Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I generally choose not to play games that can't come up with better than this.
Same answer.
A PvEer gets the advantage of reduced non-consensual PvP activity. Well the point really would be to compensate PvPers to remain flagged.
Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.
Well this is I'm addition to the existing corruption mechanics right. Just to fix* the issue* that this thread exists to discuss.
*I know I know, not everyone agrees it's an issue that needs fixing. Some do, though.
Before the semantic warriors charge to the rescue!
I'm not seeing it. How do I get lowered risk of nonconsentual PvP here? People who want to gank me are not in any way prevented from doing so are they? Maybe they have more other people to fight, but 'lack of consensual PvP options' was never a PvEr's problem. The problem was "gonna get ganked cause somebody else wants your spot or resources". People who want a fair, willing opponent could already find one.
This sounds like "consenting to PvP gives you a benefit". Was there another part to this scenario that wasn't in the post? The only thing this does to reduce nonconsentual PvP is pushing people to consent by penalizing them for not doing so.
A useful note is probably that this is the fundamental difference between us and 'you' (or Steven).
We don't want to play a game 'about conflict'. We want to play 'a Fantasy game about Nodes which allows reasonable/meaningful conflict'.
We have enough games that are about conflict to play, and we have a non-Fantasy game with 'Nodes' AND a better conflict system.
So the response to such suggestion just ends up being 'whatever makes conflict-first players happy'.
I mention this because I got them to engage enough to answer, but probably won't get more than that.
Lol well regardless, flagging in advance obviously increases your chance of dying to PvP, and that'd have to be incentivised somehow, eg via a buff to exp.
It's really not complicated.
I reckon I could propose that 2+2=4 here and the thread would light up with PvEers who've found a way to disagree.
All respect but we are on an Ashes forum right, the brainchild of Steven who has repeatedly declared conflict and risk v reward to be central to gameplay.
We're not necessarily discussing our personal hopes and dreams for MMOs generally.
Ashes is still a little unclear for some of us, you see.
Don't worry, we'll probably realize and leave eventually. It's just taking a long time.
Well for me too. The purpose of the thread was to discuss a v specific situation that is more relevant to PvPers, who are not so familiar with a flagging system.
And an incentive to pre-flag is a humble attempt to address that, without penalising the PvEers out there.
It'd be nice if people could recognise a genuine constructive attempt without it descending into the usual polarised tit-for-tat rubbish.
You're just imagining that.
Unless your original point was unclear. The question was 'what people would think of it'.
That's why I answered the way I did personally.
"If that was implemented, I wouldn't play."
Is this gonna make you assume I'm a PvE player again...?
Ha well I'm not actually referring to you personally here!
Just the general mood of some of the responses in here.
Some great replies, but tend to get crowded out by PvE militants.
Personally I'm well up for trying to make PvX work for all, raised the thread to try to get my head around how these mechanics can be made to work for people like me, coming from always-on PvP environments.
There are no PvE militants on this forum anymore.
Not one.
You're imagining it. This is a common thing for players who come onto forums and are more invested into specific parts of PvP.
Not even by the most generous definition of 'militant' are there any 'left'.
I still can't get my head around this tbh.
As a previous poster pointed out, it'd depend entirely on the multiplier.
For argument's sake let's say it was merely 5%.
But you would of course need some kind of incentive to encourage any pre-flagging.
How this would negatively affect a PvEer, I don't get.
It's simply encouraging PvPers to pre-flag. If you don't fancy it, don't opt-in?
You would then be unflagged by default, which would offer some protections against non-consensual PvP via the corruption system.
And wouldn't lose out, as those people who've chosen to opt-in would lose far more exp via time lost in PvP (and direct exp loss via increased death rate).
So, given the enormous scope and appeal of the game. I can't get my head around how such a simple measure would warrant the knee-jerk "ok I'm not playing then" reaction.
As for the toggle question - that's already in the game. Hit anyone around you (as long as they're not red or your direct ally) and you'll be flagged. Do that every 90s and you'll be permaflagged. No need for toggles or xp boosts or whatever else.
