Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
My largest (currently unfounded) concern here, is that this is the first sign of what I would consider an actual slippery slope. Most of the time it's just a random, as you said, emotional argument, from someone, myself included, about why they don't like something that the interaction will lead to.
This is the first one (not even the Open Seas thing counted, for me) where I think it actually changes the concept of the game itself.
If I kill player A every time I see them and take their stuff, and imagine that somehow I keep managing to survive this while red, if that player eventually argues 'why is she attacking me? this is griefing, clearly she is not achieving anything other than disrupting my gameplay because she can't trade or store all the items she is taking from me anyway if she is so Corrupted'...
I feel like that person now has a 'valid argument'. Of the type that could 'need to be reviewed'. Whereas before, I could have been 'killing them every time I see them just because' but ALSO because I could reasonably be profiting from doing so, it was 'part of the game'. My target would have to accept 'Azherae stands to benefit from killing you if you happen to have items she wants, so PK is valid and Corruption should handle this, it is not griefing'.
Now, I'm not sure it would pass. For now I'll just assume that it will. But this seems like an easy way to make the argument that 'A Perma-Red Bandit is just a griefer because they could never reasonably escape with their loot anyway'.
Yeah that's true. I mean, I think the general idea is that it's upon you, as the red, to see to it that you survive long enough to become green and thus deposit your loot into storage.
But to your point, yeah if the corruption system is so harsh that you have little chance of survival and depositing loot, then when you kill someone you're essentially engaged in random redistribution. You are redistributing the loot of the person you killed to the person that ultimately kills you.
I personally don't view this corrupted/freehold storage change as a huge deal, isolated to itself. I think it's dumb. And that's putting it diplomatically. But to some extent, it's edge case. Theoretically, there would be people who go red who do not have access to a freehold in the first place. Or people who are so far away from their freehold when they kill someone that there's no realistic chance of them getting back there while red anyway.
In cases like those, and many others, you have to grind off the corruption before you can deposit anything. And theoretically, there would be a LOT of cases like this. Most cases would be like this probably.
But in the event where a red does get back to his freehold, why is he being punished from using his storage? And by extension, potentially almost everything on his freehold. More than likely can't craft at his crafting stations, can't take mats in and out of storage. Can't do anything. Why.
There would be instances I'm sure where a red kills someone in their own node, and it's just a quick and fairly easy ferrying of the loot back to his freehold. So what? Good for him. There will be just as many cases where a red doesn't make it back to their freehold before being killed. And I don't know how much corrupted killing people will be doing in their home node anyway. Killing outsiders maybe. But for most people, you're in your home node, where you have your freehold. You generally don't shit where you sleep.
I'm rambling. But my bigger issue is open world pvp itself, not reds. And this is the logic train. Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstanding something, anyone.
I'll use a Steven quote from the LuckyGhost video era to illustrate. I'm not looking it up right now, but this is roundabout what it was - "The vast majority of people will not go red."
This is the exact opposite of how it should be. But we have to unpack it a little. The vast majority will not go red, why? Because the corruption system is so harsh. Ok. What is the definition of vast majority? Quick googling, bare minimum 75%. In common use though, vast majority tends to denote more than 75%. More along the lines of 90%+. "The greatest part of something, to the point where alternatives are nearly irrelevant in size."
I'm dissecting a quote here. Maybe it was off the cuff. Maybe he didn't include all the context he could have. But just going off the bare quote, the vast majority of people will not go red. Why? Because they're not willing to go red. Why? Because the systems/mechanics, too harsh.
Again, exact opposite of how it should be for an open world pvp game. The vast majority SHOULD be willing to go red, just not deep red. Not even moderately red maybe. But at the very least, most people should be willing to go 1 kills worth of red. That's what keeps the whole system kosher. That's what encourages pvp.
If I have no fear when I'm randomly attacked in the open world that the person attacking me will ACTUALLY kill me, what compels me to fight back? If there's a, lets just split the difference of the definition of "vast majority," 85% chance that any time I'm randomly attacked in the world, the guy is not actually going to kill me, then who cares? I can just eat the 15% of the time I'm actually killed. Don't lose much anyway. There's a respawn button. Back at it. Open world pvp flops. Not even pvpers will take it seriously. They'll take advantage of that kind of system just as much as carebears will.
But that's the quote. The vast majority of people will not go red. As in, they're not willing to go red, as in they're not willing to go red period, not even 1 kill's worth.
