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
Because all aspects should be PvX. I understand what you're saying, but the polar opposite to your PVE zone would be a zone exclusively for PVP, not a PVE area that autoflags PVP. Am I explaining this well enough?
And I agree with this completely. That's why I asked somewhere earlier if Steven was actually trying to make a 'bigger than ArcheAge' game or not.
If Intrepid isn't aiming that high, then it's a non-issue. The approach taken to those who disagree with this decision is correct. There's not much point in 'letting those people think that they will enjoy Ashes' and then they leave and everything looks like it is failing. Stable population is important.
I'm simply pointing out to anyone who didn't understand the potential reasoning. If the response is 'well don't play then', that's great, no sarcasm at all. I just wanted to make sure that the 'don't play then' wasn't based on 'you're not interested in PvP so don't play' and closer to 'You don't want to be annoyed by a higher population of griefer-minds, so don't play' (in your case, you find those people to be good content and I don't, as example).
Yes, we are on the same page. The way I look at ashes future honestly is that, to me, it will be an amazing PVX mmo, and if they pull it off it will likely be my favorite game. That being said, I don't know if it will be the most popular MMO simply because it's design isn't intended to take everyone into account, it's being designed for players who enjoy both PVE and PVP.
I don't think anyone is in the position to make this call.
There was going to be a lot of awkwardness with ships and the corruption system so this probably will make it a better experience for players who are interested in that kind of content. It also could make the game better for people who don't want to pvp since more pvp minded players will move towards the ocean, which people could avoid.
There is also the question of what other features already existed in the game to push away the same group of people who don't like this change. How many of those people are going to be turned off by getting their caravans raided, being attacked at farming spots, or having their node raised?
Guild wars and node wars, battlegrounds included where players can kill them without corruption.
I believe your argument here is close to 'saying that Dygz and I are rare'?
Dygz has specific interest in at least two of those things and I have interest in three.
I am 'in the group of people who don't like this change but were explicitly looking forward to all those other things'. Am I correct in my understanding?
I see no reason for complexity with ships, because the Corruption system only works based on kills right now anyway, and if Naval Content is anything like ArcheAge according to my research, the ship goes down LAST. I don't understand what you are seeing. Corruption is for KILLS, not attacks. Where is the awkwardness?
For technical problems technical solutions can be found. They should be discussed. If this was the reason for the change this solution sounds lazy to me.
Very many. And very many never considered Ashes because of these mechanics (I am not saying they should be removed). And now they are doubling down deesign-wise without a good reasoning apart from the almighty 'risk-vs-reward' where many cannot see what this has to do with corruption. So for many that stuck around and swallowed all these lemons, this will be the last drop. That is what I fear.
You have to remember that the corruption system is kind of the holy grail of the PvE player. Touch it at your own peril.
In regards to corruption and ship pvp, I think he means if there is someone on a ship killed by a player or a few on another ship with many players, it could entail possibly corrupting the entirety of the ships crew when they didn't want it to happen.
Edit: I meant PvE players, of course.
I'd assume that they implemented it, and once they tested perhaps made a judgement call saying that having to flag for this content was bad gameplay
I don't see how. I admit I have not finished my research into the minutiae of ArcheAge's mechanics.
Is the person on the target ship killed by a cannon fired by someone? Cannon firer gets corruption, ship turns purple, if they want to be green they boot the cannon firer.
Is the person on the target ship killed by a magic attack? Magic attacker gets corruption. Same thing.
Is it 'worrying about being corrupted for attacking the ship because you happen to kill the green player'? Also easily solved in my mind. Green ship has all Green crew, captain can flag ship purple or not. Green ship can't fire back. Etc.
Is this above the thing we are considering 'awkward'? I just don't see it as very different from Group Land Combat corruption rules.
Honestly I don't know, that was just my guess. But as I said to @XiraelAcaron , I feel like the real reason is they made a judgement call on the ganeplay
You can add me to 'Definitely PvP' for whom the corruption system is very important.
I don't care about blatantly unfair fights because the Corruption system handles them.
If I am in ur Node, stealin' ur mats, and your 'patrol' kills me and one person gets Corrupted as a result, the outcome is good.
If I am in ur Node for exploration or travel, and your 'patrol' kills me, Corruption still works.
If I am going somewhere and a random pile of griefers kills me, Corruption still works.
The more people I have with me, the higher chance of more Corruption. If I am being attacked on my way somewhere and the attackers just 'attack on sight', I would like to be able to tell them 'no we're just passing through' and they weigh whether or not the Corruption is worth 'making sure I'm not tricking them'.
In any situation where no Corruption exists, there is no longer a reason to not just kill if they can. This now applies to the open ocean. (defenders, please do not bother responding to this by going back to the same 'well the Ocean is supposed to be dangerous, I get it, if you consider that a 'win' for your perspective, I yield).
Then they should tell us that. And I already have a first idea of the top of my head of how you can make corruption work with ships. We can discuss it if you like, but it would turn this discussion in a totally different direction.
