Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
With a zero PK count, the start of a murder spree (one or two kills) will hardly be felt.
With a PK count of 10, i5 will.
You represented it as if you could kill 10 players and not feel the effects - which is always going to be incorrect regardless of PK count.
No, he didn't.
He specifically said with 10 PK's under your belt.
PK is a specific mechanic, as you claim to know, and so that is the specific term he used as he was talking about having 10 PK's, not killing 10 players.
Again, you misrepresented that - and just confirmed as much in the above post.
I really dunno why you think I'm misinterpreting this mechanic.
edi: added details that forgot to mention at first
Killing 10 non-combatants gives corruption.
Both combatants and non-combatants are players.
Meh. I was just answering your direct question above.
Yeah it would have been kind of tedious to explain what I meant in detail, so I just used percentages to kind of give a roundabout representation of the overall feel of a game measured against pve and pvp. Not that you can precisely measure things like that.
If Steven has said that then that's just that, he said it. I haven't seen it but I have no reason to disbelieve you. But he'd be technically wrong. Technicality aside, it's his game, he can define griefing however he wants. I'm not sure why he'd purposefully build griefing into his game then, when he could just....not.
Other games allow you to kill people when they don't want to be killed. They're not programming griefing into their game. They're programming open pvp into their game. What they're telling you is that this is a feature of the game and by playing the game you are consenting to this feature, to the extent that the developer intends.
I will be killed as a noncombatant in Ashes. When the fact that I actually have no loot on me coincides with someone I don't like thinking I'm loaded with loot and attacking me, I might let him kill me and give him a murder count, since I have nothing to lose other than death penalty. I might even fake run away, pretend like I'm trying to get away. I wouldn't want him to give up the attack thinking I have nothing. I am a noncombatant that has been killed. Have I been griefed?
Even if I did actually want to get away because I was full of loot, but failed...I mean you're damn right I want to get away. I'm pulling out every stop to try to get away. But homeboy knew I was full of loot, he took the risk, he's going to deal with the consequences and he pvped me in an open pvp game. Where is the griefing in this? I just can't see it. I'm not even close to seeing it.
So I wouldn't necessarily take Steven's words as gospel. Yes, he's making the game and the final word on features and system will always come from him, but he's just another player with his own definitions for things, because mmo community never really came together to set strict rules and definitions for things.
at 38:40
Typically, if I'm on a PvP-Optional server and am PKed more than twice per week I'm going to rage-quit to a PvE -Only. So, that's my baseline for rare.
In an 8-hour play session. I'm in the mood for PvP for about 1 hour.
And the end of that hour, I'm done.
I will leave what-ever town I was defending and find some typically secluded are to Gather or farm mobs.
If I'm PKed more than two times after that, I will rage quit.
Obviously, if I'm doing stuff in enemy territory, I expect locals to be in KoS mode.
Obviously, if I'm harvesting high-demand resources, I expect that rivals might be in KoS mode.
But, if I'm out in my local area and farming quest mobs and/or focused on completing local quests - Corruption needs to be strong enough that I don't have to be worried about being killed more than twice when I refuse to fight back during those 7 hours, just because some PvP fan wants to have fun PKing Non-Combatants.
I am a hardcore-time, casual-challenge player. Which means I'm up for hardcore-challenge for about 1 hour out of an 8-hour session. I might spend an hour farming rare resources, happily dealing with whatever combat arises because it's a highly contested area. But, if I then move to a low-key area local to my home, minding my own business, farming fairly common resources and/or completing local quests... Corruption needs to be strong enough that other players leave me because there are plenty of other PvP opportunities that don't risk Corruption and don't have death penalties. The risk v reward assessment should result in people concluding that their reward isn't worth the hassle of Corruption.
So, yes, I would consider myself to be playing in an area where PKing shouldn't be happening. Because better rewards are elsewhere.
If I'm not in the mood for PvP, I won't be in a place where I think people should be bothered by my presence.
I expect someone who wants to spend 50% of their time doing PvP to be focused on Sieges and Caravans.