Almost a pvp toggle. Now I realize there are a whole lot more variables involved in all of this. I'm not trying portraying this as gospel. Just thought.
But you take that quote. Then it's like oh, reds cant CC. Oh, reds can't use their own freehold storage. Oh, corruption systems going to be significantly harsher than Lineage II. Bounty hunters with radar hacks (fat chance of BH's even exisiting at this point), stat dampening, finished gear loss, mega XP penalties on death. That's just lately. Where does it stop. We're not even in Alpha 2 yet. Nothing's been tested. The carebear horde hasn't even arrived yet. Asmongold hasn't even made a video bitching yet.
And again, it''s not about the reds. Fuck em. It's about keeping the open world pvp system functioning. Encouraging people to fight back instead of just ignoring people they know won't kill them anyway.
This isn't really all in response to you Azherae. I kinda just went off with it. I didn't intend to write this much earlier today because I don't care all that much anymore. I think I see where this is all heading, and the inevitability of it.
But I can't lie, I'm gonna be playing either way lol
In the future always report Steven for griefing, since it's his system
We'll get you help for that copium overdose.
Sure, but it seems that Steven sees the matter through the carebear lens, so Intrepid seems to be completely lost in this game niche.
I just like violence in games quite a lot, I would let all PK store everything and I would make the bounty hunter as real as a real life bounty hunter.... the bounty hunter would walk to the warehouse and request the stolen goods.... I will make a big post about this in my next reply.
Im not against them being able to use storage on their own freehold (family freehold), but they shouldnt be able to use storage on other people freeholds to bank there goods. This limits the range of red player to be around there freehold eventually people wont go there unless they looking to kill them, and if they venture out further there a longer distance to make it back to safety of there freehold.
Most pvp will take place in pockets in the world pvp player tend to end up close together so you probaly see 1-2 nodes with heavy pvp playerbase via pvp guilds and most other nodes will be left along with the exception of solo players which will probaly live near a freehold they have since it technicaly the only safe place for them so that specific freehold also becomes a smaller pocket.
I do think alot of the more pve orinated players are currently blowing open world pvp out of proportion and expecting a gank fest cause thats what they come to know bout open world pvp in games. I just hope they strike a nice medium between the 2 so open world pvp can happen but not a gankfest or murdering anyone u see
Future expansion content :P
I think the crossbow is a left over from Apoc but if the crossbow returns I will not be unhappy.
The game is Open World PvP after all, so the point is to allow this behavior, while including the proper risks and rewards.
If they were to add penalties for doing OWPVP, then why not just remove it? You know what i mean?...
Ah ok, so that was a change based on what we had previously been told.
Was literally no mention at all of that in the OP - though George isn't overly good at being accurate or precise with words and often just makes assumptions people know what he is talking about without him actually talking about it.
However, this isn't a surprise at all, and is something many of us have been expecting for a few years (well, there aren't many left from this discussion).
Many years ago, a few of us on these forums discussed corruption. An actual discussion, not a back and forth bitchfight like what happens now.
One of the scenarios we all agreed was viable based on the mechanics as we knew them, but was not desirable at all was for a player to set up a freehold next to a road (the kind of position you would want for a tavern or store). This freehold would then become a safe zone for that player, and they could use it for storage.
Thus, any passers by could simply be attacked and killed by this player, and they could then store what ever that player dropped immediately. Should it look like they are losing, or should a large group of players come around looking for revenge, they just stand on their freehold, away from any prospect of PvP.
So, this player is negating many risks the game has set in place. They have given themselves a literal safe zone in the area in which they plan on PvP'ing others, and they have given themselves a storage device allowing them to offload any gains from this PvP, meaning others can't gain that back when killing this player.
This means this player is circumventing more than half of the penalties associated with PvP for profit over someone doing the same, but not around a freehold that they own. I mean, they are essentially even immune from Bounty Hunters (as we understood the mechanics at the time).
Clearly, this is not a situation Intrepid would want left in the game. While some people would love to stand up on their soap box and say shit like "it's an open world PvP game, all these things should be left in place for players to figure out", the problem is that they are just objectively wrong. Primarily, Ashes is a game, games are required to be fun. The above situation creates more "unfun" than it does "fun" by a large amount, and so needs to not exist in the game.
This should be a basic concept that any and all games abide by. If something adds more unfun than it adds fun, it shouldn't be in any product whose sole purpose is to provide fun. Likewise, any poster here that doesn't understand this needs to literally get a clue.
