Things we DON'T like about AoC.

While it is important to voice to the developers the things we enjoy about the game, and to encourage the game's creation, it's also equally important to voice our thoughts and opinions on things we don't like about the game and are concerned about.
What are some things you've seen that have you little concerned about or that you simply don't like?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Stryta

NiKr wrote: »

Stryta wrote: »

I love the feel Ashes has going for it. i think pvp just need a little more "incentive"?

I'm just curious, what would you want as that "incentive"?

personally i cant really think of what id want per se i just think the pvp side of things may need a bit more of a reward other than crafting materials but thats hard to say with it being early devolpment.

The crafting materials you get from killing someone could be perfect being that i get the idea that crafting is a big part.

Atama

Mag7spy wrote: »

Bots in lost ark like...

Yeah, it’s disturbing.

George_Black

Stryta wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Stryta wrote: »

I love the feel Ashes has going for it. i think pvp just need a little more "incentive"?

I'm just curious, what would you want as that "incentive"?

personally i cant really think of what id want per se i just think the pvp side of things may need a bit more of a reward other than crafting materials but thats hard to say with it being early devolpment.

The crafting materials you get from killing someone could be perfect being that i get the idea that crafting is a big part.

The reward of pvp is comradery, us vs them, area control (grind spot), fighting to get ahead of the current.
It's the purest, most rewarding thing you can get from a real mmo. All the other is way behind.
But you cant understand this feeling if you have only played instanced raids, bg pvp, singleplayer story mode overland mmos.

There is nothing to worry about. You need to try it.

Jinro

I definitely DONT'T like the corruption system.
This is a role-playing game and if I'm a pvp player and I want to play some monster or assassin or sabotage some state, then the corruption system just kills it all in the bud!

What is the point in outdoor if it is limited by the developers and attempts to go beyond the borders are immediately punished.

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

I agree to the risk of losing some of my resources, etc.
But put pvp debuffs on me and take away my equipment when I kill?
Are you serious rn?

Ludullu

Stryta wrote: »

personally i cant really think of what id want per se i just think the pvp side of things may need a bit more of a reward other than crafting materials but thats hard to say with it being early devolpment.

The crafting materials you get from killing someone could be perfect being that i get the idea that crafting is a big part.

Pretty much what George said. The loot is literally the smallest incentive in the system.

TheDarkSorcerer

I think my issue or concern have been the combat style. I understand things change, but the play style has changed several times. From Apocalypse (Fun but was a clone of Warframe), to Alpha 1 (Fun & fast paced) to Ranger showcase (Loved!) to recent heal group showcase (Slow felt mobile game like).

I just want Intrepid to settle what combat in Ashes actually is and what it's supposed to be and stick to it. I just feel like we'll see different combat in the next six months.

Solvryn

Jinro wrote: »

I definitely DONT'T like the corruption system.
This is a role-playing game and if I'm a pvp player and I want to play some monster or assassin or sabotage some state, then the corruption system just kills it all in the bud!

What is the point in outdoor if it is limited by the developers and attempts to go beyond the borders are immediately punished.

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

I agree to the risk of losing some of my resources, etc.
But put pvp debuffs on me and take away my equipment when I kill?
Are you serious rn?

I just hope the penalties don't null Bounty Hunting completely. You need the corruption system, as with it the bounty hunter system and military nodes are intertwined.

effusivemind

Jinro wrote: »

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

You're on the more extreme end of homicidal players

novercalis

Jinro wrote: »

I definitely DONT'T like the corruption system.
This is a role-playing game and if I'm a pvp player and I want to play some monster or assassin or sabotage some state, then the corruption system just kills it all in the bud!

What is the point in outdoor if it is limited by the developers and attempts to go beyond the borders are immediately punished.

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

I agree to the risk of losing some of my resources, etc.
But put pvp debuffs on me and take away my equipment when I kill?
Are you serious rn?

the corruption systems is working as intended then, as its meant to stop ppl like you playing like a griefing ass. Go be a pirate and pvp till your heart is content in the open sea. But they don't want griefers and everything you said sounds like a grade A griefer.

novercalis

Solvryn wrote: »

Jinro wrote: »

I definitely DONT'T like the corruption system.
This is a role-playing game and if I'm a pvp player and I want to play some monster or assassin or sabotage some state, then the corruption system just kills it all in the bud!

What is the point in outdoor if it is limited by the developers and attempts to go beyond the borders are immediately punished.

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

I agree to the risk of losing some of my resources, etc.
But put pvp debuffs on me and take away my equipment when I kill?
Are you serious rn?

I just hope the penalties don't null Bounty Hunting completely. You need the corruption system, as with it the bounty hunter system and military nodes are intertwined.

If you're banking gameplay to be around BH - you're gonna be disappointed. BH is the last defense to nullify bad behavior pkers. Its not gonna be a constant steam of BH targets. If the Corruption system is as good and strong at deterring griefers, spawn campers, door campers, dungeon campers - you wont be seeing many in due time. People will learn their lesson and not do it.

