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
lol. Oh yeah we already had this conversation haha. It's coming back to me now.
Well stuns seem like the worst of all CC's to still allow if you're worried about people CC griefing in order to cause other people to die to mobs.
But damage dealing CC's still working seems sane. Completely nullifying all of a character's CC because they killed 1 person seems not sane. But it's gonna be whatever Steven wants it to be.
Edit: Not going to reply to your longer reply to me @NiKr because I legit forgot about our convo on this a couple months ago. You just reminded me of it all, so I'll just wait and see what implementation Steven goes with.
And as I said before, if the green is a fighter - they wouldn't be affected either way, because they'd just fight. But if it's a lowbie green or a pacifist one - the chance of them flagging up is really low, no matter the system. And I personally think that these people should be helped. Obviously Neurath thinks that they shouldn't even be playing Ashes.
There'll obviously be some shrewd players that would hang corruption onto their attacker just to try and punish them harsher, but this exact action would be counterbalanced by the lower corruption gain (depending on the count of course). So I'd imagine that soon enough those shrewd players will realize that usually they just lose more resources for no reason and will just fight back.
And again, my suggestion is in the context of very high prices on PK count removal, so any uberPKer will still get punished harshly if they decide to go too far. But a casual PKer, who just kills when he really needs to, would have a buffer of PKs where they'd get the loot and not get killed in the process. Well, that is if no one else was around, but at that point it's on the attacker to weigh their chances.
I think loss is an acceptable risk. Giving resources back offers no risk for them and diminished reward for bounty hunters.
I think the real pacifist greens would prefer a 80% chance to get their resources back, based on the Pareto principle
And the PK would also be satisfied with a 20% success rate on his side (if there would be no gear loss)
The problem is that even in such a case, I do not like that the pacifist greens would be encouraged to run or stay passively to be killed. The game probably can statistically detect them and they should be encouraged to fight back.
And at that point, how is my suggestion any different from you serving justice to those PKers? And if the corruption gain/removal values remain as they currently seem to be, like I said before, I'm pretty sure the only PKers in the game will be the ones I described above. So there'd probably be no BHs that would take the job for purely selfish reasons of trying to get the green's loot.
Also, as I've explained before, the green will lose time and gear mats (cause decay is stronger on a normal death), so unless his resources were so precious that a portion of them could've covered those expenses - the green would be at a loss even if the resources are returned. And if those resources were in fact that valuable, I'd hope most people would just flag up to minimize their losses or, of course, just try to flee. So, again, my resource returnal system would most likely only impact the weakest of the greens, so if you're a tough top lvl BH ya ain't earning shit with their loot.
If a Corrupted player kills 10 people and has a shit ton of material and theres a small 10% that goes back to the Greens. BH is still going to be worth it.
Especially if that corrupted player is a level 50 in decent armor, the BH will get their moneys worth.
It's not like people would somehow know for sure the precise success rate of the BH system. The risk/reward calculation remains, it just gets a new part for the consideration of the player. "Do I risk dying here, losing time, gaining gear decay - all in hopes of a BH (and not a random passerby) getting my resources back to me? Or do I just fucking run like hell? Oh, his attack did a ton of damage to me, I might not make it if I run, should I just flag up and lose less stuff?" All of this remains.
How often we expect a pacifist green to be killed in a 30 day play time?
This is in no way the important thing, though.
The problem with PvP heavy games is not 'how often you get killed' it is 'what content you were trying to do when you got killed'.
It's very easy to not get killed in most such games. Don't go near anything interesting.
The statistical distribution of deaths should be viewed relative to engagement, not time.
Good that I asked.
Not sure what @Dygz is talking about. This is clearly a PvE friendly game.
And outside of those high value locations, random artisanal actions or even chill mob killing would only fell prey to the more hardcore PKers, who'd go out looking for a weak target. And at that point it's all about luck. How many greens were in the area at the time of the PKer's arrival, how many (if any) BHs were close by and how fast could that PKer go through those greens. I personally doubt that this kind of thing would be a common occurrent on any given server.
You're kinda misunderstanding it MAYBE?
So I'll parallel to TL or 'a hypothetical PvP-enabled FFXI'.
A game contains a certain amount of fun content, a certain amount of rewarding content, and a certain amount of 'filler/learning' content.
Once you've got through the filler/learning, assuming that the game's anti-PK system was strong enough to prevent seal-clubbing in the first place, you now want to do something else. Note that your options are:
"Do something interesting in Ashes, or do something interesting in TL/FFXIPvP."
In that moment, ignore all systems, ignore the 'competition'. The player has all games available. The player does not currently feel like engaging in PvP very much, so they do not seek PvP content.
Why would one choose to play the game where you are more likely to meet a PvP opponent at the 'fun/rewarding content'? That opponent is not only there to do that content, they're there because they KNOW it's a funnel. Other people are going there. They attack whoever, even just to 'check if they are strong'. Even moreso if they have a chokepoint on the WAY to the content instead of being at it, where they have to worry about other strong players if they go Red.