This "change" (which is basically what we came up with at the time) would then mean that the player would need to actually go inside their freehold to be in a safe zone - this is still an advantage, but much less of one. It also means the player would need to work off their corruption before being able to offload their gains.
Back when we talked about it, corruption was still said to be worked off via quests, not via experience gain - so it will be a little easier than we had envisioned back in the day, but it still means they can't immediately just deposit and carry on.
While it doesn't absolutely remove the possibility that a player could set up a freehold next to a road and use it in a similar way, it does allow for players that are attacked by this 'rebel' to fight back more readily, and have a chance at getting some of their stuff back, and perhaps even making some gains. All of these things add in some fun back to where there was just unfun.
Why?
Because it would motivate people to siege my node in order to loot and eliminate the PKer's freehold. If I were able to, I would kick such people out of my node in a second.
Either way, I just think that all these evergrowing negative corruption designs will just turn the game into a "toggle pvp" mmo. With the toggle being the pvp events. Maybe that's exactly what Steven wants, but then I would've liked him to say so a long time ago. But alas.
C'mon, stop it
Stop stop stop
The carebear delirium is over 9000
You are confusing mmos with survival games.
You are confusing mmos with faction-based/instanced pvp, optional-instanced pve raids coop games, like eso, wow, ff14.
In real mmos there isnt only owpvp. There is:
Economy/crafting/gathering
Character progression, skills levels, gearing
Exploration/questing
Guild rivalries and raiding.
The corruption system and its penalties is there to protect all the above. Not hinder owpvp.
You cant go around killing players that do all the above, without anything slowing you down at least.
Anyway.... for me only L2 players know how to play an mmo.
From the wiki
Freeholds may be placed anywhere within the ZOI of a stage 3 node (or higher) so long as they are not in close proximity to any of the following:[17]
Pathing routes (Roadways).[17]
Dungeons and other points of interest (POIs) regardless of advancement.[17][18][19]
So, I guess it depends on the definition of "close proximity." Then that has to be cross checked with the carebear and the non carebear definitions of "close proximity." lol.
I see the same thing. Steven will at some point have to decide if he actually wants an open world pvp game, or just the illusion of one.
And if his intent is to not actually have a real and functional version of it, I agree, this is something he should let us know asap. It's not some small, negligible thing.
It is worth pointing out that an MMO with PvP only active in specific events stands every chance to be far more successful - both short and long term - than any open world PvP MMO ever will be.
Not that I am asking for that - I've been in this games community for many years, with the corruption system as it has been. There is a reason for that - despite many posters here thinking I am anti-PvP.
With that said - in order for freeholds to function as things like shops and taverns, they need to be at least somewhat close to roads, or what ever thoroughfare is in use. Steven's comments were more towards the idea of players building right on roads, not near roads.
The distance needed to make a freehold no longer able to function as this kind of safehouse is the same distance needed to not make a freehold function as a tavern or shop.
Essentially, without a change like this, Intrepids options were between allowing safehouses near roads and also allowing taverns and shops, or simply not allowing safehouses, shops or taverns to be viable at all.
This change (which, to be clear, is just preventing the last loophole that allows players to offload items while corrupt, thus circumventing a portion of the corruption penalty, and also shrinking a personal PvP safe zone) has always been a necessary thing.
The only time this change will ever come in to play is when people attempt to use their freehold as a form of stronghold, a base from which to terrorize the surrounding area. That isn't and has never been the point of a freehold.
This is exactly what people are going to do either way. Whether they can store it while still red, or whether they have to get back to green first. Whether the loot came from a green player, purple player, red player, caravan, open seas.
This may be a breaking news update for some people. Loot received from killing another player who didn't exactly want to be killed, will often find it's way to the storage of an individual's node bank or freehold. And people may siege your node over it. Welcome to Ashes of Creation.
It's one of the primary reasons to siege someone's node. We need these reasons. There are no factions that tell us who the enemy is. We need organic, dynamic pvp/pvx reasons in order to determine which fucker's node to siege. There are other reasons to siege nodes, but pvp related animus will be a big one.
If you're the mayor of a node, I personally hope you have some control over some things. But I also fall more into the pvp problems/pvp solutions side of things, instead of the nanny state/carebear solution category. But both types of solutions have valid use cases and merits in game development in my opinion, depending on the case.
