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
If you, as the attacker, stand around waiting for your victim to heal up - what the hell are you doing? If your goal was not to PK your target - you can still keep attacking them, so that they don't heal back up.
And if your goal WAS to PK them - you can succeed at that easily.
It's not an exploit. It's an intended interaction. You just dislike that you don't have a huge of an advantage w/o also gaining as huge of a penalty for said advantage.
Except it changes nothing in the context of this discussion. If your goal was not to PK the person - CCs don't matter. If your goal is to PK a person - CCs only matter if a green player who didn't even know they're about to be attacked can then somehow easily escape the attacker. But even with a longer ttk, it'd be quite difficult to escape someone who has already dealt some burst dmg and is still doing dmg to you, while you're trying to figure out your best way of retreat.
As Lae said above, I'm not sure what the core of your issue is. If it's simply unfairness towards the attackers - tough luck
Erm, I think you're in the wrong thread. The Memes thread is over 'there'......
If that happens, the first strike capability needs to be nerfed. Simple as that. No class should have an IWIN button like that, especially from not from stealth, but really just in general.
The fix to that problem is to lower first strike damage for all classes to an acceptable level, and for rogues, make them more sustained DPS with CC, debuffs and DOTS, rather than making them burst DPS glass cannons.
No.
but that's your suggestion...
Btw, rogue-tanks, dot specs, and sustained dps are quite common around the genre.
I don't think you've read all of my comments in this. But it's clear you have a narrative of "this guy's wants to one shot innocent green players!" Stuck in your head and keeping you from looking at this rationally.
Objectively, it is bad when a system prevents players from playing their class as it is designed.
Nobody should be able to "just kill their target" as I've said earlier. One shot mechanics are bad.
Disengages are indeed practical in many circumstances, but in this particular scenario you are bypassing a system where striking first is a disadvantage. Disengaging for the sole purpose of being able to get around that system is an exploit technically.
It wouldn't be just rangers, it would be any classes whose skill sets rely on CC, surprise, or aren't very mobile themselves. If the flagging system prevents these abilities from being used in initial combat, you're hindering every single one of those players gameplay skillsets.
The whole problem is locking out certain abilities while attacking a specific flagged state, when traditionally those types of abilities are key to PvP. If you're concerned about this being an "YOU JUST WANNA KILL EVERYONE!" problem, then just implement the CC immunity as an action and commitment to choosing to be non-combative and have a better chance of escaping like I've already suggested. It solves the issue I'm pointing out, and it keeps those you seem to be worried that I'm out to PK under the protection I'm critiquing.
And you're right, it's not ONLY about stealth, it's about all of the classes who rely on CC, surprise attacks, and aren't very mobile. And I've already stated I'm against 1 shotting people. But apparently you think it's crazy that someone getting the jump on someone else should be at an advantage while doing so? That makes no sense to not have that advantage, and it sounds terrible on paper let alone how I'm predicting it will feel in game. And the consequences of the fight should be dying, or corruption, that's it. You shouldn't getting a handicap at the start just for engaging the fight, that's a detterent to all PVP, not to griefing. And while I have been gone for quite a few months, I'd say I'm one of the most enthusiastic PvPers on these forums. And while I do love to meme about murderhoboing, I've made it very clear that I do support a system that deters all forms of griefing in an MMORPG, it just has to do so without killing OWPvP as well.
yep i suspect rogue will typically excel against say mages/squishy however fall short on the more tankier opponents in 1v1 situations
that being said since the game apparently rock paper scissor u might find if a rock attacks the scissor the scissor might not bother trying to fight back and give them a penalty if they die since they know where at a disadvantage due to the system. However we shal see how things play out
OWPvP is meant to provide that whole risk to reward aspect, and removing the initial engagement lessens that risk. You're supposed to be ready to be attacked any time you're out in the world, and you either run away or defend yourself. Halving your losses on death or winning become your outcomes for choosing to fight back, and you shouldnt get an advantage backing those risks. Attackers risk dying or gaining corruption when attacking, and they shouldn't be put at a disadvantage for those risks. It just comes down to the engagement.
If you can't initially CC me, I will run, disengage, and heal up once I've lost you, and then push the attack using full CCs on you before you lose your combatant flag. That's a flawed system.
And even if you catch me and kill me without me fighting back at first, you're now corrupted and I'll try to hunt you down and be able to CC you off the rip as well.
How does that sound like fair gameplay? I'll be sure to test it a lot and record each encounter during the alpha for this thread either way, and hopefully I'm wrong.
