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
Sure you get Corruption, but those guys lose an entire Node...in that scenario the reward would likely outweigh the risk
I recall in L2 days were I obtained near in slot gear from a raid, placed the choice from a war`ing guild, either sell it to them or the whole guild goes KoS (Pk) for x period.
One of the wealthiest players I knew with best gear never raided, just played the market!
The other way is to buy it from crafters. The game will also have auction houses and a stock market which was one the added perks from kickstarter
From what I understand mats to make the highest legendary items (think Sulfuras) will drop from world bosses. Intrepid has said they want crafters to be the rockstars of gearing and it's likely that we could see many get by w/ raiding nodes for their high level mats instead of just killing a boss over and over so that they can have many decently geared players in favor of a handful of god tier ones.
Only way to get a Node is to declare a siege and win the siege.
This is true, but monster coin events can destroy node infrastructure.
Destroying a rival nodes marketplace, religious building or some crafting infrastructure is well worth a small amount of corruption- if a player from a rival node were in a position to kill off a few players with the expectation that would see a monster coin event be more successful, they would take that chance.
Even better if this is a few days before a siege - or perhaps you could even declare a siege after the event when the node is already weakened.
What exploit?
That is the point of monster coin events.
They are not something that can be planned around,as they occur at random. However, if people are prepared for a siege when a rival node happens to have such an event, they are more than welcome to take advantage of it.
Not saying the exploit is easy to pull off since the flags aren’t cheap and don’t last forever to align with random events.
Ashes of Creation utilizes an adaptive artificial intelligence (AI), which means that different encounters with similar creatures will yield different player experiences.[17]
Utilizing new AI technology that hasn't been seen in other MMORPG projects.[18]
Bosses are scripted and make decisions dynamically during boss fights.[19]
I think you are missing the key elements of these events.
The first element is that they are triggered at random. Players do not have any say at all over when these events happen.
When they do happen, the mobs are AI controlled, and players can opt to use a monster coin to take over control of a monster.
However, since players can't trigger these events, they can't plan around them. They may be able to make use of them if one happens to be triggered when they are about to siege a node, but since they can't plan for that, it is pure luck.
i literally dont understand people that want to play build based game and are asking for the game to hide all numbers so you can only see "small damage" "moderate damage" "big damage"
not even realizing that even this is enough for machine learning to dig out number thresholds and values
if a game wants me to create a build, but cant tell what the building blocks do then i just cant be bothered with that game, because it has become literal gambling game where you are just praying that your build setup is any good
― Plato
Don't destroy the hope that there will be a game with no meters! These people need something to live for! Even if it is a lie!
This is my personal feedback, shared to help the game thrive in its niche.
and I don't think that anyone wants to play a game that says every time you do damage or heal "you dealt unknown damage" "you healed for unknown amount"
― Plato
This is exactly why I think Bardtic asking for informative tooltips as a compromise to meters is utterly insane. A compromise for meters is having them in a limited area instead of removing them entirely...Tooltips should have the numbers for what you're doing...it's really their only job
I don't sit down to a game of D&D and not know my potential minimum and maximum damage and that's the most immersive game humans have ever created.
They just don't want their carebear bubble torn by facts that their build is not as strong as they believed to the theoretical maximum that theorycrafting provides. So they can stay under the illusion of being "the best" even though it is just a result of them being better than anyone in their vicinity with their suboptimal build that satisfies the requirements of beating others that you come across.
― Plato
And they aren't striving to be 'the best".
― Plato
None of the arguments for why an MMO in general shouldn't support combat trackers have been viable. They are all built on demonstrably false assumptions.
This leaves the only two things I can think of as being people being unable to figure out how they work and so not wanting others to have that advantage (it is clear that people against trackers do not understand them at all), or that they are afraid that trackers will show how bad they are at the game.
I personally think the first of these is more prevalent, but both exist. I can't think of any other viable reason people would be against them after discussion on the matter.
On the flip side, lots of DM's run tables where meta-gaming is disallowed and punished. Plenty of people choose the club over the rapier (talking 5e here) for rp reasons, paying no mind to the min/max effects. It should come as no surprise that people want the same experience in a video game.
What people are worried about who don't want meters really doesn't have anything to do with meters (although the occasional 'toxicity' argument appears, it hardly holds water and I doubt the people making it have much experience in FFA PvP Loot games, which are historically hyper toxic).
The issue is that every build that is 'sub optimal' quickly becomes shed from the game, destroying player identity and agency as they become compelled to conform or be exiled. Combat parsing is how you get from 64 classes to 4. Combat parsing is how the cries for hyper balance (and unachievable dream) result in the watering down of every class until they are basically the same as every other class with only animation differences. Class identity and player agency are vital to retain a healthy player base, and protecting the individuality of classes and the ability for players to choose is a worthwhile cause.
― Plato
A similar game here is Archeage.
In many ways, Archeage is very similar to Ashes.
There are many builds for players to pick from, and all characters can be what ever class/build they wish for virtually nothing. Players are essentially free to change their class and build at will, as often as they like.
It also has very low combat tracker use (the one tracker I know of for the game had single digit downloads when I saw it).
