Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
1. In the situation described by OP, as both the original guilds are likely already purple (combatants), all of their attacks (whether or not they were AoE) would not hit green newcomers unless they intentionally were selecting to force attack (which might be unlikely, seeing as how they were currently fighting other combatants and that would be unnecessary). As noted here, any attacks that are not forced attacks will not hit green non-combatants: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
2. For a large guild vs. guild battle like this, folks might opt to utilize the guild war system, which would then operate outside the usual PvP flagging system entirely: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
All that being said, the corruption system and its finer points will certainly be something we look for additional feedback on once folks are hands-on with testing it in-game, to let us know their thoughts on the balance between fun and fair!
Yeah but what about outside of objective-based pvp? It would be kinda lame if you can only attack each other during prime-time.
The finer points of the guild wars system are still in the design/development stages as noted on that page, and I can definitely understand a desire for more openly structured guild fights vs. objective-based ones.
Perhaps some greater rewards/risks for utilizing this particular guild war system could help incentivize folks to use that as their primary method for beating each other up
A solution to an issue that doesn't exist, since you have to check a box in order for your AOEs to hit Greens.
Next issue that you can come up with, since you are doing like 3 seconds of research before posting complaint/concern threads?
Meaningful/harsh punishment is where its at. Also a lot of games have shown us in the past, that people would rather punish they dislike rather than get rewarded. There is No better motivation for guild wars than sticking it to the players you dislike
The GvG system and the lack of details at this moment is definitely a big issue for me and some of my friends. And if I had to hazard a guess, I'd say a lot of people in the community. As Sathrago pointed out, it's important that we be able to attack other guilds outside of any objective PvP area/time slot. I understand Steven's points in the wiki quotes and why he wants Objective-based GvGs, but it's important to understand why and how most PvP focused guilds use Guild Wars, and why the "boring" system actually works really well for us (and it's not necessarily about winning all the time).
The main concern this all stems from is one of the main points in the game - being able to contest things in the open world, whether that be a prime mob farming or gathering area, or a world boss, or an open world dungeon, or something else. People are going to frequently find themselves in situations where they want to spontaneously group v group PvP. Currently the PK system makes that nearly impossible to do without gaining a ton of Corruption, because you won't know if the opposite group is going to attack back until it's too late. In many other OwPvP games, a GvG system solves this problem by allowing one group to declare a GvG on the spot against the guild of the opposing group and attack them without penalty.
If there are other in game systems that are intended to deal with these issues I'd love to hear it because as of now I don't see it and that's a big problem because it means a core aspect of the open world gameplay that drives a lot of these interconnected systems isn't going to work. There have been other Corruption-related posts that I believe were hinting at the idea of spontaneous group v group OwPvP being a potential issue as well.
If you guys are still ironing out the details of the GvG system, can you at least plan to address your goals with it? Or indicate if the above situation is something you're actively working to fix and address in the future? I might also suggest having the topic of GvG system be a Dev Discussion topic because I know people will have a lot of great ideas to share on the topic - and it will also make people feel better knowing that you're aware of the concerns and desire to address them.
If I had to wager a guess, I'd say there have been high level discussions about things they might like to see with respect to systems like guild versus guild, but it's far too early to see anything committed to paper (or keyboard!)
Once the game is to a point where you're actually able to have meaningful fights between groups of people then it's time to worry about the nitty gritty of systems built on top. Don't worry about each shingle in the roof before the foundation is poured. Have some idea of what you'll need for the roof, and the things it should accomplish, but it's too early to decide to tear down the house because you don't like what you imagine the roof might be like.
That said, I do think it's productive to speculate about what you might want from the guild vs guild (or any other) system. But it's not that helpful to imagine all the ways some vague gestures by the people in charge could go wrong. Don't nitpick off the cuff ideas, add your own interests and passions and experiences.
Take this super early stage of the game to imagine all the things you'd want to see, and even ways you might imagine them working in the game.
I too share my concerns with the current planned Guild War system and agree with much of what you say @Leiloni If I'm understanding correctly guild wars are currently intended to be several hour events at primetime. Simply put 2 hour "Guild wars" are boring and not very much of a war.
The clan war system in Lineage 2 led to some extremely heated long-standing rivalries. 2 clan leaders had to agree to a war and when they did it wasn't over until one of the clans was demoralized enough to surrender. These operated outside of the "Karma" (Corruption) system as well. Could take months, could never happen. This created bad blood for your enemies and a source of infighting and potential internal political issues in bigger alliances by people who couldn't handle the war and ganking that went on outside of the karma system. You got to know your enemies closely. You knew that so and so player liked to grind exp in X place with friends often so you would put together gank squads at all hours of the day when you needed something to do to look for them or others.
