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.
PvP - Corrupted/Corruption
Mistiti
Member, Alpha Two
Hello everyone,
I couldn't find a recent post about pvp and corruption, so I'm reopening the subject.
L2 is my reference mmo, and I've done several "open pvp" mmo looking for its replacement, without success.
The A2 "approaching"
I'm updating, the pvp being an important point for me, I "discovered" the malus of being pk (killed under corruption).
To start the exchange, I'll simply say that if the pk is too restrictive, players will switch to the T mode, T for Train....
And the T system, in view of the death panalty even on non-combatants, will turn into alt char that will be made solely to train players... because the nice players won't be able to pk it and if they do there might be the train master nearby waiting for the pk...
In short, pk is both a problem that needs to be "controlled" and a means of protection.
And in general, the malus on skills in the event of death will make the game slower and less reactive.
I couldn't find a recent post about pvp and corruption, so I'm reopening the subject.
L2 is my reference mmo, and I've done several "open pvp" mmo looking for its replacement, without success.
The A2 "approaching"
I'm updating, the pvp being an important point for me, I "discovered" the malus of being pk (killed under corruption).To start the exchange, I'll simply say that if the pk is too restrictive, players will switch to the T mode, T for Train....
And the T system, in view of the death panalty even on non-combatants, will turn into alt char that will be made solely to train players... because the nice players won't be able to pk it and if they do there might be the train master nearby waiting for the pk...
In short, pk is both a problem that needs to be "controlled" and a means of protection.
And in general, the malus on skills in the event of death will make the game slower and less reactive.
0
Comments
mob dropping is a valid strategy, but its lame we turn red for trying to kill a mob dropper xd
I try to say, if the penalty on PK is too high, ppl will train to kill and get spot.
If ppl train, we cant also pk trainer because of pk penalty, so puting to much pk penalty is bad for all
Edit: If you know, you know.
This reference pertains to elements within the world of online gaming, particularly in MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games) like World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy XIV, or The Elder Scrolls Online.
Ashes: "Ashes" might refer to "Ashes of Creation," an upcoming MMORPG. It's a game that promises innovative gameplay mechanics, a dynamic world, and an environment that evolves based on player actions.
PvP in Craglorn: Craglorn is a specific zone in The Elder Scrolls Online, an MMORPG set in The Elder Scrolls universe. PvP (Player versus Player) in Craglorn refers to competitive combat or activities where players face off against each other within this specific area of the game.
The essence of this statement seems to express a desire for the game "Ashes of Creation" to provide a fulfilling and satisfying gaming experience similar to the one players get when engaging in PvP activities in a specific zone like Craglorn in The Elder Scrolls Online. This might involve challenging gameplay mechanics, rewarding achievements, and engaging player interactions to create an immersive and gratifying experience.
Would it really be so bad if you auto flagged purple, entering a Dungeon, or in proximity of gatherables, or loot? Maybe it would.. I would like to see competition, without a Corruption fest somehow.
Corruption, intended to deter griefing.
Griefing in Ashes of Creation is defined as impacting another player's gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner.
I am hoping they lean into the repetitive part, and not the initial.
As it stands, I think sometimes the heroes of your node will be compelled to go red, and sometimes that should be you.
Corruption makes things harder, but also fairer. Stronger small groups can always flag back up (or flag first), while zergs will have to start PKing if they want to overpower a weaker group.
autoflag would make pvp not happen organically.
The zerg issue is a big deal.
I just can't see myself, my group, or raid standing there getting turned to an ash pile, deterring a zerg in a dungeon. I guess we'll see. I would rather fight back.
I have been following the zerg busting threads with hope.
I will just wait they make mistake and get corruption, and then crush them..
The actual penalty of loosing stat will not help the pvp part of the game.
Ofc we need to get penalty to stop zerg and some grief, but not too hard, and not touching stat. Just up the looting table on corruption ppl (L2 systèm is perfect)
You know they can win, they know you agree and they take the farming spot.
They will not get corruption and you don't die.
Unfortunatly In this way we will all lost time, and the first one who will do mistake will lost.
It's not thé pvp i like... But i'm also good for it..
This type of fight "harass fight" will be too frustration and will kill all the little pvp.. The best pvp part in my opinion
The lack of stat penalties leads to the appearance of PK alts. I overused this type of gameplay in L2 and find it more annoying than possibility of occasional low-tier skirmishes for the grinding spots.
