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
I see your one of the forum peeps that thinks there is only one valid point of view. Fine I will tell you some of my zen gaming in PvP games.
In ESO, right in Cyrodiil I used to farm crafting resources. You watch what part of the map was getting heat and just avoid the large groups. You would run into one or two people or small groups of people. A community gesture to show you where not there to PvP was to go into block stance. Most people would just leave you be. Sure some people would PvP anyways but that's the game.
Used to do much the same in Liniage. I don't get upset when you die in PvP even when your not logging into PvP, because that's the game you bought into. I was at the launch of DAoC and even there, playing my Minstrel, learned how to enjoying playing solo in the PvP battleground. Ashes will be no different.
Ashes will have a community that will have their own unique tells when someone does not want to PvP, most will respect that and some will not. Guilds often have large number of players that will come to the aid of crafters that get harassed by someone when they do not want to PvP. This is a fact. Ashes will be no different.
It's nice you are worried I don't know what's I'm asking for and that you want to protect me from what you think is my naivete but I have been MMOing since the very first MMO dropped. I been gaming since pong was something new and flashy. So please, don't worry about me, I again, know what I'm asking for.
No one is stopping you from using Steam Deck to play Ashes.
However, the naïveté starts to seep in when players hold on to that glimmer of hope that farming runs will be incident-free … and then trying to defend themself while confined to the “robust” suite of controls and UI on Steam Deck.
That's not even the topic of this discussion but ok. Ty
Wait, how are the controls and UI the problem?
Wouldn't the issue be the frame drops/lag? A Steam deck is basically the equivalent of most modern controllers or better, and it has both of the alternate internal input mapping systems, right?
(I thought this conversation was seriously about input lag making PvP hard)
It is more about latency than anything else to me, but input is a valid point.
While some may like controllers, there is literally no arguing the fact that when developers first started allowing cross platform play (specifically in FPS games), console players were absolutely smashed by PC players, forcing developers to need to add in mechanics to assist said console players.
Basically, controllers are only an accepted means of input when mouse and keyboard are an option because developers give controllers an assist.
This isnt the case in some MMO's, but it is the case in some more action oriented MMO's (Planetside 2, for example).
So, your answer here is basically that you use your steam deck to harvest in PvP games and avoid PvP.
My point isnt about "protecting" you. I dont give a shit about you.
My point is that any argument that the steam deck is a valid reason as to why Intrepid should ad Linux support is simply false.
There may or may not be other reasons for them to add it, but the steam deck simply isnt one.
Your insistence that you could use it just fine if you avoid PvP only backs up my assertion.
"My point is that any argument that the steam deck is a valid reason as to why Intrepid should ad Linux support is simply false."
Shows how little you grasp. 3 million Linux gamers growth in the past 2 years, most never using Linux before the Steam Deck. The advancements in proton has made it easy to take windows games run them on Linux platform.
Developers now only need to support proton and make sure their anticheat software supports Linux. How I use it was just in reply to the dumb comments you made about how useless it would be. How others use it, is all on them.
Steam OS Gaming rigs has become a real thing, this goes beyond the Steam Deck. IS needs to do very little to make Ashes playable on Linux. Support proton and anticheat is all they need to do, thanks to Valve and their Steam Deck.
Its not the same story from 3 years ago. More and more people are trying to find ways get to away from Windows Gaming, especially with the pushing of ads that continue to grow on the platform.
I know many, many people with steam decks (and other portable PC's, a number of which are windows based). Most MMO players I know don't even consider buying a portable PC though.
Literally zero of those people even consider playing MMORPG's on them.
You do. Good for you. You're an outlier, yay!
The thing is, if most people with a steam deck aren't going to even consider playing an MMO (even if outliers exist). Those small few that do, as you have said, have no real option other than to avoid what is arguably the most important aspect of Ashes - PvP.
So, 3 million players out of hundreds of millions of gamers have a steam deck (already a really small percentage of overall gamers), and the bulk of that few are in the hands of non-MMO gamers, and the small handful that are in the hands of people that would play an MMO won't be able to participate in the major aspect of Ashes - and so are likely to simply pick a different game.
All of these things add up to the realization that no one is likely to pick Ashes up specifically due to any steam deck support Intrepid could add. Literally the only thing it would do is give some people that are already playing the ability to play a fraction of the game while on the go.
In other words, Intrepid don't stand to make any actual return on any effort they put in to make this happen.