Their reason is a mix of game play concepts their designed are planning and working on revolving around PvP and PvE that might be akin to EvE as that is inspiration for the game. And the other is this is their game they are developing creating it in the way they want the gameplay they are designing to be made. People really be out here like this is a released game and now what they were doing before is suddenly changed. When they have no clue how the game is actually going to play for them when all systems are in place and working.
I understand, you were somewhat speaking for @mcstackerson in that, and in good faith relative to Ashes' development, and I agree that the voice of reason in that regard must be heard. I only ask that you accept that 'I just felt like it because I like ArcheAge' could be a reason too, from Steven's side, with no technical backing.
I would much appreciate being enlightened as to a scenario where Corruption would be awkward at sea. Also, I wonder if ship battles will be allowed in Coastal waters?
Will they just not develop any systems for that either? It seems to me that they would have to come up with a working Corruption system for that scenario anyway?
Oh wow, you won't be playing really? thanks for the new input man
Go for it, it's more info for devs
Coastal waters before the open sea... maybe because that's part of the node as the seaside node would have to be part of other wise people could just camp them?
I agree with everything you just said hahaha. Could totally see Steven adding it just because he likes it. And also you are correct in regards to ZOI water, although if it had to do with technicalnissues, it could be as easy as having guards/patrols protecting those areas. Unsure though, but that definitely makes me lean more towards the whole "it's added because it was the desired gameplay" and less for technical issues
Edit: if that's the case at least we can expect corruption to work properly
To be clear, I'm not interested in this part at all.
This whole post is about the reasoning for the change, and whether or not it would affect the gameplay or population in a way that would lead to specific shifts.
If Steven's reason is just 'I don't feel like it, some parts of my game can just be pure PvP all the time because I like it that way', that's absolutely fine.
I feel it would diminish my experience by changing the game's population demographics, and if I am right, I'll stop playing. Other people might 'make a harder assumption than me based on their experiences' and never start. This might be exactly what Intrepid wants. It's all good.
I wasn't meaning to separate you out like that but i can see how you got that idea.
My first paragraph boils down to a better experience for people who like this content possibly and indirect positive affect on players who don't like pvp because of where pvpers will now be.
The second paragraph which i guess is where you got your first statement was asking how many of the players in "you and dygz" group are already turned off by other pvp features of the game. You are in a group of people who don't like the open pvp on the sea but are fine with being attacked while farming, having your caravans raided, being war dec'ed, and having your node raised by a siege.
Archeage's ocean is also a prominent war zone so people can always attack each other. We don't know how prominent boarding will be. I kind of hope it's not that easy so ship v ship is different then zerg v zerg.
To me, the main source of awkwardness I was thinking is from none combat activities on the ship like repairing and driving. Are players engaging in those activities safe unless people want to get corrupted? I already see some awkwardness in large scale fights where people need to attack each other to become combatant. Normally you want to engage hard on a group but with corruption, you are going to want to be careful you don't kill someone before they have had a chance to fight back.
OK, its simple. But please remember its a first shot. I did not think about every last aspect. The main ocean content is done by ships, yes? Then why not have ship owners have a ship corruption status that applies to every ship that is summoned by them and is independent from the players corruption state (or from the other occupants). So you summon a ship and the ship gets corruption (or however you want to call it. Lorewise it is of course total crap) and reduces corruption if it does normal naval gameplay or is sunk. Basically the same as on land, only for ships. You still have auto-flagging zones around caravans/merchant ships/world bosses etc. As a drawback fot going back, red ships cannot go to harbors to be repaired or improved until purple.
Of course, if the reason was to increase the risk on the ocean that will not help. You have to think about something other there.
I think what essentially happened is Steven decided, ok we're making this naval combat system (pretty rare in games). We're making a good one (even rarer). I want an area where this system can really stretch it's legs, where it can really rev it's engines. Where it can be itself in all of it's glory. "This type of change creates a very compelling type of gameplay." - Steven.
And the area they chose fits perfectly with the game's core philosophies and systems, the open sea.
All of the talk of awkwardness in corruption system naval combat, if you use your imagination, as you begin to game out scenarios in your mind, you should be able to see it too. But it's just speculation on our part if that's one of the reasons why he made the change. As we all know, corruption system naval combat will still exist. So by that fact alone, it has to be functional, it has to work as good as possible, even if kind of awkward.
I believe I was singling myself out in an abstract way, which I shouldn't have done due to our communication issues.
So in your case I'll just ask the other question.
"If Corruption is complex in Open Seas, is it also too complex in coastal ship battles?"
oh, I see what you mean. I'm fine with the "open seas" being open PvP, no need for a corruption/flagging system out there in my opinion. Seems pointless plus this allows people to fill that pirate itch
Not going to deter me from wanting to play it. I understand what kind of game it is
Interesting take, how would that negatively affect the players on the ship then? And if it got too corrupted, wouldn't it be as simple as making another?