To the PvP-averse player, 'a different game' is always a better option WHEN they are not in the mood for PvP, because the 'interesting parts' of Ashes will almost always create a higher risk for PvP.
But in Ashes specifically, 'random artisanal actions' or 'mob killing' are economic factors and therefore 'interesting'. Compare this to TL where you know beforehand that a lot of players will be in a 'contest zone' at Timing A, you can go there after, or before. You can structure your dungeon adventures around escaping from these players somewhat, probably. Or a 'PvP FFXI' where despite mob-killing being equally economically viable, you don't have the concept of 'higher reward so higher risk of PvP' spelled out so cleanly (I'm not even referring to Open Seas, it's just a different style of game when it comes to that).
Corruption is just generally a 'weak' system for incentivizing PvP of all forms, it is moreso part of the 'Risk vs Reward' system than the Player Interaction system, because a Pacifist could be GOOD at PvP and still not in the mood for it because they are not hardcore enough a PvP-er.
A game with Corruption as the Anti-PK mechanism does not help that person, what they want is to be able to 'go to interesting content and not have to immediately expect that PvP will happen because the PvP crowd is also looking for PvP content there'.
This is why Karma doesn't work in BDO anymore basically at all, and 'instead' Karma Bombing is a thing. The stubborn will 'pay exp to get the PvP player to move' but if that takes too long, they are better off just going "I'll go play something else".
It is in this way that Ashes is designed for the 'hardcore PvP-er'. The person who goes to an area seeking PvP or PvE content in equal measure at minimum. They don't have an 'intent to enjoy the PvE content', they'll take whichever they get.
Also, it's not like it's a guarantee the best resources will be the ones that drop.
Doesn't seem like much of a risk v reward calculation.
I dunno that resource return is going to sufficiently ammeliorate the other death penalties.
Either Corruption works sufficiently enough as a deterrent for unwanted PvP or it doesn't.
What happens after the death penalties are applied are mostly irrelevant. Same as death from a mob.
I think the decision is more, "Do I want to halve the death penalties or do I want to give my attacker Corruption?"
I don't need my resources back - just as I don't need my resources back when I die from a mob.
I really just need to minimize the occurences of unwanted PvP - regardless of who wins the encounter.
By the looks of the systems, I'd assume that only green gatherers will be in the most danger of leaving the game, because their preferred content puts them right next to the pvpers. While both other branches of artisanry and RPing can be done quite some ways away from those pvpers. At which point we'd have to come back to our discussion of waterfalls and funnels of players around the gathering profession, but I think we've discussed that enough already so I'll forgo that particular interaction for now.
In the end, it'll come down to the variety of content and variety of locations for said content. Obviously there'll be people who'll leave the game sooner rather than later because their play sessions will get interrupted by pvpers a few too many times, but that'd be inevitable in a game like Ashes.
Before 2020, I spent a decade disliking the WoW expansions and the EQ2/Themepark MMORPGs.
By 2013, I was looking for the next generation of MMORPGs. Like EQNext.
Ashes has a lot of the features I liked from EQNext and was scheduled to release fairly soon... so, that seemed to be the frst game that would have systems that would allow us to literally ever quest.
I like PvP sometimes, but typically play on PvE-Only servers - I'm very curious about how you get PvP-adverse players to play on the same servers as hardcore PvPers. If there's pretty much only one next genaration MMORPG available - it might be worth trying to accept no separate PvE servers and always being attackable by other players.
But...
In 2020, the WoW: Shadowbane expansion was fairly decent.
In 2022/23, the WoW: Dragonflight expansion is excellent and doing a fantastic job of allowing max level characters to ever quest.
There's also a few other UE5 MMORPGs on the horizon for a 2023 release that have less focus on hardcore PvP than Ashes.
So, indeed, the question becomes...
Why do I need to settle for Ashes and hardcore PvP when I can have fun in an MMORPG with no PvP (like WoW) or less PvP than Ashes (like TL)?
Secondly the lack of real information reguarding anything, the live streams are nice and appreciated but the questions people really want answered are being deliberatley left out if the streams and QnAs we are nit asking for a timeline but maybewhats left to do before A2 launch, whats happening onthe progression with naval content etc there are so many un answered questions
My understanding is many of these cosmetic sets will correspond to NPCs in Verra. A majority of them weren't created specifically to be sold as costumes.
So, disliking them is probably more of a reflection of your opinion on that, than anything
Actually to be clear I think you have a really good concept of how this should work and I'd absolutely support it, I was moreso noting that IF you are thinking in that way, you have to think about what it is that a non-hardcore PvP player wants.
So I'll add to your model actually.
If Ashes were guaranteed somehow to have such good combat design that most classes that are good in PvE are also good in PvP if they attempt to use specific tactics, I would truly start to believe that it would be a great success with much more people (not necessarily Dygz but certainly some people I know).