Now you could easily argue all this could possibly happen in Ashes and outside of a war system and that's true, but the sheer amount of posts about people worried about corruption and griefers and bounty hunters worries me that players flagging on each other may not be the normal. Reds and griefers should be a very very small problem because defending yourself and flagging on each other should be the main priority and what's encouraged for 90% of scenarios to make for a healthy open world game. As @Warth said most people would much rather punish the big meany than get rewarded themselves. There's a concerning amount of people already saying they are just not gonna PvP ever and they are just gonna give them corruption. That really in my opinion should not even be a thing to barely cross someones mind because of how it (hopefully) will be punishing to gain exp debt and take a long time to get off you. Will it become the meta-game to stand still and let people go red so they can punish the big meany?
Dying as a green should be just as painful as dying as a red. Flagged should be where people automatically default to if there is even a 1% chance of winning the fight. If there are no persistent guild wars that work outside of corruption I worry the game could possibly devolve into everybody just standing around and letting each other go red in half the scenarios that pop up to punish the other players as opposed to fighting for things like intended.
At the very absolute least they should be renamed from guild wars to guild skirmishes or guild vs guild if they are truly just multi-hour long events at a planned date and time. That doesn't exactly scream "war" to me.
Well said and hopefully they can give us some more feedback on guild wars soon. I for one am hoping for long epic wars with other guilds that could last weeks, months, years... hell the entire time both those guilds exist. That's epic.
I also agree about using guild wars to contest open world objectives, but I'm sure that will get to much push back from the PvE'rs.
If you and your guild have a real reason to want to fight someone else - whether in a guild or not - you will fight them. The corruption mchanic isn't a barrier to stop this, it is a mechanism by which your decision to attack is given some weight - and the decision to attack other players should always have some weight to it.
@oophus I'm curious, how is this going for you?
The bulk of the thread is not talking about anything in your OP, because we all know that what you are talking about is not a situation that can arise in Ashes.
It takes 2 seconds to leave a Guild and join it again. If its this or risk loosing a battle, I know what I will do. Get the guild to have 20 people leave the guild, and they can position them selves without risk, and help kill the "problem-guild" at will at any time.
What? How does leaving the guild change anything when it comes to hitting green players?
. If the entire guild is flagged at the same time, which fixes a few points, but open up a few others, what is to stop me from making a large portion of my guild disband just to abuse flagging rules in one battle? Assuming in GvsG players in Guild 1 and Guild 2 can only damage and heal eachother, but what if suddenly 20 players in Guild 1 joins Guild 1 while being positioned to backstab Guild 2?
There is cooldowns in leaving/joining both nodes and families. Considering that nodes are in the middle of these 2, I'd think it safe to assume, that similar restrictions will be placed upon guilds.
Guild changes might also be restricted during wars, but we have no confirmation on either as of yet.
You can attack any player almost anywhere and at any time. Given the way the corruption system is designed, corruption will have little or no effect on fights between players that are around the same level. The same is probably true even in large fights, though if anything can go wrong with this then large fights will probably make the problem worse.
That is completely different from what I was asking about though. Brick top explained it well enough, we want to be able to go to war with a guild in the truest sense, active until someone surrenders. If we cant do this outside of primetime objective fights then the game will be worse off for it in my opinion.
Corruption has no place in consensual
conflict between two guilds.
While I agree with what you are saying in general, I don't think it matters.
If my guild is at war with you and your guild, we aren't going to go out looking for a group from your guild that is running a dungeon, or that is harvesting resources. Honestly, that isn't worth the time or effort. If we happened across a group doing that, we likely wouldn't even bother attacking (though would fight back if attacked).
When you are against a guild, rather than just against a player, killing characters in that manner just doesn't mean anything.
If me and my guild are up against you and your guild, that fight will take place around sieges and around caravans. The only other thing that would be worth fighting over from a guild vs guild perspective would be top end encounters - and the guild war as it stands now (or as we understand it now) should be sufficient for that.
So, when two guilds consider themselves each others rivals, I don't see many valid points of conflict that would result in corruption.
Seems a bit odd that points of interest in the hunting grounds won't be worth fighting over outside of "top end encounters" man those first few months are sure going to be a snooze fest if we're all just going to be waving as we pass by or sharing quest/exp/farm spots.