I personally dislike toggles for that exact reason. They always require some incentive or just have some implied extra mechanics with them. And considering that the current system already has enough extra mechanics that majority of people are not used to, I wouldn't want a whole toggle feature on top of that. And I definitely don't want toggles to replace the current system, if that was the implication of that discussion.
There's your problem.
You see Ashes as having 'enormous scope and appeal'.
For me, August 27th is a Tuesday.
It was suggested in addition to the existing system.
No I didn't think a toggle would replace the corruption system.
I've said so many times now (in this thread) how I'm a fan of what they're attempting to do with this system, and am merely trying to iron out potential wrinkles for those of us more familiar with always-on PvP.
So my problem is assuming that posters on an Ashes of Creation forum might be interested in playing Ashes of Creation?
Yeah, my bad.
In a way, yes?
You should assume that posters on an Ashes of Creation forum might be interested in playing Ashes of Creation as it was explained to them at some point in the past.
Dygz has already given you a short history lesson, it's possible to ask for a longer one, I'm sure.
Anyways, I see this is my mistake, you asked a clear question so I called my group to answer, but in so doing, I might have given you the impression you just said.
In a way, it's a good reminder. Posting is, itself, an indicator of 'interest', and therefore this is my bad. Sorry about that.
And yes my intention in this thread was to discuss a very specific question/issue (to some, not all!) with the existing corruption system.
This is despite generally being a fan of what that system is trying to achieve.
I think it is reasonable to assume that any other new posters will be expecting a forum full of people excited for the game, in it's current form.
Agreed, which is why I'm genuinely sorry for that, I jumped the gun because you asked a specific question and I figured we're so deep in this thread that you might not get a lot of answers, so I let everyone in my group know.
So for future reference, anyone who responded since that question other than Dygz or NiKr is 'in my group' and don't normally post, since they leave it to me. If you need them to answer a question about an idea you have, though, just lmk anytime.
Quite a lot of people here are the ones who could've (or have) been filtered out already, but have stayed on the forum for a multitude of reasons (time-sunk cost definitely one of them).
Some of us stay here in the hopes that the design will shift backwards, if even a little. Some hope that it'll shift even deeper into the current direction. Some stay to keep yelling at clouds that they don't want forced pvp, while others yell at the same clouds that they want ffa pvp.
In other words, expecting a forum to be super homogenized would be the first and main mistake of a new poster. Especially in this day and age, where access to internet info/media is as widespread as it is.
Maybe 20 years ago seeing a forum like this meant that everyone was on it because they went out of their way to find a group of people that were into the exact same thing as them. But now you usually see a range of buttheads butting heads, in hopes of being the "right ones" at the end. And a fair number of us buttheads have been at it for half a decade already. Some even longer.
The reason to this is described in the OP as
"The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
[...] there was no time to respond"
To me this is a valid scenario.
I wouldn't want to see a pre-flagging to help reduce material loss because becomes too similar to a PvP on/off and reduces risk.
Hm I disagree.
I agree it is a valid wpvp scenario. But I don't think corruption is intended to punish that type of scenario. The system exists as a deterrent, and I don't think that's the type of scenario we want to deter.
It increases risk, on the whole.
If you opted-in to pre-flag for PvP, you're basically saying: "I'm game to be attacked". You might be out collecting herbs and someone is v likely to go for you.
So of course it increases risk. The whole point of corruption penalties for killing non-combatants is to deter.
Which means non-combatant = less likely to be attacked (AKA less risky)
Combatant = more likely to be attacked (AKA more risky)
The scenario I described in this thread is one v specific case where it seems to me that the corruption system is overreaching a little, punishing something it isn't designed to punish.
I should clarify here; the intention behind the suggestion of the opt-in pre-flag (of some kind) wasn't so much to reduce material cost, although that is part of it, but to avoid corruption for the attacker amongst active pvpers.
Do we agree the purpose of corruption is to disincentivise non-consensual PvP?
Which could be reframed as "those who don't want an open PvP environment".
Yeah this is an 8 page discussion, but to catch you up there was a speculative problem posted, some discussion around who it affects and then some suggestions for how to improve the system.
just flag and kill like a normal person ;3