Because there are no death penalties as well as no Corruption, so...there is basically no risk for attacking unless you actually have goods on the Caravan.
Rushing to endgame is inconsequential because Ashes doesn't have an endgame. And max level Adventurer really has no bearing on PvP gameplay, you pretty much do the same stuff at max Adventurer level that you do on the journey to max Adventurer.
You will still be trying to defend Caravans to support the progress of your home Node and attack rival Nodes to interfere with the progress of rival Nodes. That is a neverending cycle that does not simply begin with max Adventurer level.
Some resources needed defend and progress a Node may, indeed, affect PvE-focused players.
There may be times when it's best for Master Gatherers to be protected by an entourage of Adventurer bodyguards. Especially, when Harvesting in Dungeons and Raids with rare resources that only a Master Gatherer can Harvest.
But that is part of the risk v reward assessment, "For now, I'm going to try to get these high stakes rewards and getting PKed a couple of times is worth that."
Along with the flipside, "I'm going to try to get these high stakes rewards and getting Corruption a couple of times is worth that."
But, those kinds of choices should be quite clear and fairly easily managed.
"I'm gonna spend some time where PvP combat is highly likely to occur."
"I'm gonna spend some time where PvP combat is highly unlikely to occur."
And it should be rare that PKing is occuring in local areas with common, low-stakes resources.
Like, if it's night time and I'm in a part of town where violence is rampant, I understand the risks of hanging out there. If it's daytime and I'm in the part of town where violence is low, I should be fairly confident that the penalties for violence will make my encounters with violence rare.
I should know fairly well how to manage how often I encounter unwanted violence. If the penalties for violence are working as they should to deter violence.
Same reason why when you watch hockey, you never know whether you should be watching the puck or watching the fight.
I don't know what other games you mean.
If it's a PvP-focused game, such as Shadowbane, killing other players when they don't want to be killed will not have a penalty like Corruption.
If it's a PvX game with no separate playstyle servers, where the devs want people who typically play on PvE-Only servers to play on the same servers as PvP fans, you can expect a steep penalty for killing people who don't fight back.
Yes. Not fighting back is the signal that you do not want to engage in PvP combat. If someone takes away your player agency by continuing to attack you and they land the killing blow, they will be penalized with Corruption. Doesn't matter whether you "feel grief".
The specific reason why you choose not to fight back is irrelevant.
And, yes, there will be times when people choose to take the consequences for griefing someone.
It's the same for intentionally fouling someone in basketball. There are times when people are willing to accept the penalties for that.
Also:
https://vanilla-wow-archive.fandom.com/wiki/Griefing
"Blizzard isn't against griefing behavior when there's a PvP remedy."
"A griefer in World of Warcraft is almost always one who PKs or trains mobs to other characters, but the term includes any activity specifically designed to hamper another player's gameplay, progress, or fun."
Corruption is designed to deter griefing; not prevent it.
That does not counter what I've been saying; it supports what I've been saying.
So, yeah, take these quotes of Steven's as gospel.
He's not just another player with his own definitions - Steven is the Creative Director for Ashes and his definitions communicate his game design philosophy.
And for you own sake I hope that the game turns out how you think it will, cause I know I'll be just fine if I won't be able to PK a few people once a week, but you'd obviously leave the game if you get killed a few too many time (of which are not even that many). I'm sure there's way more people who're close to your line of thinking than to mine, so I'd rather have the game cater a bit more to your preferences than mine. It's just that from what I've seen/heard so far, I'm not quite sure that's the case.
But only the time will tell the truth.
Those 10 PK's could have happened years prior. You gained corruption for each kill, but worked it off. Even after working that corruption off, you still have those 10 PK's.
The discussion Steven was talking about started with you having had that 10 PK count, and THEN going on a killing spree. He said - if you go and listen to the whole thing, that with an existing PK count even as low as 10, you will notice the effects in terms of the combat penalties basically immediately.
The way you represented it was that a player could start with nothing and kill 10 players before feeling the effects of corruption. That is not what Steven said at all. Hence, you misrepresented it, and are still misrepresenting it, as just above here...