BH is just fluff, a minor side dish

Ludullu

novercalis wrote: »

BH is just fluff, a minor side dish

I'd really like them not to be, cause otherwise they just seem like a pointless addition to the system, especially considering that they supposed to have a progression path within their own subsystem.

Doovoon

My only concern is that the Australian/Oceanic servers do happen and stay viable long term.. (Aussie here with hope)

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

novercalis wrote: »

BH is just fluff, a minor side dish

I'd really like them not to be, cause otherwise they just seem like a pointless addition to the system, especially considering that they supposed to have a progression path within their own subsystem.

Definitely hoping that BH is viable enough to be incorporated in gameplay daily. Just as I hope risky decisions are enticed via open world PVP and risking corruption for a quick material swipe from someone or guarding an areas resources. Each of those systems needs to feed eachother

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Definitely hoping that BH is viable enough to be incorporated in gameplay daily. Just as I hope risky decisions are enticed via open world PVP and risking corruption for a quick material swipe from someone or guarding an areas resources. Each of those systems needs to feed eachother

Yep. I really wish Intrepid settles on a system that satisfies everyone in this equation. PKers can kill more often, BHs always have someone to hunt because of that and green victims get their "time" back with the help of BHs. I really feel like that would be the best compromise for this kind of system.

Solvryn

novercalis wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Jinro wrote: »

I definitely DONT'T like the corruption system.
This is a role-playing game and if I'm a pvp player and I want to play some monster or assassin or sabotage some state, then the corruption system just kills it all in the bud!

What is the point in outdoor if it is limited by the developers and attempts to go beyond the borders are immediately punished.

I definitely DON'T like it.
I want to kill whoever I want, whenever I want.

I agree to the risk of losing some of my resources, etc.
But put pvp debuffs on me and take away my equipment when I kill?
Are you serious rn?

I just hope the penalties don't null Bounty Hunting completely. You need the corruption system, as with it the bounty hunter system and military nodes are intertwined.

If you're banking gameplay to be around BH - you're gonna be disappointed. BH is the last defense to nullify bad behavior pkers. Its not gonna be a constant steam of BH targets. If the Corruption system is as good and strong at deterring griefers, spawn campers, door campers, dungeon campers - you wont be seeing many in due time. People will learn their lesson and not do it.

BH is just fluff, a minor side dish

I am not even planning to be a Bounty Hunter, I just rather players be given the option to handle other players and don't want to see a purpose in the military node nulled.

Solvryn

Dolyem wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

novercalis wrote: »

BH is just fluff, a minor side dish

I'd really like them not to be, cause otherwise they just seem like a pointless addition to the system, especially considering that they supposed to have a progression path within their own subsystem.

Definitely hoping that BH is viable enough to be incorporated in gameplay daily. Just as I hope risky decisions are enticed via open world PVP and risking corruption for a quick material swipe from someone or guarding an areas resources. Each of those systems needs to feed eachother

yep.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Definitely hoping that BH is viable enough to be incorporated in gameplay daily. Just as I hope risky decisions are enticed via open world PVP and risking corruption for a quick material swipe from someone or guarding an areas resources. Each of those systems needs to feed eachother

Yep. I really wish Intrepid settles on a system that satisfies everyone in this equation. PKers can kill more often, BHs always have someone to hunt because of that and green victims get their "time" back with the help of BHs. I really feel like that would be the best compromise for this kind of system.

They had so many pinned threads and discussions on the forums since 2017.
I am sure there is no solution to create an algorithm which will detect when a player enjoys the risk the game offers and when the risk becomes a negative experience.
Every player has different threshold and that also changes overtime.
You gave as example recently players running out from the safety of the town just a little bit to taunt others into PvP and that they done this for hours. This is how the game placed the agency on the players. Each was doing this activity as long as it was fun.

There is no way to balance the corruption to satisfy all players. Even if we split them in 3 categories: pure PvE, PvX and PvP, the transition is smooth and any balance will end up splitting the PvX group in two where some will request harsher penalties and others more lenient ones.

Having auto-flagged PvP pockets in a PvE (harsh corruption) environment is a better solution as it gives agency to both attacker and victim. They both decided to enter (or not leave) that place.

Edit: I seen a post saying the BH were added after being requested by players as a safety net if the corruption is not doing a good enough job. That means the corruption is supposed to allow a higher risk/pain onto the attacked players and the BH are supposed to move that treshold and keep the players safe.
The problem is that this does not prevent the attack to happen. It will only if the attacker knows the density of bounty hunters in the area. Their presence would increase the safety of a zone for players who want to be protected. It would be like a variable corruption which changes based on how players login and move in the game. But the game still has to transmit this information to both PvP ready and PvP reluctant players.

Uboon

Dolyem wrote: »

Abarat wrote: »

JamesSunderland wrote: »

I would say the only thing i explicitly dislike about Ashes currently would be profession level progression not being directly bound to class level progression. Which could open up possibilities of "exploiting" the system with low class level master Gatherers/crafters.

