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
I'm also slightly against any benefits for setting it to 'normal PvP rules' or just not setting it at all.
I view both those things as just creating a division in the playerbase, creating Arya's 'anti-carebear' meta. I feel this because in my game-community management experience, Arya's approach and attitude towards players who are not yet ready for the so-called 'real world' is unhelpful and not productive, it pushes them away, insulates and breeds toxicity in the middle tier players (because they feel justified in pushing around the casual/lower tier players) and doesn't encourage growth in either group.
My experiences are, of course, limited, but I can only go off them for now. So if it were up to me I'd advise against it/not choose it.
Thank you for the ego massage!
Also, it came to our attention that Intrepid took out the no pvp freeholds and opted for regular pvp in all freeholds, I am saying that people should be able to opt between no pvp and pvp.... if there's an anti-carebear around here then it is not me at all LOL
What I truly believe is that freehold owners should set their freehold as they see fit for their gaming style, that's where I draw the line. I believe AoC could use an extra bucket of sand into the sandbox features.
No reason to encitivize it.
Shouldn't really need a timer. The Freehold owner should pretty much be able to change those settings whenever they want. MIGHT need to have a restriction of once per hour for PvP, but there should not be a restriction of once per week. And, if the restriction is once per hour... that pretty much already allows the Freehold owner to change the settings whenever they are comfortable doing so.
But, yeah... 1-4 in the original list are great.
And seem to let the Freehold owner choose what they are comfortable with.
ps. By the way, if you turn off pvp in freeholds, then it will be an abuse. A person will leave their freehold zone and shoot at someone, then return back to their safe area, heal and fight back
Sorry for the harsh words, your idea of switching between pvp and pve mode is also stupid. No one in their right mind would put in pvp modes. It will just be another abuse. Everyone should be on an equal footing with equal conditions Pvp for everyone, show evil pvp players how much you love your cow or carrot and protect them
Not a big deal to me personally. But these changes seem to be coming out of nowhere with little explanation lately. There's no testing we know of going on that would prompt these changes. They certainly weren't tested in Alpha 1.
Only thing I can think is that there's mega design discussions going on internally.
I think a timer is necessary, at least 1 hour, otherwise you could switch settings just to ambush others, or make it pvp free just to harvest your crops when you go outside and then make it pvp again right after harvesting
But... from a PvP perspective it is kinda hilarious inviting people into your freehold, then switch to FFA and kill them
Letting people change the PvP settings from their freehold doesn't affect the game in the big scale, but it is fun
It's not a big deal people who starting fights then getting beat up and then running away into a no PvP zone, this is exactly the dynamic of PKing around cities in Ultima Online. Also, even in EVE Online that has an unforgiving PvP has this mechanic, in EVE it is called "station games".
The difference in EVE is that when you engage in PvP you will get a Weapons Timer that prevents you from docking... so you are forced to stay in space in the open
So along 60 seconds you can only use defenses and heal, you can not attack anyone for 60 seconds if you want to dock into safety!
If you can survive a 60 seconds beating by any means, then you can dock and be safe
Station games brings a boatload of fun, the entire time people are baiting and ambushing each other
I think a lot of people will leave the game after losing their node, or if they lose their nodes repeatdly.
People don't get it that AoC is closer to being Counter-Strike than being World of Warcraft
Pvp gate for me was one of the most fun places. There are guards that kill pk players. But yes, I agree, some cowards did just that, left the city for 1 second and ran back. So it will be in AoC with freeholds.
as I said before, no one in their right mind will turn on the pvp mode, which means the toggle button will become unnecessary. All should be on equal terms. boring safe mode or free pvp
AHhaah that's a very carebearly way of seeing things, obviously the smarter players are more freeholds will be on free-for-all at all times
Since I was one of the legendary gankers from UO, I will double down on this!
Having your freehold as free-for-all is the ganker way of harvesting materials since fools will come and die. Why cut trees and and pick flowers if fools will bring those for you as offerings?
It's the same as having a trap base in RUST, let people get in the base and get killed, so people are farmed. In AoC, the player could pretend he is working in his crafting stations, but that could be bait and nothing but bait
Freehold PvP is basically the same thing as an Arena.
I think the PvP in Counter-Strike is more 24/7 FFA than Ashes.
No one is expecting Ashes to be like World of Warcraft - especially since Ashes does not have PvE-Only servers.
Even Planetside - a massively multiplayer online first person shooter - is closer to WoW than it is to Counterstrike.
Quite honestly, with WoWs many features making the game essentially function as a lobby game, WoW is probably closer to Counterstrike than Ashes will be.
Those are the biggest two, but I do think that I thought of more, but I forget them rn.
You really think there'll be L2 fans in any century past this one?
Also, I even support the idea of allowing players to vote on setting up PvP settings from the node, even if it means enabling free-for-all PvP within cities and letting people tear each other faces. If the most nasty or most carebear people go live in a place and vote for it, whatever they choose they should have it.
Really?
You dont think that giving players the ability to place a PvP free zone essentially anywhere in the open world would have an effect on the fame world?
While from the perspective of someone that is using a freehold for crafting may not have a huge impact on the game world, the assumption needs to he that not everyone would use it that way.
Yes, I don't think your few feet square freehold will affect the world in any way, later on the node will be destroyed anyway and even the freehold
I absolutely love the idea of PvP settings, as we have talk about them, in this thread. However, I would definitely say no to the idea of added benefits for it. Half taxes or faster crafting is really just a backdoor way of forcing it on everyone. The idea of choice is eliminated.
Yes, but when the node and freehold are destroyed, that player can then just relocate to another area, and then set up another PvP free zone.
I can tell you now, players would abuse the crap out of this as a system, just like every other abusable system in every other game.
Fortunately, Steven knows they would, because he abused the crap out of PvP free land in otherwise open PvP areas in Archeage - when XL made that change.
I'm not sure if people are understanding this or not, but allowing people to place a PvP free zone in a PvP setting has already been proven to be a bad thing.
Like, it isn't a debate as to whether it will be abused or be a bad thing - it is known that it will be both.
The total lack of understanding of this point, and as such the total lack of addressing it, means this thread and any others like it are pointless. If Intrepid make a change to the game to minimize negative player behaviors, you absolutely will not convince them to change unless you address that negative player behavior.
It will only make the game good and bring more fun
It's not an issue having a tiny no pvp island, nobody will sit there 24/7 and a tiny patch of land doesn't affect the world. Besides, within the house the owner has total safety, it is not different having a few steps more of safety around the house. The no pvp zone is already in the game, it is the interior of the house
Don't worry, because your point of view relies on the exxageration of things, it is just an illusion. Anything is bad if you exxagerate everything
War targets will have to actually go inside the house to escape fights, that's all