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
This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.
So a completely separate quest from working off your corruption is needed to reduce your PK score. I can't wait to set this one ablaze in testing.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:PK_value
This mainly relied on the simplicity of the system, relatively short times of removing corruption and later on relative ease of decreasing your PK count. And those last two things are the exact stuff that can be tweaked and tested to make the system fit Steven's vision of "some PKing, but no griefing".
If anything, I think that complicating the PK count side of things would be fine, because that's the more intricate part of the system already. It could account for node allegiances or mayor-placed markers, it could account for incoming attacks from greens and not go up if you retaliate. All that good stuff that would be tested in A2.
Yeah, which is why I think that corruption gain values should be somewhat low, but PK count should increase them by quite a lot, the higher it is.
And count decreasement should be costly, both in money and in time. Those who PK very rarely can afford to spend some time/money, say, once a month to reduce their count back to zero. While those who want to keep PKing randomly would have to constantly refarm all the money/mats for the reduction and spend a ton of time on the process itself - hence reducing their griefing portion of the gameplay.
Yet, again this is exactly how it was in L2 and it worked.
Yea no matter what it is going to get tested to see what the real problems are. But I stand by what I say will be issues. I do plan to specifically test these if you are down for getting together and running some scenarios.
Honestly I think PK count should be per instance of corruption, not overall PK count. Once you work it off or are killed, reset it. Otherwise you are going to have people get to a point where they just dont ever go red ever again, and that is a bad thing because that means no OW PvP engagements. Like, oh I have to go spend a crap load of time and money because I smacked 30 gathers from other nodes ruining my nodes environment management over the course of a month, and now when I kill one of them I have corruption for 3 days? I love OW PvP and I can say, I would never bother flagging if that becomes the case, even with an army of PvE griefers before me. Because I will be wasting gold and time to keep up with it all. And I wouldnt even be griefing.
I mean, thats hidden in a quote on the corruption page. All I got the first time I read it was "youll get more corruption as you continue to kill players" not "This score doesnt decrease once youre not corrupted"
If they somehow were people from all across the server who just so magically managed to come to your node and overfarm it exactly in such a way where you had to PK them all at least once a day - I feel like there should be a separate social org that allows to stop the gathering process of a target, if you're deep enough into that org's progress. Cause otherwise I see no point in having hardcore corruption punishments when the game encourages you to kill others for overfarming your node.
In other words, I'd need to learn more about other game systems that might encourage PKing before having the final say on its balancing. L2 was easy in this manner because there were only mobs. We'll have to see what Intrepid comes up with.
then there is no point..i could spend 10 hours killing you, as long as i cleanse the corruption first.
I mean, I saw PK value, and thought "yea, that make sense, the number of PKs that corrupted player accrued increasing the corruption as they go" never even would have guessed theyd go as extreme as "EVERY KILL YOU EVER GOT COUNTS TOWARD EVERY OTHER KILL YOU GET! HA!" lmao. Just another thing to chalk up to corruption being too extreme as it currently is. But like you said. Testing awaits.
I was wrong about it. But, in those 10 hours, you'd have to spend a lot of that time working it off. So even if I did focus on you, I would hope that I wouldnt be able to kill you more often than once or twice an hour in the most extreme cases of going after you. Which gives you plenty of time to go about playing and even running off to evade me.
slaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy
Yep.
I like the premise of it for sure, just need some kinks worked out.
I guess the same can be said for guilds, people will flock to the most powerful ones. But that is not my point. The point is that it creates meaningful pvp action. It creates a reason to contest an area. I do understand your point about factions, but maybe something simular.
I see players going behind their metropolises and act as those are their factions.
We will have 5 factions + neutral nodes
Nice finding.
With that, players who kill often players who do not defend themselves can be tracked.
Corruption value from PK'ing a non-combatant is based on level disparity along with the PKer's cumulative PK value.[35] – Steven Sharif
So a PK-er has to do what a PvE-er does to be able to later PK them again. Good punishment. Also a good way to drive some players into the deep sea, away from nodes.