Looking at the node citizenship and mayoral section of the wiki, I don't see any options for revoking a citizen's citizenship. I don't know whether you can attack fellow node citizens or not.
But just to get to your point, you're talking about a freehold owner who's going against the grain of you and the rest of the citizens. Not sure if you're talking about a guy who's attacking people within your node, or attacking foreign nodes and attracting attention you don't want. As of right now, based on the wiki, you're looking at the pvp problems/pvp solutions category. You outnumber this guy immensely. Make his life a living hell until he moves out. Perhaps more systems based options will be added at some point, who knows.
These "problems" will largely balance themselves out though. In the same way that you don't want a PK attracting attention to your node, a PK doesn't want to attract his victims to his house. Generally speaking, leading your victims back to your house by the dozens is pretty dumb. His individual house is going to be "sieged" long before your node gets sieged. This is telltale of a pk who will not last long at his craft.
God damnit this post is getting mega long again, revealing to myself how much of a mega nerd I am for even typing it out. blah blah blah. Wrap it up.
"If a player wants to achieve a freehold they can achieve the freehold, however the amount of effort resources and time that's required in order to achieve that freehold is a large amount. It is something that is a monumental achievement for you to to get that freehold" - wiki
Freeholds are a big deal. The vast majority of players, in my estimation, will be looking to plop it down and not cause themself problems with the people they live around. But...
In the event you do find yourself dealing with this type of highly, highly sticky situation. I mean, internal strife, drama, node politics, PKING(GASP). pEoPlE nOt LiStEniNg tO tHe RULEZZZZZZZZZ. Well. Look at you, you're playing Ashes of Creation. What year is it? We're all dying to know.
An effective form of this is built in to the corruption mechanic.
If you only have a minor infringement, you are able to quickly work that corruption off, and thus use your freehold storage.
This is why I was heavily coping in my first comment on this page. There's the smallest sliver of chance that at least the first 2-3 PKs won't make you grind mobs for several hours.
The second biggest reason is likely to be relics.
Social aspects are - at best - going to be the third reason.
PvP conflict like this will be limited to guild conflicts - based in no small part to the fact that we currently have no indication at all that we will even know what node an opponent is from, so can't really hold animosity towards a specific node due to the actions of one player.
There are four reasons a game would have a grind in it.
The first is that the game is developed for the Korean market. In order to be a successful game in Korea, you need to be installed on computers in Internet Cafes. The best way to do this is for your game to be a game where people spend a lot of time playing, but where that play is mind numbing enough that players would want something to eat/drink for most of that time.
This is literally why most Korean games have stupid amounts of grinding.
The second reason is that the game is a part of a subscription service - Apple TV or some such. The idea here is that the game itself is very fun, meaning the player wants to play it. However, the grind will put players off from actually playing the game for a while. What this means is that the game remains a reason for the player to maintain that subscription to the larger service for longer.
This isn't a factor in itself in MMORPG's, as if players find they don't want to play the game for a bit, they simply unsubscribe.
The third reason is that the game offers a cash shop means of getting around that grind.
The fourth reason is that the developers know the game isn't fun, and so add in large grinds in an attempt to keep players in their game.
Quite honestly, none of the above apply to Ashes. As such, if there is a grind of the scale you are talking about above in the game when it goes live, I would be wary - ass it would be a sign to me that the developers do not believe the game to be overly fun in and of itself.
Obviously, if you kill 10+ players and gain all of the corruption associated with that, I would expect a few hours to work that off - but that isn't an insane grind in the same way that several hours after several kills is.
For 1 kill, I would expect 5 - 8 minutes of solo grinding. However, I expect it to have an exponential increase, rather than a linear one.
I personally think that would start to get too cluttered. Name, title, guild, to me that is already too much (I will turn titles off instantly if it is an option).
The only way I can see this being viable is if it is an icon. If this is the case, 50%+ of players won't know what the icon for any node other than perhaps the nearest two or three to them even are.
I think that Steven doesn't have a concrete idea of where he wants the balancing to be, so he just keeps telling all the carebears "don't be afraid, corruption will stop everyone from killing you" and in the process he has put himself pretty much in the area of togglable pvp, because at some point no sane person would risk even attacking someone due to potential penalties being way too damn high.
I hope I'm wrong and I will definitely give as much feedback to try and change the balancing if I'm not wrong, but right now the trend definitely leans towards the carebeariness of it all.
This, this comment coming from Steven depends on when he played, and on what servers he played.