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
Ok I thought you said just PvE. So you want only PvE in certain areas while keeping PvP alive everywhere else. In theory that could work but I’m not a fan of it because people could just hide away 24/7 in safe zones what could stop someone from doing that? This game is meant to be a challenge and made for PvP everywhere. There is supposed to be a risk at all times. Making a safe zone areas is against the spirit of what the developers want. I see where you’re coming from though but I doubt they will change it. The corruption mechanic is meant to stop people being killed over and over again.
Caravans are still a faster way of transporting more items. That is still useful in PvE servers. Sure people could just carry stuff around but if you want to spend 100 more hours doing something than that is a big tradeoff.
Moving goods faster means you can reach new markets first and make way more money.
does not compute.
As a PvP player, I agree with this guy. Better to play on a PvE server than getting corruption for killing a bot or toxic guys finishing all your mobs or stealing your ressources.
In a PvE server, the message would be clear : “No open world PvP”. In the current state of the rules, the message is: “you can open world PvP but don’t do it”.
The current state of the rules is 'You can Open World PvP but if your opponent doesn't accept your challenge you will face a penalty for killing them'.
If that sounds just like your own interpretation to you, then some might say that Ashes Of Creation is Not For You.
Soft systems like corruption don't prevent griefing, they only act as a deterrance. That's why safe zones exist in the first place, they are nessacary.
Now games like Rust are constant pure open world PvP at all times, and Rust is an awesome game that I love and have put hundreds of hours into.
But in Rust you can kill even the strongest player with a bow and arrow. In an MMO you cannot kill players who are massively stronger than you.
Greifing guilds will exist, and if they are able to grief, they will. The consequences won't stop them from greifing. They'll have alt accounts, they'll have deals with other guilds where they pay them to help them grief other guilds/players they don't like, you can't report RMT if you're not trading items.
Rust is a toxic game with a toxic community, and it's because that is the whole point of an unregulated pure PvP system. It's fun in Rust, but in an MMO? I don't think so.
Caravans are useful in PvE servers for the exact same reasons they are useful in PvP servers. There isn't any difference.
I’ll play the game and decide myself if the game is for me or not )) But thank you for your kind advice.
I will play the game and decide myself if the game is for me or not. But thank you for your kind advice.
I hope so, I wouldn't agree with those people anyway.
Honestly I just want to understand this perspective. I play OwPvP games where people can just gank me and half my health be gone before I even see them, while I am fighting mobs. Those people get a Penalty.
I also recently had an experience where another player wanted a spot where I was gathering, smacked me for a challenge, and we fought. I guess it was First to 3 because after I beat them 3 times they stopped and went to do something else.
But they COULD have easily just killed me, and taken the penalty, because I was in Gathering gear and would have gone down easy enough. They waited for me to 'change gear', 'flag up', 'ping them back to let them know I was ready'.
Do you have a preference for which of those two experiences happens? I don't, but many others do (and I kinda just ignore the first honestly, even I won't fight back sometimes in that case, takes too long to change gear anyway)
If basically all open world PvP was a respectful environment that would be sick, I'd love to PvP while gathering, but only if it's an actual fair fight and not just a random guild rolling through me.
Right but this is, at least partially, what the current system is for. If you REALLY want to kill someone, take the Penalty. If two 'people who are generally willing to fight' meet at a spot they need to contest, both go Purple, they fight.
So I didn't understand what @Myosotys meant. I'm not gonna 'not challenge people' because of Corruption. I'm not going to 'refuse to fight a fair-enough fight' because of it either. I'm gonna PvP.
The points still apply is the entire point of the post, doesn't matter if it's opt-in or a PvE server. If you make a PvE server you still have to change the entire game.
The thing is though, even if someone gets corrupted by killing you, someone who isn't corrupted can just take their place and kill you, and so on.
Disabling PvP in some areas does not require you to make any other changes. Should you make some changes? Possibly, but you do not need to, the game will still function.
Sieges are instanced and consensual, dungeons and world bosses can have PvP enabled in their locations, caravans can have PvP enabled in their vicinity as well. Ruins would still have PvP enabled, and after a siege, freeholds would have PvP enabled. It's literally just turning PvP on and off depending on the context, no actual content needs to be changed. You can even remove the corruption system because greifing wouldn't be possible, so you actually need less work.
Safe zones are very simple and easy to implement.
Intrepid is also not going to magically transform into some out of touch corporation if they add pve servers. Steven has made his vision pretty clear, that's why a lot of us have faith in the game, and that isnt going to change if they decide to add some pve servers.
So much panic in this thread. If Steven and the team decide that adding some pve servers will help support the game, it isnt going to affect us on our pvp servers. Take a deep breath and relax.
not this again. stat dampening wont make that possible. you literally get killed by a high level when you are level 10 and you yell in chat and bounty hunters will go kill that person. he cant cleanse corruption on time. in fact he will probably get soo much corruption and stat dampening than a level 10 might be able to kill a level 50.