That’s a pretty short-term path. Over time the penalties will rack up, particularly with gear loss to the point where your PK-alt will be underpowered and ineffective - and most likely KOS.
I think they should tie all your characters per server into your citizenship. That way the citizenship is account related for that specific server. This way it reduces the probability of players logging on alts to sabotage caravans and pk etc. Corruption does not have to be shared across characters, but at least flag it. Same thing for deserter status. Just makes sense considering how the game is "supposed" to be played vs what players will do since many supporters think it's a every man and node for themselves kind of game lol
But, this is a legitimate part of the intended game design.
yes and no.
if your main is in one node (citizenship) and you log onto an alt near or in the same node after you find out the caravan from your node is leaving, does that not defeat the purpose of integrity in game design. Seems counter productive and contradictive.
If it's not your caravan, why should you not want to attack it? Sure, it's someone else's in the same node, but it's not yours. It's fair game.
Because it defeats the purpose of the node system on a macro level?
Choices are supposed to matter especially when picking a citizenship at a node. If switching to an alt to sabotage the nodes caravans because a bunch of citizens(guilds or players in general) don't like each other then the meta is just to play as turn coats on alternative characters which is dumb. Essentially the same thing as playing horde and alliance on the same PvP server (back when factions mattered).
Linear micro perspectives. No wonder game design intent never lasts these days.
You do realise the main goal of the node's macro agenda is to expand your nodes vassal network and control the map's resources via trade routes and biomes. I don't see the point in sabotaging your own network and resources when you can go after other node/vassal networks to increase your network after sieges. If there is no point in growing your vassal network then the main purpose of the nodes network is a completely hallow game design. Sieging specific nodes can break the network up and change it's vassal control.
But yeah. I guess we'll just attack our own resources on alts and bypass the purpose of the nodes macro agenda to prevent our ally vassals and nodes from being able to defend themselves so your node has higher probability of being destroyed.. because switching to an alt to be a turncoat is the meta goal of the game.
To me, it would make more sense to have all your characters linked on that server to one citizenship (assuming the player chooses to become a citizen) but if this is what ashes thinks is better... seems um logical.. Cant wait to have a caravan raided by an allied guild on alts of the same node.. lol
You hit the nail on the head. It's the "node"'s agenda, not the player's agenda. How many players do you think would be willing to turn a profit at the expense of their node, simply by logging into a different character?!
Even if some don't, others will do. And that'll be part of the driving force that keeps the game interesting in the long-term.
Yes, the players can still do that. But why be a bitch and do it on an alt?
and to be honest... most gamers would make an alt to steal from their own allies. So hard to level a second character with no repercussions to actions and gear them...
the player can have only one citizenship / server
Only one citizenship may be declared per account, per server.[3][9][10][11]
Your account is bound to one declared citizenship per server, which means that if you have two alts and your main character on one server you may only be a citizen of one node between those three... If you have an alt on a different server, it could be a citizen of a node as well.[11] – Steven Sharif
@daveywavey knows for sure this detail as he got the wiki link as his signature
I'm well aware of it too.
The wording does not specify that each alt is an official citizen but that just the one you declare with as a citizen is. It means you cannot be a citizen to multiple nodes on multiple characters of the same server but doesn't force you to be a citizen on all your alts either to the same node.
Grammar matters and Steven's quotes can be quite vague, outdated and sometimes incorrect regardless of subject to change.
It doesn't change the fact that you be a citizen on your main, switch to alt who is not a citizen and raid your allies caravans like a bitch. Very turn coat meta to have an anonymous alt that steals from your allies to feed your personal goals.
Ok but raiding your allies caravans has the same consequences weather you are a citizen or not as long as you have a citizenship on your main.
You basically work against the node. Those alts will loot goods and glint and could also have advantages of being citizens. People will not know anyway that a certain bandit is the alt of another character.
that's the thing. raiding them is raiding them. Just doesn't tarnish your main's reputation as you're doing it on an alt with 0 repercussions especially if no one knows it or a bunch of players are in on it. All characters should be tied together for that server including their citizenship and reputation for specific reasons.
Otherwise, what's the purpose of the whole game design if players can just bypass the games purpose? seems pointless objectively.
Anyways. Said my part about it. No point reiterating to multiple people over and over again that enter the thread.