This is an assumption that is false. There are many guides, channels and youtubers that help people do this. In my circle friends of gamers, I know many that use their decks for MMOing. Also, as I mentioned that you keep skipping over. Steam OS does such a great job at gaming. People are building for gaming PCs or duel booting to play games on Steam OS. This is a growing market that needs little to support. You dont need to make a Linux copy of the game. Just support Proton and Pick an anticheat that supports seeing the Linux. Its not allot of man power.
Now we’re back to my question again: If it’s so easy to support Proton, why isn’t this a slam dunk for Intrepid?
Other than the anti-cheat workaround pointed out by Noaani, what are the Linux proponents in this thread not telling us?
There are many. MMOs often have problems with people not keeping their drives up to date. Causing all sorts of problems. Linux drives are baked into the OS. Most driver updates are just part of the OS updates. There remain various components within Windows that are susceptible to breaking hardware drivers. Windows updates are notorious for this. The Linux OS can be installed on pretty much any machine and is much less likely to give you driver misery. This means less developer time to keep the Linux side running smoothly. And as stated, this part of gaming is growing rapidly. I know for myself and I am not alone. What MMO I play will depend on the support of this growing demand. I want to se Ashes capture that.
This is an assumption that is false. [/quote]
I mean, you missed the context.
I was specifically talking about people I know.
It isnt an assumption, because I have talked to these people about this.
It isnt a case of needing a tutorial. It isnt as if it is hard to get running.
It is a case of the actual limitations of a steam deck as a setup, especially when paired with a tethered phone for a connection. Literally every person I have talked to has said the same thing - they would rather play all of a singleplayer game (Factorio is the current popular choice among my friends on steam decks) than play a part of an MMO.
You cant just go saying things are assumptions when they are clearly not. You also cant just remove context from someones point in order to alter the meaning.
MMO's have literally zero problems with this, as it doesnt affect them at all.
You have proven by this post you lack the knowledge to have an intelligent conversation on this topic. It's ok. My posts were never directed to you
See, you missed it.
I did exactly what you did to my post that you quoted earlier - I quoted a portion of your post, took it out of context and attempted to use it to disprove your own point.
Your post was in relation to Linux. I took that part out making it appear as if it was in relation to Windows, and my point was spot on in relation to windows (Nvidia, AMD, Intel and DirectX developers concern themselves with drivers in the Windows ecosystem, third party developers do not).
So, I did literally the same thing you did, and tour first and only comment on my actions were that you thought it made me unfit to participate in this discussion.
What exactly does that say about you and your fitness (or lack thereof) to be a part of this discussion?
I mean, you can't realistically make the claim that me doing a thing makes me unfit (ignoring the fact I did it on purpose to elicit exactly the above reaponse), yet you doing the same thing doesnt make you unfit - so which is it?
I would say that quoting the small percentage of players on linux can be misleading. I like to believe that a motivating factor of that is simply that those players HAVE to stay on Windows because Linux support is lacking in games they want to play. If there was truly equal support across most games, I'd expect that number to be a lot higher (maybe 10%?), and quickly growing. I am pretty confident in saying that most people are starting to get fed up with Windows, it's insane in-OS advertisements, and all of its bloatware. But maybe my strong disdain of these things is causing me to misjudge the tolerance others have for this stuff.
However, I do agree this isn't Intrepid's problem to solve. They should do what allows them to provide the best player experience possible. But it would be nice if they didn't commit to decisions that would make it prohibitively difficult to support Linux in the future (e.g. anti-cheat software).
I preordered this game because I love what this studio is trying to do. Crowd sourcing product development feedback? That is so freaking awesome to see. Even if I never play this game, supporting that idea is worth my investment.
I love Linux for a lot of the same reasons I invested in this game. Because it's BY the people and FOR the people.
I'll use Windows if I have to, but I won't be happy about it. I will still play. But my heart will be forever saddened. And a piece of my soul will die every time I have to wait 15 seconds on boot for Cortana to load so I can open the start menu.
If Intrepid does end up making this game in a way that is compatible with Linux, I will be a huge promoter (I should say 'even bigger promotor'). And I will be shouting "Shut up and take my money!" from the rooftops.
P.S. I'd love to see a user poll on the number of players that would play on Linux. Maybe closer to launch or after launch, to get a more accurate player sample.
This is - to me - the key point.