So, if your theory that a combat tracker is what causes a meta game in terms of builds (players basically dictating what builds others can have), then it would have to follow that there would be none of this activity in Archeage.
I mean, no combat trackers, freedom to change class/build as often as you want, players should be free to play how they want according to your theory, right?
Thing is, for the 4 years I played that game fairly in depth, the meta of the game was restricted to exactly 5 classes. If you were not one of those 5 classes, you were not participating in anything other than under-manned public events.
When I looked at the game a few years after I left, the game still had that same meta. So, for at least 7 years, the games meta didn't change - even though the classes themselves changed fairly drastically.
The reason for this is fairly obvious, when you are the only one running a combat tracker and can actually see what is going on.
People discovered a few classes that were fairly good right at the start of the game (in this case, during the Korean beta - before the game was even being considered for translation to English). From that point, those classes became what people expected. Since there was no way to objectively assess potential new builds (or - most people thought there was no way), they simply held on to the meta that was generally working well enough for them.
A combat tracker doesn't restrict the builds that players can run - other players restrict that. Players will do this regardless of a combat tracker being in use or not.
The advantage of a combat tracker to those that want more build variety is that it will allow those wanting to run different builds the ability to prove their build to others.
I have no real intention to run pick up content in Ashes. However, if I did, and there were no combat trackers, you had better believe I would require people run a build I am familiar with.
Throw in a tracker, and I'm happy to let anyone I am taking along on content to try out any build they wish, as long as they are willing to change it if it isn't working.
Just as I should probably know in D&D that I probably want a +1 or +2 weapon rather than a newbie +0 weapon. I don't need numbers to identify higher tiers of quality.
Also, I don't need numbers to tell me that a sword will likely do more damage than a dagger.
In the Alpha One Preview, when I was ready to switch from a Worn Mace to something better, I chose a Spear that did not have the [Worn] tag because they didn't have any other Maces and Spear seemed the closest fit to Cleric. I did not need numbers to tell me Spear was better at AOE than the Mace. And I didn't need numbers to tell me how much more damage the new Spear did compared to the Worn Mace.
Also, because in D&D Clerics were basically limited to blunt weapons, even in Ashes, my Cleric would stick to Maces and Hammers - possibly a Spear - if I were going for a tribal theme.
I would not have my Cleric use a Dagger, Sword or Ax regardless of how much better the stats might be.
I mean, that is what it seems like you are saying, but that just makes it look like you have never played a game with progression at all. Did they not have progression in Wizard 101?
The main area of caution would be around the bosses where your performance unlocks harder bosses in a chain. I'm not sure how the transition will occur. Sometimes it will be clear that you've steamrolled a boss and can expect a harder boss next, but, other times you will do it by the skin of your teeth and you won't necessarily be aware whether the next boss is harder or not.
This was a suggestion I made on these forums about 3 years ago.
The issue with an outright opt in is that it will segregate the playerbase. People will run pick up groups requiring combat trackers be turned on.
On the other hand, if the combat trackers are guild only, you can't force people not in your guild to opt in or out, and for the most part, people join guilds of likeminded players so it shouldn't ever be an issue within a guild.
I think that this can be combatted by making the leveling process an extremely laborious one, with the intent being that by the time the base figures out what the prime builds are its too late to effectively reroll for the majority of players. I also hope that combat is structured in a way that the differences between a PvE build and a PvP build are negligible, more of a matter of convenience than anything.
My concern remains that having having too much access to data creates a culture of limited player agency/identity, and centers the game on the spreadsheet side instead of the immersion side.
I’ll thrive in either environment, but I prefer one that gives me opportunities to experiment with my build and keeps me in the practical application side of the game versus the theoretical side.
Like Bobby Fischer, I think chess was better before everything was memorized, if that analogy works for you.
Another comparison is an FPS; I like getting my hands on a gun and deciding which one has a feel I like, as opposed to looking at the raw metrics and pigeonholing myself into something that doesn’t work for me. I think adaptive play styles are more interesting than fixed systems.
Cheers
Again, look at Archeage.
The meta was set in beta - you can't really get earlier than that. You can't say that not having combat trackers slows that down.
To address the specific part above, when it comes to builds that players will accept from others, it is not up to the game, the developers or Steven. It is up to us players.
If you want to break away from that meta (which, incidentally, I almost always do), your best bet is to be able to demonstrate where your build sits in relation to similar builds - how much better or worse it is in various situations. If group and raid leaders can see this, they are far, FAR more likely to let you bring what ever build you want along. It is only if your build is straight up not suitable for the content that people are likely to ask you to change it - keep in mind that unlike games like WoW, individual player reputation means something in games like WoW , so people won't be booting others from groups without really good reasons.
There will be some people that can't make heads or tails of data, and will insist that you run with a meta build. I don't for a second doubt this. But these people would insist on that regardless of whether a combat tracker exists or not.
The demands that people run specific builds will be at it's worst without a combat tracker, when there is no way to see how the off-meta build performs. As soon as it is able to be objectively assessed, as long as it is good enough, most people will let you run it.
You and I want the same thing here - we want the meta in Ashes to be varied (and ideally to be shifting over time).
The difference is, I know for a fact that this won't happen without a tracker, because that is the evidence we have at hand.