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
while trying to be sarcastic, you are actually stating a reality. you refuse to learn the truth.
Sorry man, chocolate chips a reserved for the freehold owners.
I think it's pretty clear Steven really likes exclusivity in many things. From cosmetics, to itemization, to flying mounts, and to housing. We already knew in-node housing was very limited, and to some extent we also knew freeholds would be, because they're placed in the open world. But in the past the wording from Steven sure didn't reflect just how exclusive it would be, combined with locking an entire essential Artisan branch behind it.
In-node housing will apparently also have its own utility, and now I fear it's going to to be another essential part of the game locked behind this gate.
It's starting to get to be too much honestly. I can personally play enough to get by anyway, but I don't want to play on a dead server after 6 months because the majority of the people can't ever hope to achieve their dreams ingame due to all the exclusivity.
I choose to be beyond both 'reality' and 'truth' as we normally discuss them once we hit 'morality as a whole', yes.
Completely agreed. Back to MMO Economics then.
Please feel free to further discuss your truth as it pertains to MMO economics, where I can contain my incredible arrogance and urge to act like a know-it-all down to the level where I feel it is reasonable to actually engage.
I believe we were at the idea that once someone buys a Freehold, they should not lose it without... let me check...
"Successful destructive violence aimed at their government."
EDIT: Sieging my Node should be illegal.
Open world freeholds will truly be very exclusive competitive assets like i expected and that certainly amuses me.
Aren't we all sinners?
in MMO economics, its not good that your allies can vote to control what you do with your land. I'm going to vote so that you cant farm milk and instead you become a fisherman
Ah but no one said that. Also your allies can always vote that you can't farm milk in Ashes, it's simple.
Whenever someone sees you trying to do it, they warn you not to do it, and if you do it they kill you.
Then they just ignore the penalty (if they all agreed to this, no one will kill any Red players on your Freehold for example, this is unrealistic but I feel like you get the point).
Is it fair? Reasonable? No, we make those decisions differently.
What about not paying taxes? If you decide you're not paying them, do your allies get to vote you out of Node Citizenship? Is that okay? What about if you can't afford to pay your taxes because you keep farming milk when no one in the area needs it and the nearest other Node is a huge Dairy Farm collective and your milk is always more expensive?
Surely you should be allowed to raise cows and get milk on your own land, but should you also be allowed to not pay the taxes? And what does this have to do with literally anything we were talking about? See, we were talking about people choosing not to farm anything at all.
Do you have an opinion on what should happen to Freeholds when the owner can't pay the taxes?
can they kill you in your freehold? they arent your allies anymore. do you see where I'm going now, how your own logic makes no sense. i literally just used your own logic against you and you refuted it to a point.
killing a player is not the same as voting to take away their freehold or voting (through an ingame system) that you cant do a certain activity in your freehold.
also, you might not always win the PVP if you are the attacker.
afaik taxes are payed automatically when you spend money in a node...cant have a choice on that, other than not spending the money and going somewhere else.
As far as we know, you are only safe in your house.
You can be attacked while attempting to get your milk from your cow.
I will hope that you can't actually be stopped during the animation since you can't be CCed during it.
I'll address the rest too, but I just want to make sure we're both clear on this point, that if a group of people (presumably a larger group, otherwise we don't care how they vote, right? They'd lose the vote) shows up to your Freehold to decide that you don't get to milk your cows that night, until you 'bring more people' (to the point where you would win the vote) or 'exceed their violence' (with or without more people) you don't get to milk your cow.
I don't care if it's the same, I just want to make sure you understand what I'm saying.
you know what the difference is?
we have to fight and the winner wont be decided on a vote. it will be decided based on competence. if you want me to not get my milk tonight, you have to spend time getting people, possibly from another node, get gear, learn how to pvp, e coordinated, etc and I have to do the same in order for me to push back. there are also consequences for doing such things.
on the other hand, what you suggest (or I think you are suggesting) is some kind of voting interface where we can decide what other players will do in their freehold. they will be forced to do that we consider best or they wont play the game. they wont even have a chance to defend themselves. sounds like cancel culture to me tbh.
I didn't suggest that but I can see how you would have taken it that way.
what is your suggestion then? how will people vote?
pvping isn't voting. the outcome is based on competence, not selecting yes or no on a survey
EDIT: Ok got it, I see where this happened.
At the beginning I said that it would be unrealistic for land to remain idle because your Node Citizens would vote to take it from you.
In this case 'vote' can be replaced with:
"Hire someone to run you out of the Node."
"Get on their alts and kill you."
"Figure out if the Mayor of a different Node can make you an Enemy of the State of that Node so you can be attacked freely."
So in the hypothetical situation where you 'leave land idle and do nothing for the Node', the game should have a system for letting those who dislike your actions to take action of their own. Currently, the system might unrealistically block that or make it lots of effort.
The voting part isn't important. The important part is that if you choose to do nothing with the land, your fellow Citizens might not be able to do anything about it, and this is unrealistic because it is the game enforcing one part of the social contract and not the other part.
We good now? I'd be fine with 'Citizens of the Node getting together to agree to tell the Mayor of the node to designate you as Enemy of the State so that they can come kill you every time you try to milk your cows'. ( I don't know if a Mayor can do this)
But this is a loophole that doesn't apply to 'a player that owns a Freehold but never goes to it'. So my point is that there are consequences that the game systems protect players from, and choosing which ones is important. I don't think that protecting the Freehold Owner from 'everyone else wanting them gone' is bad. But I think that there should also be some protection from 'allowing the Freehold Owner to do a thing that everyone would kick them out of the Node for'.
And all this was a big tangent from 'Wanting to be able to do something about realtors'. We good now? I'm glad to offer my services to any Node that wants to run some shmuck off their Homestead.
But realistically, the 'government' would handle this.
Again the 'vote' thing was definitely my bad, we went in a political direction and danced around it unnecessarily. You can choose any option you like best that parallels to 'voting'. If 'literally killing someone repeatedly' > 'cancel culture' for you, have at it.
clicking yes or no on a menu that pops up is wrong because the other person cant even fight back. its like kicking your tank or healer right before the raid boss dies so that they don't get any loot since they were a random recruit for the activity.
but ill wait for you to come up with a "fair voting system"
Alright, sounds like we are good.
Democracy is one way. Might (competence) makes right is another way.
I'll just remind you that one of the biggest problems here is that 'opportunity to fight back' in a 1 v 7 situation for example isn't really much better. Whenever the numbers change, the vote would have changed too, but I suppose in a PvX MMO 'having to put up with people voting for something you don't want instead of just fighting them' isn't what some people want.
Reject Democracy, Embrace Kratocracy. (not political btw
Aren't we all sinners?