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.
Caravan potential exploits
bigepeen
Member
I am wondering if we will be able to exploit a specific property of caravans: That they can create an area around the caravan that automatically flags players as purple. This property, combined with the fact that personal caravans are driven by the player and are not limited to specific routes, we have a situation where people should be able to use them to flag players before attacking them in order to avoid a corruption penalty. The caravans can be loaded with a single cheap material that can be found everywhere, so it doesn't really matter to the owner whether it gets destroyed or not.
Has Intrepid addressed this already?
If not, I can think of a few things that would mitigate this exploit:
Sources from the wiki:
Has Intrepid addressed this already?
If not, I can think of a few things that would mitigate this exploit:
- Make caravans fairly slow. Like make them walking speed so that anyone would have enough time to notice them and get away if they see someone coming at them aggressively with a caravan.
- Prevent caravans from creating an open PvP zone within a city and its gates (entrances/exits).
- Possibly make caravans themselves expensive. I don't like this option though, because it would discourage players from using them in general. I think that the more caravans there are, the healthier it is for the game.
Sources from the wiki:
Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[69]
Personal (Self-directed/player driven) caravans are initiated by the player, who essentially "becomes the caravan". These are land-based and water-based (naval caravans) that the player drives and directs.[14][10]
0
Comments
From a historical and medieval standpoint, that's how transports of valuables could have and in many situations probably happened. I guess it would be up to the people transporting the caravan if they wanted to go around in raiding parties to clear the area.
It would also be up to those in the vicinity to get out or risk being attacked by said caravan or anyone in the area as it would create an area of conflict. They could add a small count down timer before your flag changes to give said players a chance to escape if they dont realize what is going on. Be like a warning when you hear the drums of war getting closer and closer.
I would assume that if it is a proximity derived from the caravan, it would cancel out if it crosses boundaries of nodes civilizations to prevent in town FFA PvP. That's some tech I imagine they are in the works of.
To be honest, there really isn't anything stopping anyone from attacking anyone other than the risk of corruption in specific conditions versus already being flagged for PvP. Make sure to be grouped up with your allies
If you're out there on your own, high risk and little reward. The warning of status change is your queue to make your decision.
Very cool!
It seems like the wiki disagrees, and that there is automatic flagging in battlegrounds, of which caravans are an subgroup. Is the wiki wrong? If so, then in which battlegrounds does automatic flagging not apply?
that's interesting because it allows players in the area to choose how they want to partake in the PvP. I'm not 100% sure how I personally feel about the "ignore" option.
one side of it, a group of players could just sit off the side, and if they decide to be opportunists and help a group that is tied into defending or attacking and decide to become involved after their choice of ignoring while still in the zone, that would affect their flagging and status of attacking or defending.
another side of it would be, they could potentially troll the area with similar mechanics and even kite creeps into the area to become taunted in the area of conflict ( not 100% on this viability yet based of current information), or perhaps worse, decide to back stab everyone and go the way of corruption.
so many tangential variables...
hmm. Personally, I think I may be more partial towards an open flagged PvP for those who chose to ignore it rather than participate. This could allow the caravan defenders and attackers choice to clear the area of unforeseen potential risks and spies and not have to worry about corruption as well.
It's a battlefield after all!
Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[69]
Players will not be able to see the exact contents of a caravan before they decide to attack or defend, however there will be some visual hints to the cargo of the caravan, such as gold, silver, or iron visible on top of the caravan.[68]
Cargo is represented in this way even if a cosmetic caravan skin has been applied to the caravan.[68]
Players will be able to state their intentions to attack, defend or ignore via a user interface window.[70][71][72]
The proximity that the UI window appears is determined by the player's performance as either a defender or an attacker in previous raids.[70]
A group will be required to successfully attack a caravan.[4][29]
A caravan will persist in the world for a period of 5 to 10 minutes from the time its owner logs out or is disconnected from the server.[73]
It's still intended from a design standpoint to be a window that is presented to the player based on proximity; and that proximity it can be greater depending on your performance as either a defender or an attacker in previous raids.[70] – Steven Sharif
Being able to ignore the caravan prevents players from being able to troll players that don't want to PvP.(See all the make a PvE only server threads).
But at the same time, it also allows anyone in the area to choose a side if need be for a call to arms.
Not a fan of the safety net for those who ignore and stay in the area, these are the risks of war. I think anyone who enters the area should be flagged for PvP and risk being killed by either side.