Ashes of Creation is NOT a PVE GAME - STOP Trying to Make it One
Sure, but that's intentional. And if Corruption is strong enough, they won't want to. Whereas if one person pings me, and I fight and lose, I move on, and the next person pings me, etc.
If a world where the AVERAGE player doesn't just take the Corruption, exists, it's fine with me, even if I run into a set of them, because I just 'get a PvP fight each time and move on if I lose'. Conflict heavy games always have this 'issue' anyway.
I understand that the person who 'puts PvE first' might not want this, but with strong Corruption, 'Safe Zones' will sort of organically exist, I think.
A PvE server would require different balance. A player could on average gather 200 things per hour instead. The rest of the economy would either need to be rebalanced, crafting recipes being twice as much, or they just let things advance much quicker. At the very least, the economy and the rest of the game would be quite a bit different than a PvP server.
Of course they could have different gather respawn rates, rules, recipe costs and such between the PvP and PvE servers, but that's also more development/design cost going to balance another game mode.
They could do that, but it looks like Intrepid wants to focus on just a single experience and make that as good as possible. I think that's the right move at this point, given how closely all of the systems are designed to work together, it will be difficult to get the balance and pacing done right.
I'm personally not much into random PvP, but I'd really like to try this game and see how it works. It's easy to just think of worst case scenarios of griefing guilds and things others have brought up, but it's hard to see how all the systems together will really work without actual practical experience in them.
They'll have a ton of players at pretty much all times of the day who'll be the first ones to gather valuable mats (either through bots or through cheap labor). They'll have the best gear, because, as you yourself said, dungeons and world bosses would be pvp zones - and that means that the big guild can just obliterate literally everyone who enters the zone w/o a single fucking penalty. All caravans (or at least the important ones) will be dominated by the big guilds so players will have to spend way more time running mules, though I doubt they'd even have enough resources to fill up those mules, because, again, the game is not changed so the resources are still limited and with the big guild gathering up most of them normal players wouldn't have shit.
In other words you think people would be completely fine with playing a nerfed version of the game. So then I gotta ask, how exactly is the current design any different? Hell, current design would at least punish those guilds with corruption if they try to murder people in a dungeon. And the same corruption system would allow smaller guilds to fight off the gathering members of the big guild.
It means that no one wants double punishments. A bot or another player is harassing you so you are the victim. You kill him and you get punished again by corruption. It is totally unfair.
It makes a far inferior version of the game run alongside the quality version of the game resulting in many people playing the low quality (PvE) version and being like ''yeah, this game is a flop''.
If there is no danger out in the world then there is no adeventure and if there is no adventure there is no real fun, just a soulless game and a sterile world.
If there is no real risk, there is no real feeling of reward.
Just a sterile ''this again'' which we've seen take the mmo-rpg janra into the ground.
It would inhbit social bonds (there's less of a need to make friends if you don't need friends to watch your back).
It would ruin economy (no competition = everything ends up worthless, just like in New World which was designed as a PvP mmo-rpg but then changed late development into a Carebear inclusive mmo-rpg).
It ruins the bountyhunter system.
In conclusion, if you give people the option to ruin their experience, to deny themselves lots of fun in the medium-long run for the sake of short-term convenience, they will absolutely do it and do it en mass.
I won't even go into the fact it's a first cataclysmic step towards convenience-nuking this game which is one of the main aspects which ruined the mmo-rpg janra.
Just, no thanks.
No PvE servers.
Keep the system as it is. Reading on how it works, corruptin system and all, it's very unlikely griefing will be a serious issue and if it is, the corruption system can always be buffed.
Many of the systems are designed around PvPvE/PvX game, so for example Caravans wont work, economy would probably also not work well (As we have seen in NW when a game is designed with PvX mind and at the last minute make it Optional) and etc. Which means that this servers have to be balanced separately which take dev resources which could be used for content and etc
Yeah gamers are a really friendly community that all love and respect each other.
Surely we won't see the giga nuclear griefers of doom turn the game into metagaming trash.
Surely making changes to a system from 2003 will be able to combat one of the sweatiest and most degenerate types of playstyles that has thrived in every system attempting to prevent it.
Surely.
Caravans still work, node sieges still work. If people don't want to use caravans because of the risk of being attacked, they lose out on the main method of transporting goods across long distances.
Yes the economy would be faster, but that just means node sieges happen more often and cities are destroyed sooner. It would just be a faster paced version of a PvP server because there is less of a barrier to reach endgame, but destroying nodes is still the main item sink that would remain untouched.
lies. game wont be same.
How do you dethrone a large guild? you cant harass guild members making them leave. you cant take their resources, notihng
You can't do that in a PvP server either. The stronger guild just owns whatever they want.