Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Concerns over the corruption system
Felstrex
Member
I have played a couple of large PvP based games and in that process I have come across a few systems that are unique and engaging. That being said I think what generally makes a system bad is the way the system is used. This brings me to my point.... as far as corruption goes and the ability for guilds to flag on other guilds and maintain a no corruption accruement process, what would stop a "PK" guild from flagging on EVERY guild? I mean this would seem like a massive issue and allow people to work outside the set up system for corruption.
1. Is there a maximum number active wars a guild can have?
2. is there an increase in time or cost to activate a guild war?
3. Is there some way to prevent people from exploiting this system so that they can PK anytime w/o gaining corruption points?
Essentially I am wondering what is keeping a group of people from using this to hijack a server?
Now before you start off with this idea of not being able to do it because numbers and whatnot imagine an intuitive players starts a discord server and let's say gets around 300 people ( not unreasonable ) to go in with the idea of "running a server" all this group would have to do is control 3 nodes with castles and then build off of this framework.
this isn't really an idea that is farfetched. Your group start declaring war on guilds. Maybe you keep one group from declaring. Then you work each otehrs nodes to build them up and "persuade" otehrs to join. In about 3 - 4 months that number can double and now you have a situation.
The environment has to be fluid and growth encouraged but that growth should not be exploitable.... to an extent.
this is just one thought that I had on this and I am sure there are things I am over looking.
Also, I do enjoy the PvP but do not want to be forced into it ALL the time. At the same time I do not want to have to roam around w/o a guild to protect myself and my goods.
1. Is there a maximum number active wars a guild can have?
2. is there an increase in time or cost to activate a guild war?
3. Is there some way to prevent people from exploiting this system so that they can PK anytime w/o gaining corruption points?
Essentially I am wondering what is keeping a group of people from using this to hijack a server?
Now before you start off with this idea of not being able to do it because numbers and whatnot imagine an intuitive players starts a discord server and let's say gets around 300 people ( not unreasonable ) to go in with the idea of "running a server" all this group would have to do is control 3 nodes with castles and then build off of this framework.
this isn't really an idea that is farfetched. Your group start declaring war on guilds. Maybe you keep one group from declaring. Then you work each otehrs nodes to build them up and "persuade" otehrs to join. In about 3 - 4 months that number can double and now you have a situation.
The environment has to be fluid and growth encouraged but that growth should not be exploitable.... to an extent.
this is just one thought that I had on this and I am sure there are things I am over looking.
Also, I do enjoy the PvP but do not want to be forced into it ALL the time. At the same time I do not want to have to roam around w/o a guild to protect myself and my goods.
0
Comments
What those limits are is subject to testing.
Let's say that the current limitations weren't in-place:
1) Why would it be bad for a PvP guild to control most of the most-important areas of the game, through PvP? Isn't this a reasonable goal, for them to have?
2) In line with my question 1, isn't this just more reason or incentive for other communities to band together, to fight them - thus creating more action and player-based content?
3) Don't most PvP guilds completely fall apart when the leader or the top 2 or 3 officers can no longer sustain a no-life level of gameplay, anyways? Aren't the nature of the Nodes similarly impermanent?
4) If players don't like one server, aren't there others to which they can emigrate?
From Ashes to Empires, friend - and back again!
I think you're forgetting about corruption, or in this case the lack of due to the war flagging system. This removes the risk and penalties of corruption allowing a guild to freely gank others.
If a pvp guild wants to control a server, there needs to be risks involved. It's not just nodes in this scenario but dungeons, mob spawns and resources. Without corruption they could camp anywhere, preventing others from gaining access and not suffer any consequences.
Leaving a server should never be considered an answer or solution embraced by developers. Most games require payment for that and I'm not certain what plans interpid, if any at this time, has for transfers.
At the moment, they want to avoid server transfers altogether if they can:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Account_management#Server_transfers
And I think they plan to do this by backend economic scaling as per:
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Server_population
But like nearly everything else in a1, this could be changed on further testing haha
The corruption system is not in place to disincentive PvP, just giefing where the playground is not fair mostly. The gameplay loop is expecting you to fight over resources and if you are getting locked out by players at your level because they are using teamwork or are just better they shouldn't be punished.