An initial advantage would likely only be a slight to moderate advantage in a balanced system. You're stuck in this mindset that I'm begging to be able to one-shot people when I'm simply saying that not allowing parts of a players kit to be used because they're attacking first will feel awful. And then from doing so making themselves able to have that exact advantage used on them instead.
As I've said several times, let the players who commit to running activate their CC immunity at the cost of staying green.
And if you think CC doesn't matter when initiating PvP then you need to play more PvP.
If I intend to PK a person and they don't want to fight back, they should have the option to run instead of just standing there and dying. But if they want to fight back, they better be having to fight against me at 100% of my capabilities, and not 70%, 80% or 90% just because I attacked first.
And imagine if I were to say "tough luck" to green players and wasn't even offering an active ability to them. I don't remember you being this toxic.
It needs to be balanced*
I wouldn't say it needs nerfed yet because we don't know what it does yet. But it should definitely be balanced in a way that ANY class can't just deleted other players.
Hey... I was there already hahaha
I definitely hope you're right! Though my point translates to any class or build dependant on CC, surprise attacks, or if they lack mobility during initial engagements and not being able to use CC until they themselves are engaged.
Oh I'm not worried as much about group play, though this would affect those engagements as well. But while this is a focus on solo play, it has less to do with solo balancing and more to do with a system impeding class abilities.
I want all owpvp to be as fair as possible to both sides, because I want both sides to WANT to participate, rather than attackers running around tagging every damn person and not a single green fighting back.
But the greens don't get an advantage though. They get a fair fight. A reason to fight back.
If you can CC greens, this means that you'd be able to CC them then do a ton of dmg w/o their ability to fully defend themselves. This drastically lowers the chance of them ever fighting back, because, for them, the fight will begin at such a disadvantage that the only reason to hit the attacker is to simply reduce your death penalty.
To me, this is not pvp. This is simply an attacker preying on a weak opponent.
Again, you're somehow assuming that your target will be able to outrun you easily, while also saying that your target doesn't flag back up to CC you.
We don't have teleports and we know that mounts can be summoned in combat, so you're as free as your target to mount up and chase them. And you can do this until your flag state runs out, so your target won't be able to retaliate freely.
The only reason a green player could ever escape me in L2 was the quick teleport scroll, which TPed them out instantly. And, in L2, you couldn't even attack people while running, so it wasn't as easy to keep someone at low hp, while they were trying to get away. You WILL be able to do that in Ashes.
All of this is more than fair to both sides.
The pvp only begins when the target player fights back. And as soon as they do - your entire kit is fully viable. Before then you're simply attacking a passive target - not pvping. And several classes will not be able to use their abilities properly in a situation where their target is passive.
How exactly do you foresee this working? This button would serve as a CC break out of any effect? Or would the victim have to wait until the initial CC effect stops? And if it's the latter, then what about classes that might have several immobilizing abilities, like stuns/anchors/freezes/roots/etc, where the victim can't even press their button?
So, as others have said, you simply want an easier way to kill your green targets. That's a great desire, but it doesn't match what the design is going for.
I'm 95% sure I'm replying in the exact same way I always have. It just so happens that now I'm disagreeing with you, so you're on the other end of my replies.
No. Honestly, if you can't see how a rogue and a warrior have different abilities and playstyles just because they are both melee dps, I am not sure what to tell you. That's like saying ranger and mage are the same, because of ranged dps. Limiting the first strike damage and making a class a bit more more sustained DPS than glass cannon doesn't change what the class is overall.
This is very much missing the point of what a sandbox MMO is.
Stealth versus Corruption ?
I heard Bountyhunters will more or less "know" where corrupted Individuals are. It would be a HUGE (lol) kick into the Balls of a corrupted Rogue if his/her Location on the Minimap for Example is shown all the time, even while said Rogue is in Stealth.
So maybe Mechanics need to be matched here for a bit. Like : Bountyhunters get to know "about where" a corrupted Target might be,
but only as in that for Example the Minimap shows them with a Marker the "Direction" in which they need to move. And like that Marker vanishes, as soon as the Bountyhunters are like "less" a full Minimap away from the Target.
But maybe that again would be a bit to weak for an efficient Hunt of corrupted Folks. Hmmm ... ...
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Currently no guild !! (o_o)
This game is going to have very little sand box content IMHO. You want a fair fight you make content/arena instanced. From CS to Dota2 to WoW Arena (Raiding and Dungeon) it is the same. Good luck with "scripted" RP fights.