The discussion that could move Linux forward in regards to gaming isn't a discussion that the general public would be involved in. That discussion would be between Linux developers and game developers.
I'm all for them having that discussion, but again, it isnt something we will be a part of.
I'm also a crafter main in all my MMOs. I am very interested in everything I've heard about AOC (and have already joined a guild that supports my desired play style). I may or may not play on my Steam Deck but playing on the Deck means I die when I get attacked, that's par for the course for me in EVERY game I play with PVP, on Deck or not.
I have confidence that if AOC is not restricted from running on Linux the Linux community will be thrilled to make it work and I'll be thrilled to play it. If I have to boot onto my Windows drive (which I haven't done in over a year) to play AOC, I may do that, but I'm not happy with the idea at all. Just to offer another individual point of view.
With the ending of support for windows 10 looming and the aversion to windows 11 looming I'm desiring switching to Linux. Ashes being the main reason I'll still want windows currently.
I understand why Intrepid doesn't 'officially' want to support Linux.
I only ask that they enable Easy Anti Cheat Linux support. It's two check boxes.
Beyond that they can leave it up to the community to figure out how to make it work, and no dev time needs to be allocated to it. Proton and Wine will handle most of the legwork as long as EAC isn't saying 'No'.
I would LOVE if Ashes were playable on Linux, even if only through Proton/Wine/etc. Ensuring that I can play AOC is pretty much the only reason I even still have the option to boot Windows on my computer.
Cool, go talk to the developers and contributors for Linux and ask them to provide what a competitive game needs in order to make game developers want to use Linux.
Because it is the fact that Linus isn't offering a secure platform from the perspective of the game developer that is the primary reason a game like Ashes won't support it. Linux offers the user of the OS many tools, and it is these very tools that make it so the game developer can't trust that platform.
Please don't take this as rage bait or something, it isn't intended that way. But I am curious as to what makes you believe Linux isn't a secure environment.
Some of the most successful competitive games of all time are functional in Linux. Valve for example, has native versions of all of their games, Counter Strike 2, Dota 2, Team Fortress 2, etc.
Not to mention World of Warcraft and Guild Wars 2 function on Linux, both of which I have played on my Linux machine.
Seems to me that trust in the Platform is not likely the problem here. Even as a Linux enjoyer myself, and I play my entire Steam library minus 1 game on Linux, for which I have a dual boot of Windows, even I am prepared to admit that the Linux community may just be too small of a market for their intentions right now.
With that said, trust in the platform isn't the reason this may be a problem for now.
In the case of Valve, the decision to run on Linux is purely for Steamdeck compatibility (the idea of the Steamdeck has been with Valve for almost a decade).
Blizzard has long been well aware that they can't prevent cheating in WoW. They only attempt to punish the most egregious/obvious examples now (ie, banning thousands of accounts using the same commercially available cheat).
I don't know enough about GW2 to be able to state what I see happening there with the same certianty as I can with the above, but I would suspect it is the same.
Fact is, Linus puts the user first, Windows puts the application first. That is why I want to use Linux, but know I won't be able to for a lot of what I do.
That has been changing steadily however, and most of my 400 game library on steam and including non-steam games (about 40 games) are Linux compatible. Ashes of Creation and Gray Zone were the only two pieces of software that made me keep Windows in ANY capacity. And now that Gray Zone Warfare is functional via Proton, only Ashes of Creation keeps my Windows partition installed.
Let's look at games that are exclusively developed for Windows, take Call of Duty: Warzone as an example. I don't believe anyone in the gaming community would argue that CoD: Warzone is a paragon of the cheating free community. If anything it's one of the worst offenders.
It seems to me the most reasonable conclusion here is that cheating software is developed for both platforms. Just due to the dominance of Windows, it is likely there are more cheating softwares available for Windows than for Linux. Though it would not be a simple task to prove that with data, it is likely a safe assumption to make just due to popularity.
This part is true - it is just easier to hide them on Linux.
As to Linux being mostly for the more tech savvy, I agree - though I am of the opinion that a large part of the reason for this is that in the time I could install windows, set up the system, install a game and then play that game to completion, I would still be researching Linux distro options.
The key point is to ensure that, if the developers do decide to implement an anti-cheat system, it is designed with cross-platform compatibility in mind. Anti-cheat systems should recognize that Linux users are not inherently more likely to cheat, and that using Wine or Proton does not equate to malicious behavior. Many anti-cheat systems, unfortunately, flag legitimate Linux users as false positives simply because they’re not running a standard Windows environment.