While Steven achieves his target, I wonder if there is indeed a player-base for it.
I can see this as well. And the nodes they are on themselves could be factions as well. Millitary, scientific, divine, and economic.
Node governments may declare war on another node and rally citizens to the cause.[1]
This mutually flags the citizens of the warring nodes, including their allies, as combatants.[2]
That means they will move and change citizenship as soon as they see such conflict, to get that PvP enabled flag.
Could happen that a 2 allied strong metropolises will declare war onto the others and create a permanent war on the map.
Mainly because of this
Guild wars are not the same because are localized to small groups.
A war between 80% of players grouped into 2 factions would be completely different.
But that would also not help @Dolyem to go into enemy territory acting as an innocent green to ambush them and take their loot. He would be flagged everywhere all the time. Players who want to escape would move to one of the 20 neutral nodes outside of the metropolis vassal system.
But even if they are forced allies, the only way to have "80%" at war is to have 2 metros ally up against another 2 allied metros. The only way for this to happen is for the government of those metros to do this on purpose. But considering that there'll probably be way more casual players than super hardcore pvpers - I'd assume that citizens of those places would just relinquish their citizenships as soon as they get killed a few too many times (which for some is in the single digits).
Maybe a server filled with WoW andies would create an artificial copy of a faction-based pvp system. Though who am I kidding, WoW andies wouldn't survive even a week in Ashes
how is it good if not a single one of those kills are actually griefing?
Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. Though some seem to be unable to see the difference between corruption for griefing and corruption to defend ones node.
I will assume there is no griefing in this game until I see somebody in an emotional grief state. If is just a bit upset or even very upset, that is for me just a player which has chosen the wrong game.
When I say good, it is from Steven's perspective. Not from player's perspective which want to kill.
The way how the game is setup, seems to want to create uncertainty. You harvest wood and you see a green. You hope is a nice peaceful player but it comes and kills you. If you could know it is a player who kills often other players, you could run. But the game want's to hide such players behind a fake green color meaning peaceful non combatant.
But this cumulative PK value is acting as a game rule, not visible to the player but still punishing the one which kills too often.
We have Stevens very own definition of griefing
Griefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1]
So following that, and the fact that corruptions sole purpose is to deter that. PKing non-combatants purposely trying to harm your node is not griefing. It has nothing to do with ones emotional state. It purely depends on ones intent. In other words, camping or killing low level players, or barring someone from content for the sole purpose of harassing the player.
So if a player has only accrued PKs through non-griefing corruption kills, it is a bad design.
Steven has not communicated yet everything and tests must till be done in Alpha 2.
Changes will be made. For low level players we have to see how the leveling areas are made.
I see easier ways to deal with that than adjusting the corruption mechanic to allow players to punish those who they perceive as griefers.
A low level trying to level up is a different scenario from a low level going to over harvest enemy node's resources.
Steven sets up the game in a complicated way and it might be that there is no solution to everything.
Players have to deal with that. Maybe is better that way that having an ideal setting where you can do only what Steven wants.
After 100 caravans I might call this "the caravan game", if I have no choice but to do them.
Thats a bit of a cop-out. Griefing has been clearly defined, and so has corruptions purpose. And either way, as a PvX game, you don't go the route that would remove OW-PvP's viability.
Low level non-combatant kills will grant massive corruption regardless of how many PKs you already have, so they are covered by corruption even if cumulative PKs are removed as it is currently defined as a factor for corruption gains.
When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif
You said
"Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. "
What changes to the corruption you want which help defending against green griefers?
The one in the OP does not seem a good idea because it would allow a player who want to attack a group of greens to get the corruption of only one green if they chose to fight back after one of them was killed.
And that group of players can be a group of gatherers or a group of travelers with a mule, transporting goods from freehold to caravanserai.