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
Agreed and it should linger if you were on any of these lists so you can't leave pk and rejoin.
Corruption is intended to sufficiently deter unwanted PvP encounters. If I'm encountering unwanted PvP attack more often than I am mob attacks - that means Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent and I wouldn't play the game anyway, so... returning resources would be irrelevant.
So there are more opportunities for PvP, of course.
BH system entices players to hunt the monsters. I don't think it gives additional rewards for killing mobs. BH system is like a quest - where the target mob is a Corrupted player.
And, at the end of a quest to kill mobs, lost resources are not returned to the players who were killed by those mobs.
Steven wants more PvP rather than less PvP. I highly doubt he would remove the BH system.
I wouldn't assume that.
I'm relatively certain that people would be MORE likely to 'attack and not try to kill' particularly when a mob fight is happening.
Same old circle we've been wondering about for most of last year. How will we get meaningful PvE while players are free to interrupt/attack you during it. Removing the ability to CC you is a wonderful change and probably enough to retain a lot of players who would otherwise rightly leave, but, whereas mobs can be avoided, players have much more behavioural freedom.
Even if one is like me and considers that once you have ENGAGED a mob/player, it is fine that the outcome is the same (Mobs being very smart, having few leashes, etc), it's generally much easier to proactively avoid mobs.
I appreciate each update, as it is a great relief for me to have monthly information about the development, but sometimes I have the feeling that after an update there is a "void" of information, as if I need more or as if I need a specific answer to some doubt about that update.
I think that's part of the monthly updates, it leaves you with the intrigue to know more and I understand that Intrepid can't and shouldn't show more but I think that's one of the things I dislike the most about AoC development.
I was supposed to edit and reword that a bit better, but... apparently got distracted by work (and dance rehearsal).
LMAO
AA always lets you see peoples health bars(with exact numbers and %)
Aren't we all sinners?
I'm not sure that would be good for Ashes, though.
Aside from combat (mostly because speculative and untested), I believe that almost everything in Ashes other than the Open Seas PvP thing is design-consistent. Just not necessarily a draw for everyone. Which is the point.
So, 'keeping' Dygz or 'keeping' me by changing things, I don't feel should even begin to be a goal. Not for us specifically nor for our 'demographics'.
There's some things where 'doing it a different way has no real negative effect so it makes sense to change it'. I feel like this isn't one of them, whereas 'no CC on Green players' actually is (because by definition if you are Green you are not threatening the Purple person, so they didn't really need to CC you to get what they wanted).
Consider the 'non-pacifist' response to this, as example, even if it were 'griefing' to attack someone repeatedly while they were fighting a mob, that person will probably just heal to full after the mob and then flag up to fight, ideally.
If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.
The Nameplate thing technically helps Dygz's situation more than harming it, in many cases. Obviously not all, but it's technically 'better' than 'being accidentally killed'. The other person becoming Corrupted unexpectedly isn't what pacifist players are likely to care about. The other person 'fearing that enough to not bother them', is.
If someone else can see you 'cast a healing spell on yourself' and then 'hits you because they saw that spell' every time', the life bar thing isn't going to matter at all.
I'm just rambling though, it just came to mind because I was thinking about something else, really...
And while I might be fine with Ashes having a very small population, I'm not sure if the game itself can support that.
Thats the point. Todays playerbase is not able to play balanced PvP. Its either griefing, killing or nothing. In my opinion it doesnt matter how good AoC will be. If they set the focus on PvP it will have a very small playerbase and will fail in the End.
I loved the Game once it was announced. But the fact that they wanna go for a PvP MMO detered me to buy some 300$ Packages. And if it will be PvP i wont play it for sure. Player will be toxic etc. We all know this from past PvP MMO releases. Also there is no new successfull PvP based MMO out there for a reason. New World failed because of PvP. After chaning to PvE they succeeded compared to the release time.
Offtopic:
I also dont like the fact they are limiting flying mounts. In my opinion everybody should be able to use flying mounts. But there should be some limited unique ones only available for Kings and Queens. But Limiting them in general is a bad choice. Only AoC Partner (especially streamers) and hardcore player with 24/7 playtime will have access to it. Which is not fair in my opinion.
Everybody should have the chance to get a flying mount sooner or later and not just those who play MMOS 24/7 beause they dont have to work or its THEIR work...
The game wants to push pure PvP-ers away by forcing them to level up doing PvE and pure PvE-ers by letting PvP-ers kill them. Both can be solved. The worst solution is to tune up corruption penalties IMO. But I am not against some areas to be very safe and players with corruption history to get there penalties preemptively. But I don't know where such zones could be placed. I see no place for them. I want the caravan system stay viable.
Edit: Does that also mean that greens can't be dismounted by CC too? What use is a Bounty Hunter when you have so many boons just being green against a red?
My position is a hard no to flying mounts in general. Other than what you've mentioned (which has been said time and again) why create such an advanced elaborate world if a small upper-class group is going to be able to fly through it. Someone can easily come up with an overwhelming number of hypothetical situations where that would be problematic.
And for what? I haven't seen one game where flying mounts were added and it actually improved the quality of the game.
The system itself doesn't need to reward players this profoundly for vying for positions of political authority and power. Players will organically do that themselves because that's how humans are. All you have to do is take a look at how monstrously out of hand IRL politics have become precisely because of things like this.
You end up having a large majority of players become leaders who have no business becoming one, and in a systems game, that affects everyone. It's not a small thing.
Can't wait to get hit with the, "THIS GAME IS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!"
By the way, sometimes, game design actually isn't perfect believe it or not. And that deserves to get pointed out. This isn't a cult, and I'm not a cult follower
Im with you. i just dont like the fact that flying mounts are only earned by being a partnered streamer for AoC or playing 24/7 as a native player. Flying Mounts are impossible to reach for people working normal jobs even if they spend all their free time playing this game.
If Flying has no usecase then they should delete it completely from the game. But only make flying mounts available to 24/7 player or stream partners is a way of P2W. Even if you dont have to pay for it.
Btw there are MMOs where Flying mounts improved the game. It improved the gameplay like in Guild Wars 2. It had no mounts at all. Then ground mounts first and finally flying mounts. It was well integrated into the World of GW2 and people loving it till today.
No, once someone flags purple they're purple to everyone.
You can kill mounts as they behave as battle pets.
I feel like you're shifting the scenario?
If Green attacks Red, Red starts winning the fight and Green flees... this is literally the best possible situation for the Red player, I would think?
Is this guaranteed true, though?
We know that players can't be CCed but we don't know if their mount can be if targeted separately.
We don't know if the attacking player's mount has skills that dismount the other player regardless of status, as a specific separate effect like in BDO.
Given the rest of the design, I'm not sure that CC immunity needs to extend to a green player's mount, for the goals of the design to be achieved.
Not clear if a mount is green but a mount doesn't give corruption so you could nuke the mount and kill the mount to dismount someone.
Green player already had upper hand against red but no cc on green means more greens will still not bother to pvp at all and will still be corruption Producers.
I don't see why there should be a 'game play loop' of giving resources back to green players when the green players are already buffed to high heaven against reds.