Thanks, I missed that part.
So caravans are an exception to the automatic flagging system.
Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this exception either. It might be for the best though, because I think caravans would actually be used in this way if there were no exception.
what's stopping your allies from your nodes and vassals from choosing to what side they want to be on? I mean, technically you could be trolled from that side of things as well. Why not establish a raiding party with invite mechanics and just have a PvP zone.
I imagine the attackers if knowing of the caravan from their scouting parties would do the same. This prevents any third parties from joining the fun by not allowing it to be open conquest. If world bosses can be tangential factions per se in PvP/PvE, why limit the caravans combat?
Example:
If the guilds I were in knew of transporting goods via caravans, we'd be organized and protect them by establishing raid parties for the convoy. I would assume enemy guilds would do the same for theirs.
the PvP flag proximity would make more sense as it allows players to go into the battles in their own raid parties.
what an interesting debate.
Maby cap that to make a real time day/night circle for the server and give night hours a debuff to Caravans. (move 50% slower , you cant hire to mutch NPC to defend your wagon.) and maby you cant see so far in nighttimes.
have an active guild with members from different schedules so you can be active around the clock. same with allies (in a perfect world, lol)
I was just thinking,
The attacker/defender/ignore feature doesn't really allow players to go around in raiding parties and fight those battle on their own terms. What if I was with a a large raid of players and we wanted to attack the caravan and the attackers?
i'm not really too worried if allies show up and get in the cross fire by poor judgement of positioning, that's on them. Especially if they didn't already know how to join our raid party before charging in.
I bet both ways are still fun, dont get my wrong.
Personally, I would prefer the PvP flagged zones with raid groups up to those in the area to organize themselves.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
A player may not flag on members of the same party, raid, guild or alliance.[13]
So depending what your affiliation is with the caravan leader you may be able to attack.
it would be interesting to know how many players could be in such a caravan instance.
Would it be possible to move if we fight? would it be possible to have the caravan attacked by friends so that I can take away the slots for the real attackers? yea i have so many questions.
but if i understand you right, i think this caravans NEED to be a instance. because you can easly exploid peopel to get purple. like you travel whit an empty caravan in a farm spott zu permakill players whitout corruption.
lots of questions indeed!
meh, give them warning that a caravan is moving through the area before their flag changes from being in proximity. If they stay in the area, oh well, fresh meat!
I personally dont think it needs to be instanced, it could stay as open world combat as it moves from point A to point B with that proximity. This would allow anyone to raid as they please, unless there is engine issues with supporting such things that it needs to be instanced.
But as i've said, just cuz you're flagged for non pvp, doesn't mean you're ever safe as the corruption systems implies. Go raid people and vanish into the wilderness until your corruption is gone via mechanics that aid in doing so quicker.
We all have our own preferences
maybe once the NDA is lifted we can see why they chose to instance it. IIRC, the node/castle sieges are instanced too, so maybe it is an engine and performance utilization. I guess we will find out eventually.
yea we will see why they choose it
those battles with high polygon counts and higher tiered graphics with large player counts tend to put a lot of stress on the engines and servers currently built and being developed today.
EDIT: should've stated server stress as well in the previous post
There is always the option of making the choice permanent. Once you have chosen to ignore or be a defender, you can't just change your mind and decide to suddenly attack.
I don't see how the taunting option is an abuse though. The person doing the caravan decides its path, if he decides to leave the roads and run through high level monster, then that's the risk he was willing to take. Next to the roads, there are said to be primarily weak enemies anyway.
@Patsold that's not how it works. People don't get autoflagged, they'll only become participants if they choose to be an attacker or defender.
Why would you assume that the amount of defender and attacker slots are limited? There isn't any statement that would suggest that.
Also, its a very fair assumption, that certain high quality deliveries might be done in the middle of the night.
I wouldN't see a problem with that either though.
@Patsold that's not how it works. People don't get autoflagged, they'll only become participants if they choose to be an attacker or defender.
Why would you assume that the amount of defender and attacker slots are limited? There isn't any statement that would suggest that.
Also, its a very fair assumption, that certain high quality deliveries might be done in the middle of the night.
