable to even flag before being killed, and you will soon realize that all of that time spent keeping your combatant flag up was a total waste of time.
Simple, basic logic dictates that this will not be common behavior - at least not by people that actually think about what they are doing.
You suggesting that the open world pvp is a secondary system is confusing to me. Considering the open world pvp (or rather ability to pvp) is actually the primary system in the game and all of the objective based pvp systems are in fact secondary systems designed to feed off of the open world pvp (conflicts).
The reason to allow players to flag is not to "find pvp" but rather to aid players in finding other players who accept the threat of pvp. You keep getting things twisted because you're looking at it from a perspective of someone who doesn't want to be in combat.
You're still here arguing that the toggle doesn't exist or won't exist based on contradictory proof that it currently does and will.
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