Can you explain what you mean by exploiting? I am failing to understand the problem you are suggesting.

Send in an army of level 1 gatherers to strip a nodes resources. Can't kill them due to massive corruption difference.

Actually, how on earth does one defend against an 'army' of any resource strippers, of any level? Nodes can be 'attacked' by node strippers and I see very little ways of defending the node without incurring corruption. These 'attacks' apparently have longer lasting effects on the environment IIRC, adding to the damage to the node.

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

You gave as example recently players running out from the safety of the town just a little bit to taunt others into PvP and that they done this for hours. This is how the game placed the agency on the players. Each was doing this activity as long as it was fun.

And I'm almost sure that there'll be a few freeholds that have the same kind of interaction (considering that you can't be attacked on your freehold). L2's cities let you do way less stuff than the freeholds will, so those who stayed within them not participating in any other content barely did anything else (mainly trading and crafting, if they were supported by farmers). So Ashes is already providing a much broader choice of content that you can participate in w/o even walking outside of a particular location.

Strevi wrote: »

There is no way to balance the corruption to satisfy all players. Even if we split them in 3 categories: pure PvE, PvX and PvP, the transition is smooth and any balance will end up splitting the PvX group in two where some will request harsher penalties and others more lenient ones.

Having auto-flagged PvP pockets in a PvE (harsh corruption) environment is a better solution as it gives agency to both attacker and victim. They both decided to enter (or not leave) that place.

This is already the case with the open seas and node ruins (and we might even get more, considering the trend). Corruption is already a pretty big threat to those who attack greens, so anyone who just wants to kill as many people as possible would probably go sailing or travel the world in the search of ruins (or obviously just fucking join any kind of war between any two groups of people).

Strevi wrote: »

I seen a post saying the BH were added after being requested by players as a safety net if the corruption is not doing a good enough job. That means the corruption is supposed to allow a higher risk/pain onto the attacked players and the BH are supposed to move that treshold and keep the players safe.
The problem is that this does not prevent the attack to happen. It will only if the attacker knows the density of bounty hunters in the area. Their presence would increase the safety of a zone for players who want to be protected. It would be like a variable corruption which changes based on how players login and move in the game. But the game still has to transmit this information to both PvP ready and PvP reluctant players.

Like you said, rn BHs don't do anything to alleviate the event of a green dying. I think that there should be a system tied to BHs that helps those green victims get back to their pre-death state. It could be an xp gaining boost, a gear repair discount (ideally tied to a bonus for the crafter that helped repair it) or a bonus to their artisan profession.

Obviously this still doesn't prevent the death itself, but the whole point of open world pvp is to let people kill each other, but this way at least the victim loses less stuff (or in other words, time). And if we make green loot an unstackable item that drops first from a PKer and has the name of the victim on it - the BHs will be able to return it to the victim if they manage to catch and kill the PKer.

And imo this kind of system would allow for a bit more lenient corruption gain values, because it would lead to more PKers (satisfying those kinds of people) which leads to more BHs (satisfying the pvp white knights), while not removing as many greens from the game (and also tying them tighter into the game's community, because they will have to interact with way more people now).

But I'm almost sure that at the end of testing Intrepid will just remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Strevi wrote: »

I seen a post saying the BH were added after being requested by players as a safety net if the corruption is not doing a good enough job. That means the corruption is supposed to allow a higher risk/pain onto the attacked players and the BH are supposed to move that treshold and keep the players safe.
The problem is that this does not prevent the attack to happen. It will only if the attacker knows the density of bounty hunters in the area. Their presence would increase the safety of a zone for players who want to be protected. It would be like a variable corruption which changes based on how players login and move in the game. But the game still has to transmit this information to both PvP ready and PvP reluctant players.

Like you said, rn BHs don't do anything to alleviate the event of a green dying. I think that there should be a system tied to BHs that helps those green victims get back to their pre-death state. It could be an xp gaining boost, a gear repair discount (ideally tied to a bonus for the crafter that helped repair it) or a bonus to their artisan profession.

Obviously this still doesn't prevent the death itself, but the whole point of open world pvp is to let people kill each other, but this way at least the victim loses less stuff (or in other words, time). And if we make green loot an unstackable item that drops first from a PKer and has the name of the victim on it - the BHs will be able to return it to the victim if they manage to catch and kill the PKer.

And imo this kind of system would allow for a bit more lenient corruption gain values, because it would lead to more PKers (satisfying those kinds of people) which leads to more BHs (satisfying the pvp white knights), while not removing as many greens from the game (and also tying them tighter into the game's community, because they will have to interact with way more people now).

But I'm almost sure that at the end of testing Intrepid will just remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up.

So when you say "I really wish Intrepid settles on a system that satisfies everyone in this equation.", you accept the "remove BHs completely and tune the corruption all the way up" solution too?

Your addition with how the BH could identify the original user is nice. But what are those items?
Resources like sticks and rocks and rare mushrooms? Or intermediate products? The intermediate products actually should be transported via caravans but what is the incentive to use them if corruption protects the solo mule more?

Child Item