But we also know that the game is group oriented, so if you have 5 players in your team, you may not want all 5 of you to die while not fighting back.
this is why I started gravitating more towards survival games over MMOs, they offer the freedom to do whatever in a multiplayer setting unlike a lot of these games that come out where the open world is more of a formality than anything
but but but everything needs to be balanced!!!! :P They dont relise MMORPG PvP by nature is never balanced with the exception of GW2 arena pvp. MMORPG PvP balance should never be the focus it should be fun being the focus.
Since there always gear difference in MMO even instanced pvp will never be balanced (unless they do GW where is gear leveled for everyone) especialy in open world but tbh thats the fun of it tbh atleast for me
First point - Ashes isn't intended to be a sandbox. It is a sandpark - a term Steven made up to designate a point between sandbox and themepark.
The difference being that balance in an open world sandbox (or sandpark) MMORPG is a tenuous thing. A class may be underpowered in 1v1 situations, but exceedingly good to have if you have 3 or 4 people with you. A class may be more powerful than other classes with the same quality of gear when that gear is of lesser quality, but not scale up with gear quite as much and so be less powerful when everyone has better gear.
In a sandbox setting, all of that is considered balanced - even though not one of those situations was balanced in itself.
As long as every class is always within sight of all other classes in all situations, and has as many situations where it excels as it has situations where it is less powerful, it is balanced.
Balance in an MMORPG is not about creating individual fair fights - that is the part that seems to be flying well over your head here.
Giving certain classes the ability to utterly evade a core game system would not be ideal.
Plenty of places to "have the advantage coming out of Stealth" during Guild/Node Wars, Castle/Node Sieges, Caravans and the Open Seas.
I mean, seeing as 8v8 balancing is the priority, solo encounters or even half group encounters can really never be determined as being fair by default because it depends on counters and compositions. That being said, this system doesn't seem fair to me in the sense that if you ever take ability use away from a player before they even act, you're effectively punishing them for nothing which is not a fair system.
Greens have always had incentive to fight back, which is to not lose their materials. They also get the choice to run away for the same incentive.
With the parameters I propose:
-balancing will prevent the initial attack from outright deleting a player
-initiative is earned, and it wont always be in favor of the attacker if the player who is the would-be attacked sees the player and can engage first. This system in this scenario now puts the would-be attacked player at a disadvantage since if they preemptively strike, they don't get to utilize their CCs to not only attempt to fight it out, but they could very well choose to CC that ambusher on initiative to escape more easily even though they are now a combatant, this is likely a dependent on class matchup decision.
-Green players get the choice to fight or flight. Fighting is simple, they turn and engage and fight to win, risking win or loss. Greens who don't want to fight at all or don't believe they can win the fight can activate a CC immunity, breaking any current CCs and allowing them the ability to attempt an escape at the cost of committing to that pacifist state.
I dont think an opponent should necessarily be able to or not be able to outrun an opponent. That depends on balances and class counters. Some classes will outrun other classes. Thats a coin flip in cases which will also influence decisions on both the attacking and would-be attacked sides in whether or not to engage.
This is just a disagreement we have. I believe PvP begins when a player engages another player. No matter what the attacked player chooses to do, they don't want to die. This is no reason to hinder a player who decides to engage another player where PvP is allowed. The only time a player should begin to be hindered is if they are griefing, which other variables would have to occur as opposed to just engaging someone in a fight for the first time.
I would absolutely have this activate a CC break as well as an immunity. Otherwise its not nearly as effective or fair if the player is hard committing to run for their life.
I want the attacker and the player being attacked to have their full kit available at all times. As I said earlier, the would-be attacked player has the possibility of spotting their attacker first and should be capable of a preemptive strike with their full kit, and not be at a disadvantage if they were being aware of their surroundings.
I just dont remember you ever being passive aggressive or snide but maybe I am wrong. That being said, I have no problem with you disagreeing with me, and I think I remember you have in the past. I just have a problem with you trying to claim an accusation to paint my argument in a negative intent, rather than to just argue the point.
I didnt even consider that honestly. But off the top of my head, I would go with a tiered corruption system that gradually got more punishing, and in earlier less severe corruption I would have detection be a general area/zone. But in later more severe corruption tiers I would have bounty hunters be able to see more exact locations even while in stealth.
I mean, I would expect a basic attack would interrupt gathering. Not even as a CC, just damage in general interrupting that sort of action.