I wouldN't see a problem with that either though.[/quote]
was just a what if question. ( i know there is a pop up whit 3 chooses: ignore def attack )
Well who says there isn't one? is also just a question. if there is a cap for a siege then also for caravans, right? we just don't know if it's a 250vs250 cap like a siege
I don't know what to think of it to be honest. But in my eyes it is unfair to increase your profit at night and to farm people in prime time(whitout corruption). I think that something should be done there, but maybe it's just my view of things.
if it doesn’t bring any disadvantages, the people will definitely take advantage of it.
true, i read the pathing options on the wiki page. As to why I suggested other people could possibly kite mobs into the area that are not part of the battle being not flagged for PvP. But, the conservation went down many tangential thought paths as well to get to where we are now.
It's safe to assume that some players would not want to risk the loss of high quality resources by picking different times to move a caravan, but other players may think the same. just strategy in relation to risk vs reward.
They could potentially have some sort of cap/limit to caravans if they're instanced. I mean, the sieges are instanced to prevent server and engine issues.
I'd still prefer a the caravan moving from point A to point B (regardless of path to destination) with a proximity PvP flagging until we know more about these designs choices.
Ever play the early days in WoW when they use to kite world bosses into the major cities or the plague ability epidemics from world bosses that wiped the servers? that's where taunting and kiting bosses can be an issue, but there is a chaining mechanic that prevents the bosses from being kited out of its area. So there is a fix there.
But, with the nodes developing, those lower level mobs would still scale in relation to node development as well. Again, another mechanic not fully understood until explained in more detail of mob levels.
Many unanswered things.
was just a what if question. ( i know there is a pop up whit 3 chooses: ignore def attack )
Well who says there isn't one? is also just a question. if there is a cap for a siege then also for caravans, right? we just don't know if it's a 250vs250 cap like a siege
I don't know what to think of it to be honest. But in my eyes it is unfair to increase your profit at night and to farm people in prime time(whitout corruption). I think that something should be done there, but maybe it's just my view of things.
if it doesn’t bring any disadvantages, the people will definitely take advantage of it.[/quote]
The 250v250 cap for castle sieges is a projected cap due to technical feasability on the developers end.
So no, if there's a cap for castle sieges, that doesn't mean that there is necessairily a cap for caravans unless its for the same technical reasons.
Assuming, they'd indeed have a similar cap, then the fictional "problem" of 250 people signing up as attackers to prevent potential caravan robbers doesn't make sense in the first place. With 250 people at your disposal, you wouldn't have to worry about being attacked in the first place.
Let us assume that the same system applies. But now there are many caravans on the server and not everyone needs so many resources. so the maximum cap goes down from 250 to 30 to prevent lag. Do you understand what I mean now? if this is done it can be that big guilds can safely transport their caravans if it is possible to continue in the fight. even if only 15 out of 30 players blocked the slot as attackers, it would mean a 50% attack reduction
Edit : I realy dont know how the system work , we dont know yet. Maby there is no lag and every caravan get his 250 cap .
People running caravans halfway across the map doesn't affect the performance of yours at all
quoting is bugging out
in regards to caravans leaving the cities, there will be some control there when to send the caravan out for whatever reasons it may be for.
Example:
trading, you'll probably want to meet up with the nodes you're trading with to increase protection of supplies upon delivery.
But, if you're gathering, you're going to be loading up caravan after caravan and wont have time to just sit there on resources until night time. That will increase your risk significantly of being found out, especially when resource nodes are public. So there could be potential there for opportunity as well for different time frames.
the 250 people signing up to attack or defend a caravan doesn't make sense to me either. That's why I am stating that it should be up for grabs in open world conquest over instanced combat to whom ever is there.
exactly, the technical issues would be the server and engine being able to support it. The sieges are more than likely going to have a lot more to them than the open world pvp as the nodes get sieged and what not ( speculation).
Looking forward to learning more about those mechanics as well.
This is probably why they're lifting the NDA in alpha phases.
they were just speculating that the caravans could be instanced to prevent server performance issues that the sieges would have on the limitations of large scale battles. We technically dont know entirely for sure.
If a 1000 players in relatively one area is where the game is going to struggle, then there is potential for large convoys of caravan tied into larger scale combat of said caravans could be instanced due to the same reason by selecting the option to attack/defend or ignore.
Caravan raids could have potential to be large scaled depending on how those situations arise and how the combat plays out.
So instancing it in proximity of the trade route for those involved may likely be an option through speculation of information provided currently
Yes