It is also worth pointing out that there was no discussion at all from Intrepid about how many kills you would need before you start to feel the effects of combat penalties if you have a zero PK count.
For someone that claims to understand the system, you sure do seem to want to show us all how you don't understand the system.
Here in the social tab you see the line of "Karma... PvP/PK"
The pvp counter ticks up when you kill a combatant. PK counter ticks up when you kill a non-combatant. Karma goes up after every non-combatant kill and gets multiplied by the PK counter (not a direct multiplier, but a weighed ratio or however it's called).
If you have 0 PK count, you might get 300 Karma for killing a dude on your lvl. And that kill would give you 1 PK. You can then go and kill maybe 3-5 mobs of your lvl and remove the karma (or you could die and lose XP).
If you then kill another dude on the same lvl, you'd get smth like 320 karma and your PK would go up to 2. The same amount of mobs would be enough again.
After 8 other kills (at whatever moment in time), you'll have 10 PK. And the next kill of the same dude on the same lvl would now give you maybe 1k Karma (I don't remember exact values, but it's not important rn). Now you need twice the mobs to cleanse it, and if you die you'll probably drop a piece of gear and some random resources.
Steven literally copied this exact system and added a penalty of "stat dampening" (with impactful values at higher PK counts). The "increased death penalty and a chance to drop shit" was in L2 so this is not an addition to the system.
So now I say yet again, I understand the system (because I've played with it for 12 years). I didn't misinterpret Steven's quote. If anything, I could've taken it even further in my interpretation and say "you only feel the stat dampening when you go on a murder rampage after already having 10 PKs on you", which would mean that you need even more than 10 PKs to feel the impact of the corruption penalties.
But I didn't say that. I said that at your first PK (your counter being 0) you'll barely notice any effects (if at all). But on your 11th kill (your counter being 10 before it), you'd notice some substantial stat dampening.
And my comment of "deterring mechanisms start to work only around 10th murder" still applies because, as Steven literally said, you will not feel the effects of stat dampening after 1 kill. But after you've killed 10 people (AT WHATEVER TIME), your each new kill will give you a ton of corruption so the effects of the penalty will be tangible.
And on this post I'm going to sleep. If you still think I don't understand a system that I've experienced for 12 years, I dunno what else to say.
So every foul committed in basketball is griefing? And Steven programmed griefing into the game so that he could put in rules to stop griefing? Or, did he program open world, contesting of resources pvp into the game, and then put in rules to stop it from turning into griefing.
It's hard to even respond to most of this. One of the core philosophies of Ashes is the "contesting of resources." If someone contests your resources within the rules of the game, it doesn't matter whether you want to fight or not. That's your choice, per the rules. If they kill you anyway that's their choice, per the rules. You're being killed for a legitimate, intended reason, in a legitimate, intended way. One day, the guy that just killed you is also going to be killed at a time when he doesn't want to fight.
Did he call you a racial slur after he killed you? Did he use some kind of hack or exploit? Are he and 15 of his friends spawn killing you repeatedly for no other apparent reason than to cause you grief? These things are not legitimate or intended. You're being griefed. You didn't sign up for all of that. Those things were explicitly in the TOS as against the rules.
You did sign up for forced open world pvp though. You can't just be like ohhh look at me I'm going to join an open world pvp game and then declare it griefing when I'm killed when I don't wanna be killed.
Or perhaps, obviously you can. It's 2022 lol. fuck it ya know haha whatever. Just make up definitions and shit.
I think we just disagree, which happens. But here's the wiki on griefing again. Seems like a pretty rational, neutral take on griefing. UNLESS IT WAS SECRETLY WRITTEN BY A GRIEFER dun dun dun....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer
Here, I'll quote you in this exact post I am replying to where you misrepresent Stevens quote
What Steven said is
So, lets assume you actually understood the statement from Steven above. The very first thing you are doing, after Steven specifically said that the numbers given are not numbers or a curve for players to extrapolate anything from, is you went ahead and tried to extrapolate something from it.
Stop doing that.
More to the point, stop saying you are not misrepresenting a quote when you are literally doing what Steven said to not do in that exact quote you claim to be not misrepresenting.
