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
I suspect "without limitations" is nothing you will get from Ashes.
The corruption system won't go away, that's for sure. The CC-immunity... well, I think there is a good chance for it to be dialed down significantly after A2 because full CC immunity is not making sense. My assumption: If it remains, it will be a buff that makes a green attacked by someone else immune to CC for 1-3 seconds, maybe scaling with the corruption level of the player attacking.
Edit: Especially since attacking greens is not really "PvP" because one of the sides is clearly not engaging in the fight, they are just forced into a situation where PvP is one of the possible reactions.
being able to cc greens is good.
being able to cc greens is bad
the good thing about ccing greens is that if someone tries to mob drop you, you can stun or slow them and they die to the train instead.
the bad thing is that people might do the same to you when you try to aoe farm. in a party vs party situation, this is fine. you are fighting for the spot, you have a healer, etc. in a solo situation its not that great. you could also have parties going to solo farm spots to cc players farming and then get their loot, and the solo player cant really do much about it, other than leave or not kill any mobs.
maybe only a few skills that do damage + cc will be able to cc greens
party up, don't solo
In other words, to me "themebox" means that you can't just ignore the story part of the game, while there is a huuuuge sandbox world around you that you can explore and use.
L2 had those psychos on the most important quests. It led to ooohh so many guild wars
Ashes is a combo of Themepark and Sandbox. It is not just a Sandbox.
So... you shouldn't expect the game to work exactly like and Open World Sandbox. You should expect some limitations on Sandbox mechanics - because those limitations will support the Themepark elements.
When a major goal of the game is to have one server type that mixes PvPers and PvEers - expect some limitations on PvP. Because it's not a PvP-only server.
That beings said...
Steven is a hardcore PvPer, so... expect a ton of support for PvP.
(Themebox is Steven's term for Ashes.)
Ashes is not a sandbox, and it is definitely also it s themepark MMO.
However, the bullshit I was calling you out on was in relation to you using the term "themebox" as if it were actually "themepark".
Since themebox is already a portmanteau of themepark and sandbox, your argument should have been that Ashes is both a themepark and sandbox, making it a themebox. However, your comment was that Ashes is both a themebox and sandbox.
Again, "if" this was a mistake on your part, cool, things happen, we agree that this is a somewhat important point to make, admit you made a small mistake and carry on.
However, since you didnt even mention themepark as a term until after I posted my first correction for you (and after you googled the terms and needlessly provided links), my assumption is that you didnt even realize that themepark and themebox were different things, and participated in the conversation mistaking themebox for the term themepark.
The above is the only real way you can claim Ashes is part themebox and part sandbox - hence me calling you out.
Either way, you made a mistake. It was either an honest mistake or it was you bullshitting your way in a discussion.
However, since we again both agree that it is an important discussion to make, all I care about at this point is you clarifying which of the two mistakes you made.
If they don't fight back, you don't need to CC them at all.
If they do fight back, they're no longer green and so can be CC'ed.
I'm not sure I get what the problem is.
The "problem" is that people can't open fights against unsuspecting opponents with CC.
Like you (I assume), I don't see this as an issue at all. All things aside, I don't believe combat should be able to begin with CC anyway.
I guess for those who are strongly against the "No CC against greens" rule is primarily for those who think it is fun to make people change what they are doing or make quick decisions on whether or not to punish the attacker by letting them get corrupted or by trying to fight back from the unfavorable spot they are already in.
To make this short this is what I thought of:
Pools would just be manipulated and not give a full picture do to the small amount of players that interact on forums. In-game surveys would be more reliable.
I guess technically it is a handicap feature.
What it does is give the player that is attacked an option though. They can signal their unwillingness to fight by simply leaving, and their attacker is unable to stop them doing so. They could follow and continue the attack, but cant CC them to prevent them leaving. This aspect of it isnt a handicap.
The other thing it does is give the player that was attacked the first shot at CC in the fight. The attacker gets first attack, but the attacked player is then able to reply with CC.
This aspect of it is indeed a handicap (leveling the playing field out).
In my opinion though, this is a good thing. Every MMO I have played with open world PvP has been overly skewed towards the attacker winning. This levels that out some. In a game like Ashes, the fact that the green has the option of first CC will encourage more players to fight back - it's a much easier decision to make when you have a valid tactic to win over being CC'd and unable to do anything until you are already half dead.
Players wanting to play as a rogue and open with a stun and such still have the ability to do that, they just need to attack reds and purples, rather than greens.
my response is still no, couldn't care any less.
I assume you know that this makes you appear as if you just want to sneak up behind unsuspecting players and attempt to CC lock them.
Since it would seem Intrepids plan for this mechanic is to stop players being able to do this, those that want to do it saying they dont like the mechanic simply tells Intrepid they are on the right track.
how disappointing. I guess the rumors are true then. I expected more from you.
Don't get caught up in rumors about people. Noaani is just a person on the forum, like you and like me. Rumors are started by people, and spread by other people. This tells me you are a part of some kind of community or group of like-minded people as yourself.
Get THOSE people to come to the forums and give their opinions on topics. They don't need to fight with anyone or get into big drawn out arguments, just tell them to come give their opinions on things on the forum. This forum is suffering a dire shortage of common sense lately. That's kind of subjective of course. But if you know people who are looking at Ashes, but sitting on the sidelines as far as giving feedback, tell them to get INVOLVED.
As far as the CC thing, it's unlikely to change. Yeah it's kind of silly in a way. But there is some merit to not allowing greens to be CC'd in some situations. It avoids several different griefy/trolly situations. But there's also merit to the notion that a red who is being actively attacked by a green, should be able to CC that green.
These types of common sense solutions are the things we need people like you and yours arguing for. You can hold on to your idea that all greens should be CC'able always. It's a valid opinion. I'm just telling you it's unlikely you're going to get exactly what you want there. And there are other aspects of it to argue for, as well as other entire issues. Get your people involved.
lol?
ROFLMAO
I'm kinda trolling too. I think he thinks I'm a Noaani alt account.
I mean, probably.
On the other hand, if you disagree, feel free to debate the point with logic and such - assuming you have a logical point to make.
Perhaps you have a reason why you think players should be able to sneak up on unsuspecting players, CC them and get them down to 50% ho before they have a chance of responding to the situation.
Personally, I like the idea of that not being possible - at least not against greens.
you three... lol. thin air defense team.
Thanks for the laughs
How would you manipulate a poll when you can simply filter for people who have actually put money on the table? Sure anyone can make an account in the forum, but when you filter the votes by status (e.g. "Beta+" for accounts who have purchased at least a beta key) I'd like to see the one who buys thousands of keys just to screw up the poll.
I like that greens will not have to worry about having a root whipped out willy-nilly...
Please add to report, thank you
I'm honestly fine with not thinking about/worrying about any of the pk stuff until then. At that stage we will have concrete experiences with what they are setting up to tell us if its actually working or not.
It is quite possible that this will become more common.
The natural counter to this is that people will slow down a little while fighting mobs, so that they don't get themselves in too dangerous a position.