Guess we can only hope Caravan attacks escalate into guild wars and sieges quickly for the sake of pvp lol.
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
Well if the carebears had it their way we would only have npcs attack caravans like an escort quest. Wouldn't want to be... attacked by another player. *gasp*
I really don't expect to see much in the way of large scale consensual guild wars until a good while after the bulk of the players involved have a few characters at the level cap.
This is, honestly, where 99% of the game is going to be played.
You're looking at it all wrong IMO... If it's worth leaving the safety of your node for, then its worth fighting over.
The flagging system (corruption) should never discourage PvP, consensual or not, in the open world. It should only be in place to protect low levels from higher levels and players who are already low health from fighting mobs (and possibly AFK players). It should encourage players to fight over resources, giving those resources more value, and encourage people to fight back to protect their resources.
If you are out gathering and are attacked by another player, it should be more punishing to you to die as a green then to die flagged. So far that is the idea that intrepid is going with so that is good. The only question is if their current ideas are enough to discourage people from dying as a green. Hopefully they adjust accordingly after some testing.
Edit to add: Corruption needs to be balanced with dying as a green. Dying as a green should be just as punishing as gaining corruption versus both parties fighting and dying as purple.
The corruption system is not there *just* to protect lower level players, though that is one of several functions it does perform.
The system is also there to add some weight to the decision to attack other players, regardless of their level.
Since it is there to add weight to this decision, it goes without saying that there will be some cases where players decide to not attack someone else purely because of that weight.
This is absolutely by design.
I would agree that it should never stop you attacking one or two players if you have a reason to want to attack them, but it absolutely should stop you from attacking a player you have no specific reason to attack.
What I am saying is that initial "weight" should be minimal. If I see a player I want to attack I should be able to assume with a high level of certainty that that player will fight back because there is also a "weight" to the decision of not fighting back. Because I should be able to assume that the other person will fight back, that initial "weight" of choosing to attack, is all but void. Thus corruption should not discourage pvp between 2 similar leveled players.
And what we know so far, that is what is being designed.
The corruption system absolutely won't stop two people that want to PvP from doing so. If you want PvP, and so this is the angle you are looking at it from, then to you it is perfectly valid to say corruption won't stop PvP from happening.
If someone doesn't want to PvP though (and remember, this is a PvX game, not a PvP game - not wanting to PvP on occasion is 100% valid), then the corruption system is the only tool they have to attempt to prevent others from forcing them in to PvP.
It also won't stop someone that really wants to attack someone that really doesn't want to be attacked - it just means they need to have an actual good reason to attack that player.
So, there absolutely will be times when the corruption system stops PvP from happening, but that is only when one of the parties doesn't want PvP, and the other has no specific need to attack said player.
I think you are forgetting a major design in the flagging system... and that is a player will receive twice the death penalties for dying as a non-combatant vs. dying as a combatant. The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked. Anybody who chooses not to PvP will be punished more then those who fight back. I don't see how anyone would rely on the corruption system as a tool to avoid pvp when they could make an effort to pvp and not be punished as much if they end up dying.
Sure the attacker gets corruption, but corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die. We all know that corruption can be worked off by gaining xp so you can literally kill a non-combatant and suffer no penalties for it.
Really the only times I see corruption truly stops someone from pvping is if a person has several corruption kills already and they are getting close to a substantial chance to drop gear.
The real point I am trying to make though is that the flagging/corruption system should encourage non-combatants to fight back when attacked. Very few people should be dying as a non-combatant, likewise very few people should be gaining corruption... all while still having tons of open world pvp. If the system is designed correctly that is.
However, due since most players are likely to spend most of their time in the same general area as only a few thousand players, it wont take long at all before people will know if you are likely to flag or not.
In a world where you are always attacking a new and unique player, then the decision will almost always be on the player that is attacked.
That isn't going to be Ashes though.
Before long, you will be able to judge with at least a decent amount of accuracy whether a given player is likely to fight back or not. This could be based on previous interaction with the player, their guild, whether they are heading to or from a resource spawn that they are likely to want, or any number of other reasons.
Also... this isn't true.
If you have any corruption, your stats are reduced against all non-bounty hunter players. Also, guards will attack you on sight, including the guards in your node.
You are right. Wasn't clear in the section I was looking but is in the general corruption section of wiki. That is something I would like to see changed... after some testing of course.