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.
Comments
this must be a useful feature
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:PK_value
Regarding this topic I can find comments supporting both sides, depending in what mood he was or what he wanted to emphasize.
I think the corruption penalties should not be fixed but should change over time based on more events, not all predictable or under player control.
And just as the video showing initial corruption as miniscule may change, so too may everything you just said.
It's not set in stone that Reds can't defend themselves. It's not set in stone that the system will be a 1 to 1 of lineages system. It's entirely possible to tweak this system, and it very well SHOULD be tweaked as needed throughout testing. To say these things are absolute is again, disingenuous considering information we have and the goals stated.
The main thing you seem to have an issue with is the consideration that not all PKing may be bad for the game. You chalk any PK up to griefing which, by Steven's own definition of griefing, is not true.
I'm just pointing out how poorly designed this aspect is if you assume Intrepid want to bring in people that prefer PvE over PvP.
Steven has literally no idea what a player that prefers PvE even wants in an MMORPG.
Stun, is generally more usefull in PvP, than PvE. A push spell that interrupts. Instant heals, thats normally a waste of mana, is not in PvP. See what I am saying here?
Corruption is kinda not fixed but not penalty wise, there is a kill counter and the higher that is the more corruption u get per individual kill so if u have 1000 kill in that counter and u kill somone u might go from 0 corruption to like stage 3 or something off 1 kill.
there a quest apparently to reduce that counter though
Atleast with the info we got on the wiki
Edit: saw u mention this later this already in another post
And Being "defender" has its advantages. Yes the attacker gets first hit, but you get the first CC, since the attacker cant stun you, but you can open with a stun.
That PK_value is not enough. There should be more parameters to influence the corruption gain.
I would add:
1) a parameter decided by castle owners. Players who would support them would defend their caravans, the others would try to destroy them.
2) health of resource sink. If wealth is accumulated too fast, corruption penalties should be lower
3) difference in progression paths as caravan attacker vs defender. If both are advanced but on opposing side (attacker vs defender) then corruption penalty should be lower.
4) if the above 3 are added (or enough other parameters) then I suggest the amount of corrupted glint in the inventory of the killed player should reduce the attacker's corruption penalty.
Interesting, so people can run around with a high PK count and not be corrupted.
Will there be a point where your first kill out of corruption gets you ridiculously deep into corruption perhaps?
Can't wait to see how this will be balanced out. And it might only be possible to do it after the game has been out for a while to see how the people who consistently grief use this feature.
Is there so much benefit to kill a player? This isn't full loot
when there is no risk of corruption because both will be "combatants" - who would miss on free mats?
To break up a fight where two people are duking it out? I would consider it
its partial loot we dont know the exact amount i beleive but green players will drop X amount of items in there resource inventory (So anything that not a comsumable/equipment) and so on pretty much any harvested/resource or mob drop vendor item aka glint, if u fight back in pvp and become combatant u loose half the amount the green player would if they die, and if ur corrupted u have a chance of dropping equipment depenidng on how corrupt u are (i think u drop all resources too but not 100% sure there off top of my head)
I will say, as much of a PvP advocate as I am. I don't think having the boss fights themselves open to PvP interference is the best idea. If nothing else because of the fact that you'd have to design every boss fight with PvP in mind which would likely makes bosses too easy if no PvP occured during the fight.
I do think fighting for the instance of the boss itself will likely be the best route. But either way I think both should be tested
To me it's literally 12 years of life and direct experience of this exact system in, also, various balancings of it, because private servers liked to tweak values to different sides.
So I'd prefer to remove myself at this point before I start getting needlessly mad at people's misunderstandings or wrong assumptions.
PK value is the "count" I've been talking about for ages. You can "ctrl+f" the word "count" and see my thoughts on it, or at least my mentions of it.
I'd imagine that PKing will be tested at least a year off from the A2 release, so all of this discussion is ultimately pointless right now. Have a nice day, yall
Nothing pointless about feedback, including your own. We will see what happens as the game progresses.
And I sure as hell have posted enough about my own preferences for pretty much any given system in the game, and I doubt I'd provide any new feedback for Intrepid, so it'd be better for my own psyche to just wait and see, especially when it comes to discussions of the pvp system.
Fair enough. No sense in losing sleep over it.
Welcome to how I feel with every discussion about top end PvE.
You would pass it up because of the ill will it generates.
Unlike WoW, Ashes is a game where the people on your server are the entire pool of people with which you can run content. Further, due to traveling time, that pool of players will generally be further restricted to those thst have made nearby nodes home.
If you go around attacking players on the off chance they may have materials that you want, that is a potential black mark against you, and against your guild. That means content you won't be invited along for, gear upgrades you won't get.
I mean, if you attack someone in my guild and I then organize a pickup raid for an event a few days later, guess who isn't getting a spot.
Assuming you want to be a part of the wider community in Ashes (not everyone does), you do indeed need to be selective as to whom you fight.
Bye.
There will be family summon, mounts on roads or gliding will help too.
I think 30 minute travel will be acceptable and guild members will wait each other for that amount of time.
Traveling over the ocean might be slower.
If those who attack do so because they are in a different node chain, later when those nodes become allied with you, will you help them?
When I said it is supposed to be "a useful feature" I didn't thought much how I will build on it if the discussion continues.
I realize that this counter will reduce the rate of PK-ing because it keeps the history of how much a player is PK-ing.
My argument is if it increases, it must also decrease and how fast it oscillates is also a predetermined balancing which might be too fast for some players or too slow for others and a good value will not exist even for the same player.
And we will have the Bounty Hunter system which also might prove to be useless even though was described in the wiki.
Depending how many things change and how important for some players were, they can say Steven sold a dream.
People who are unjustly attacked should have a mechanism to facilitate their revenge. I'm thinking of an in-game "grudge list" to keep track of those who have wronged you. One that alerted you to someone on your list nearby would be even better.
If you're blindsided you are at a competitive disadvantage. If the perpetrator is worth his salt, you're going to die but that doesn't need to be the end of it. At a future time of your choosing, when you are a higher level, better geared or maybe have learned a thing or two...
i use a piece of paper dont realy need a ingame mechanic to right down names of people who wronged u in the past
I do love a KOS list, but I tend to just remember the name or write it down in a spreadsheet. Could be an in-game feature but isn't really needed.
Yes, so that counter dynamic, depending how it is balanced will push players to be able to kill let's say 3 players / day or maybe 3 players every 2 days.
If players want to kill other players because that is what they enjoy then they will take the time to reduce the counter and then have their fun.
We will see soon the start of it's balancing and where it settles close to beta or release. We may have more fun than the ones playing the released game.
Another question....
You are in a city. You go to the bank and you get some resources into your inventory. And somebody, maybe 10 people attack you and one of them kills you.
What happens then?
It just loots you and runs away before guards kill him?
Guards have no reason to interfere as long as they are just purple... they attack only corrupted players.
And if the Guards attack and kill that player, from his ashes the other 9 friends can take the resources, whatever the game resource sink left us to loot?
Less (half) death penalties for dying as a Combatant.
As for loot, yes, right now it seems that anyone will be able to just loot a corpse. I've given several different points of feedback on that in the past, but until we see what the reality is, it's hard to say what exactly requires balancing.