If you don't want to PvP you don't have too, but both you and the player killing you will be penalized because you chose not to fight back and they chose to kill you either way which gained them corruption.
There is still plenty of risk for PvP players, as they choose to engage in PvP they will still be subjects to getting into exp debt and losing some supplies even without corruption.
You are correct and I misworded my statement. In things like caravans and guild wars there are no death penalties. If a guild is going around declaring war on everyone then they are able to contest and control those areas without risk of losing anything. I may have confused corruption in my statements but the rest of it is still valid.
@Noaani said that they have plans to limit guild wars.
Without those limits a guild or alliance could just swamp an area without risk of death penalties. Guild wars are supposed to be objective based and limited in duration not for locking other players out of an area without risk.
If they want to horde a dungeon to themselves they should have to risk death penalties for it.
Guild wars are supposed to be a little different than in other games that just allow you to kill members of another guild for free.
They are supposed to be objective based but we don't know much about what those objectives could be. With it being objective based, it's also unclear how many you are allowed to declare at one time.
Have devs said anything about that? Can you maybe quote them, or you mean this is just how you want it to be?
I am not against goal-based GvGs alltogether, but it should be implemented alongside "traditional" wars, not instead of them. Because guilds fight over resources, over honor, and their rilvalries/interperson grievances.
If you don't give the guilds option to fight other guilds freely, they will still fight, even risking the penalties of PK. The only thing that lack of traditional free guild wars will do, is frustrate players for nor reason because they would have to use PK on enemy guilds instead of fair game.
The wiki is your friend.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Guild_wars
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/World_PvP
please read the wiki
I was not asking you but thanks, you are correct here.
Still, the point remains - in addition to objective based guild wars, there should be normal guild wars that allow players to fight without PK penalties in the world. In the page you mentioned, only guild wars with objectives are mentioned.
It says "player will contest resources", but if there is no guilds wars outside of "objective-based temporary ones", there cannot be a contest over resources in open world other than via PK system.
Nothing wrong with that, there should be a risk associated with fighting over the resources. It shouldn't just be your typical MMO bg, with no loss of anything but the time it takes to return to your body or the fight.
Resources (in this context) are a reward. There needs to be a risk associated with it. If people want to fight over a dungeon or a rare resource spawn, it's open world PvP. They don't need a special flagging system to do that for them. It will boil down to who values it more, are you willing to keep eating deaths fighting over it endlessly, and the death penalties accrued? Or do you move on?
That's right. And, you have to decide whether or not it's worth taking that PK chance. This is a basic Ashes concept, and isn't going to change.
Yes, it's most likely the pk system that will be used to fight over resources in the open world. Another difference here is you only get punished for PKing if you deal a killing blow to another player, there is no punishment for attacking them. This means you can probably pressure someone to leave an area without suffering any negative penalties.
Is there anything else than simply killing people and objective based PvP?
Seems like that covers it all.
For example, if a PvP guild has a monopoly on a certain resource and you don't want to fight, you can pay a different price.👍️
Because "being able to fight" and "having to fight" are two very different things.
Mitigating the situation is also the fact that it's a risk/reward situation on both sides.
You are running around and you see a green guy harvesting. You want his stuff. So do you attack him? If you attack him, and kill him, and he doesn't fight back then you get corruption. Is it worth it? Keep in mind that if he dies as a green player he will drop twice the resources.
On the other side, you are a green guy harvesting stuff and you get attacked. Do you fight back or stay green? If you fight back and lose, you only suffer half of the usual XP debt and only drop half of the resources. But if you stay green, maybe the attacker will back off and leave you alone.
On top of that is the risk that both people have around whether or not they will win or lose. Whoever loses will drop stuff, so the winner will get a loot reward.
It is an interesting dynamic.
Correct me if I'm wrong. But won't a player drop items only if corrupted? Or is that only for completed items (as in, the opposite of materials and resources)?
You drop resources, not items. Hence why I talked about the green person dropping resources. I never mentioned dropping items.