A proactive approach would be for the developers to either work with established, Linux-friendly anti-cheat solutions or to design their own with a focus on avoiding these false positives.
Now, to address the concern some might have about the complexity of this task:
While it’s true that anti-cheat systems are complex, adding Linux support isn't necessarily as daunting as it might seem. Several popular anti-cheat systems, like Easy Anti-Cheat and BattlEye, have already made strides in supporting Linux environments via Wine/Proton. By collaborating with these vendors or learning from their approaches, developers can implement a system that recognizes the nuances of a Linux environment without starting from scratch.
Moreover, the open-source nature of many Linux tools and the active Linux gaming community mean that there are plenty of resources and knowledgeable contributors who are more than willing to help address potential challenges. This community support can significantly reduce the burden on developers and lead to more robust, well-tested solutions.
In the grand scheme, ensuring Linux compatibility for anti-cheat is an investment in accessibility and inclusivity. The time and effort spent now to prevent issues will save developers from dealing with a frustrated segment of their player base down the line. And let’s not forget, a growing number of gamers are migrating to Linux, especially as support from platforms like Steam increases. Ensuring compatibility now is a forward-thinking strategy that positions the game well for the future.
I respectfully disagree with the notion that cheats are easier to hide on Linux. This is a common misconception, but it doesn't hold up under closer scrutiny.
First, let's consider the landscape of anti-cheat systems: Most major anti-cheat solutions are designed with Windows in mind, given the platform's dominance in the gaming market. Because of this, the development of cheat detection tools has historically been more robust and focused on Windows. While this means that there may be more cheats developed for Windows, it doesn't necessarily follow that cheats are easier to hide on Linux.
On Linux, the situation is a bit different: Linux’s open-source nature is a double-edged sword. While it provides users with great flexibility and control over their system, this same transparency can work against cheaters. Linux’s open nature allows for a high level of scrutiny and the ability for anti-cheat developers to inspect and analyze how cheats might operate within the system. Additionally, because the Linux community is generally smaller and more tight-knit, cheating often attracts more attention and can be addressed more quickly by knowledgeable users.
Moreover, the idea that cheats are easier to hide on Linux overlooks some key technical challenges: Linux, with its wide variety of distributions and configurations, doesn't offer a one-size-fits-all environment for cheat developers. This diversity means that cheats must be adapted for different setups, which is no small feat. In contrast, the more uniform environment of Windows actually makes it easier to develop cheats that work across a broad user base.
Lastly, it’s important to remember that hiding cheats effectively is challenging on any platform: Whether on Linux or Windows, effective anti-cheat systems employ a variety of methods to detect abnormal behavior, whether that’s through monitoring memory, checking for unauthorized processes, or analyzing game data for inconsistencies. These methods apply just as effectively on Linux as they do on Windows.
Linux's open nature allows the user to set what any application can see running.
You're being deliberately malicious it feels like.
The statement that "Linux's open nature allows the user to set what any application can see running" is partially true but can be misleading without proper context. Let me break it down:
Process Visibility:
On Linux, processes running on the system are typically visible to all users by default. This visibility is controlled by the /proc filesystem, where each process has a directory with information about it.However, with certain permissions and configurations, users can limit what other users or applications can see. For example, by mounting /proc with the hidepid option, users can restrict visibility of processes to only those owned by the same user or to root.This does mean that with enough knowledge, a user can configure their system to limit what certain applications (including anti-cheat software) can see. But this isn't a Linux-exclusive capability—Windows has similar features for restricting access to certain processes or resources.
Application Control:
Linux's open nature provides a high degree of control over how applications run and what resources they can access. For instance, a user can use tools like AppArmor or SELinux to set strict security policies that govern what applications can see or do.However, this level of control requires considerable knowledge and effort to configure correctly. It's not something that the average user would typically modify unless they are specifically trying to create a highly secure or restricted environment.Implications for Anti-Cheat:
While it is possible for a knowledgeable user to restrict what an anti-cheat application can see on Linux, doing so could raise red flags with well-designed anti-cheat systems. If an anti-cheat system detects that it is being restricted or isolated in a way that prevents it from functioning correctly, it might flag this behavior as suspicious.It's also worth noting that similar techniques can be employed on Windows using various tools and configurations, so this isn't a Linux-specific issue.