L2's karma system changed alot throughout the updates in a upwards trend in harshness,
The example you gave would be reasonable for the first chronicles(till around C4-C6) and if the monsters where something like 3x-5x HP(which directly correlates the monsters XP and therefore to karma reduction per amount of exp(also influenced by private servers exp rate)).
Around Hellbound/Gracia Part 1 versions you would start from 0 PK to 1 PK receiving about 500 Karma and getting about an extra 100 karma per addtional PK count, and it would take around 35-50 1x HP monsters of your level to work it out.
At GoD version they went crazy for a while(was fixed soon after) with the harshest karma system there was, you would start from 0 PK to 1 PK receiving about 700 Karma and getting about an extra 200 karma per addtional PK count and it would take around 700 1x HP monsters of your level to work it out.
Aren't we all sinners?
I tried finding info on Steven's last Chronicle/patch played, but couldn't, and didn't manage to catch him online on discord to ask him (he didn't respond to my pm), so I dunno what his main reference would be. But from what I've heard, he's played Aion and played AA when that came out. So depending on how much Aion he played, he might've left around C6 or maybe ~HF. So in theory he's closer to the old scaling.
But I guess I'm just extrapolating too much, considering that Steven says "first kill doesn't give you shit" and "we don't want to prevent players from having fun PKing, but to prevent them from going too far doing it". I see this system as the main and best change to L2's PK problem, because I've seen and had a ton of PK alts that were just glass canons and ran around buttnaked yet could still kill a ton of people. Had 9999 Karma and didn't care about anything. But Steven's solution prevents this exact interaction while allowing people to PK others once in a while (on top of us being able to decrease the PK count too).
The quote does not say that mechanism only begins around 10PK.
The quote is saying that after you lose the 10th finger, you won't be able to shrug off the effects as easily as you could when you just lost 1 thumb.
4x the death penalties is still a fairly decent deterent.
Doesn't have to be for my sake. I don't have to play.
I want the game to release and I want the Node system to be successful.
If those two things occur, I will be ecstatic, regardless of whether I actually play.
I'm supporting devs who are creating mechanics that I want to see in future games, like the Node system - and at this point, their character creator - and I'm also supporting some of my friends who are on the dev team.
If the game is too PvP-centric for me, it will just confirm my skepticism about playing games that try to have PvP-sometimes players on the same servers as PvP fanatics.
But, it will basically mean that Corruption is not working as intended - and we will have to see if the PvP fanatics provide enough of a population to sustain the game without the PvE fanatics.
If they can, that's great!!
lets say there 2 cities nodes close enough that once one upgrade to metro is gonna block the other progression, these 2 nodes are now competing to hit metropolis, there a valid argument for Node A or ask/diplomacy pvp incentivised players to go to Node B to kill players to slow down there node progression speed.
This would throw them in the corruption bus but it would be helping your node i feel there should be a system that allows for this kind of play when it comes to node competition because there is reason to doing this (not just mindless killing players randomly there incentive for it to help your node secure metro status before Node B beat them there) Mayors should be able to war nodes for reason such as this where player from say Player A node could kill people (Atleast citizens of Player B node and vice versa without corruption hit) much like the caravans system or atleast have a way for pvp players to slow down node progression of other nodes they might be in competition of maybe some PvP mission mayor can ask for that if successful can bump node progress down or lower the XP they gain for nodes for a duration.
''Experience an MMORPG where everything is permanently impactedby your actions – explore, trade, build, and let the world take form''
This language is commonly used in games that offer little to no content. Survival games, sand box games...whatever they're called, games based on little content...while there is a big focus on PVP. This game is even inventing some new ''category'' PVX you can read in this forums...which is like keep on adding on nonsense. The only games that are truly popular and have survived ''the test of time'' are Final Fantasy, Elder Scrolls Online, World of Warfcraft...and all those game have certain things in common. Imense PVE content, adding continuously new PVE content, a lot of group play, community...anything else is a recipe for empty servers within a couple of months just like New World...and all the rest.