The problem is that, as I've said, you are a rarer breed of PvP player, and many of the people on this forum are similar. You know that most PvP players are egomaniacs who actually kinda suck at PvP. I personally feel like Intrepid has a good thing going by 'making a specific type of PvP player so miserable that THEY leave' because it opens options for the sorts of PvP that is 'healthy' for this game type IMO.
And everything you say normally is trying to get to that. I'm suggesting moreso, don't think of PvE-focused players that way (as you admitted) when doing it. Imagine someone whose skill is high enough that they never lose 1v1 or even 1v2, but don't enjoy 1v3 (there always comes a point in game mechanics where this matters, the 1v3 isn't fun because of something).
Then think of what types of experience that person has when they decide 'oh that's a cool mob I think I can solo, I'm gonna try it!' and their 'rivals' decide to find them with their gang of 4.
That's all. When Intrepid has gotten that 1v2-Victory PvP-sometimes player to not go 'meh I'll just go play something else', we're golden.
The answer I'd expect from most people is 'well they should just not travel alone'. This is true! Totally valid. But that's 'dragging someone along to watch your back for 10-20m while you try to solo a super elite mob', because ofc you WANT to see if you can solo it. Maybe that person shouldn't be playing Ashes either, but it'd be nice if somehow we got a game where the PvP egomaniacs just... didn't hang around... or changed their behaviours.
That game just isn't Ashes CURRENTLY. If that player type was 'not in the mood for PvP' and died to the fifth attacker in a string of attackers after killing the other 5 and is just 'tired of this now' and is trying to walk home since no fast Travel and keeps getting attacked by the five they beat up, it doesn't matter if they just beat them up again.
Feeling personally attacked ngl
I'm sure you're one of the real ones who dunks on them 24/7 and shows them that they're not actually that good.
Please keep doing that.
A bigger party would still be able to just overpower the mobs and remove you if needed.
Iirc the first Guild Wars could provide players with npc companions if the player didn't have anyone else to group up with. And while Ashes is obviously not quite that type of game, I think a similar system but with a much smaller scale could provide a much broader gameplay variety to solo players, while not necessarily replacing groups (cause it'd decrease rewards tied to its content).
We know that Intrepid plans on giving us NPCs to work our stalls and even our freehold lands, so I don't think that making a "follower" npc, that then casts a single spell when he reaches his quest marker, would be out of the range of what developers can do.
Considering that most mobs are supposed to be hard already, I'd imagine that elite adds or just mobs around the elite one could put up a good fight against some basic low-mid skill pvpers, so the solo pver would have a chance to do some high skill content w/o it being instanced.
What do you think, would this be too convoluted? Or maybe too "green-appeasing"?
Too deep now.
Who even gets the quest 'first' anyway? What happens if the mob has already been engaged but not defeated when you arrive?
Etc etc.
But it probably wouldn't cause the player type to not just go run Memorials in TL instead when that mood struck them.
Tie that to a particular freehold building and you got yourself a cost for the reward and a pvp-less location to summon the mob. Though this might be too money/time-gated for most people. Freeholds will most likely be quite expensive.
I just don't think you can completely remove the agro pvpers from a pvp game that supports continuous attacks against any person w/o any real consequence
In a word... yes.
This is why I'm saying that there's no way Intrepid even WANTS that player type (in the sense that, they will support their playstyle even slightly above the alternative).
Making a corruption system that would lead to MORE PvP while actually deterring 'annoying attacks' might not be easy, but it certainly isn't hard ENOUGH that they wouldn't have changed it somewhat by now.
It functions the way it does by design. You often make suggestions that would make the game more palatable to certain player types, yet if Intrepid really wanted that to be the case, they'd probably just change Corruption itself.
That's why you get pushback from the game's Core Audience, basically. As it should be.
As for this part:
Kinda, but not really. If it were me the answer would be that I'd be 'too interested'. It's 'immersive' to go solo Katzvariak when it appears, but it wouldn't be immersive to just 'summon it' from beating it, but it's hard to explain why. Something to do with the 'organic' nature of 'how ready you are when you come across it', or something like that. Making it equal to 'instanced fight' (Memorials) rather than organic/natural fight (Elites/Open World Notorious Monsters)
But I don't know the precise reasons for others. Maybe it would work out for them.
Chilling is against the risk vs reward pillar of the game.
We can imagine the possibility to add a small pond to freeholds to fish 1-2 hours but only small gold fish not legendary drops.
And then if that node will be full of such players, it will fall fast at the first siege. And the freehold soon after that, with our chill fisher inside.
If soloers can thrive in this game then also the player interaction pillar failed
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_interaction
It can indeed happen that the game fails because the game pillars.
Should we worry and try to save it and change them?
For me the value of this game is because these design pillars and Steven saying that he will try making an MMO based on them even if other MMOs discarded them to favor profit.