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 provided a solution for that in one of these threads lol. Basically it states that if you have done damage to the non aggressor, and he is still damaged, but dies from the mob with the damage you have done to him still in effect, you will get corruption.
First point
Guess ill jump into this conversation mainly going to point out the part where you think this will be a common occurrence. Think you are underestimating the effect of corruption (Using invis and saying they log off as an example isn't really a benefit as there is a reason why you bring that up) and feeling its going to be common.
First off you need to understand the chance of survival while being corrupted is not going to be especially high, do to a world full of people and limited instances. If you are walking around the world and a high amount of players see yuo, that its a alrge chance of being attacked and killed. You lose more mats and far more xp on death. Ontop of that the more you pk the more you increase the amount of corruption you gain on your character. With a high chance of dying most people are not going to be doing that out of the blue.
Second point
Your example seems to not have anything to do with an abuse of the system by feeding people to mobs, and seems to be forced on a player intended to pk another player. Your mind set seems to be for only consensual pvp, which is not AoC. If player has full intent to kill another with all the consequences and risk they are permitted to do so. It is not harassing it is part of the game.
Corruption will be the most limited level of pvp, between node and guild wars people will pvp you for free. THere will be no draw back for them to do so and people won't be hesitating to attack you, or chase you down relentlessly (or a much higher percent atleast)
Your thought on not liking forced pvp doesn't match with the game AoC is making. If you deem all forced pvp even if a player doesn't want it or view it as toxic, you might not like this game lol.
Also no one wants pvp where both people need to flag, that is garbage. 0 pvp in New world, 0 pvp in once human, that system pretty much just means 0 pvp of that type.
Or you just hide the heath bar, the player fighting the mob should have some protection anyway. And not be scouted by another player trying to get a easy kill if that was their purpose anyway.
Only reason to see a enemy player with low hp is honestly a skill issue where 1 you are trying to feed to mobs, or 2 you are trying to wait during the fight and snipe them when they are weak.
0 reason for you to see some ones hp bar you have not even really engaged in yet. Its not strategy its just someone being a rat.
This idea people have "i need to see their hp bar no matter what because its my pride" is kind of dumb, I'm more for things to be fair and people to not abuse in game mechanics. Its at the point its just a personal thing without any actual true merit, as you aren't really arguing to see the hp bar during a fight, its just arguing to watch them to know when they are almost dead without fighting.
Loot on death is the best part, this is old school mmo stuff. It makes pvp stakes much higher and fun.
This should have been obvious from the fact that that (harassment) was what your complaint was about.
Okay, sorry, I can't bother. You just don't seem to be willing to comprehend the concept of competitive gameplay, I don't know how to help you. Good luck out there.
Yes. It should. It's part of the game's design philosophy that makes the game interesting and that makes increasing your strength interesting and rewarding, so you'll get the opportunity to contest bigger portions of the world's loot, and influence bigger parts of the world's political development. Cope, please.
I'm all for going corrupted over a mule, cause that bitch is carrying enough loot for my whole damn party. But incentivizing people to kill other players, while barely rewarding that action and also going out of your way to make the punishment for said action as high as possible - nah, that's dumb and pointless imo.
I had that in the post as well, I do not want to retype the whole thing
They drop like 50%, and its more about sending a message and that moment when they see their body get robbed. Its one of the best feeling.
*edit i can see Chaliux wants to turn aoc into a more pve game lol.
Also NiKr yeah, sorry, I thought I mentioned it recently enough in the past but I'll clearly point it out now.
I believe that dropping 50% of all materials, particularly in the situation where a bag can be full to the point of holding 100x Ore, for example, is actually a massive incentive for PK, especially since the killer (who turns red and therefore cannot trade) does not have to be the one to loot the body.
This is a 'core principle' of Ashes at this time, and I am saying it will absolutely lead to entirely different incentives for PK. One player sacrificing themselves for half a bag of Ore (which is probably at least 40m of gathering) for the group is an almost obvious shift in the 'rarity' of PK.
Enjoy a mildly related video!
I agree to me that is a issue, the pk player should be the only one who should be able to loot it, or the player that was the one killed (or family / guild / party members)
Is there something that stops a corrupted player to log ouf beside escaping for some time?
I'm talking about the situation where a toxic guy is harassing a harmless green one. That's the scenario. In which scenario are you placed?
The world is huge, classes usually have speed/espace abilities. I'm talking about situation like 1v1 or small skirmishes. Why should other non-combantats start to fight the corrupted guy? Perhaps they are doing completely different stuff. You assume that it's happening, but it can happen, or not. It's highly possible that a player can escape and log out, right or false? He can switch on an alt/twink and start playing - or is corruption account-wide? Would be fine, but I guess not. I would prefer that, also already stated.
Walking around as non-combatant. If there is a large change of being attacked and killed, than you say, there are a lot of players that accept corruption so it's not hard punishment.
Perhaps I'm not running around as combatant - so what should we do now?
Never talked about the feeding mob situation, absolutely never.
Of course. That means in words of Ashes: Both players are combatants.
Who would like have pvp fights where one side (combatant, or soon) wants to fight and one side (non-combatant) rejects and is just standing around doing pve-stuff? I'm not sure what's your point here.
Your general assumption is weird. You think all players always want to fight out there. But they dont want this, because there are other goals to reach and if players don't have 10h time per day they focus on their goals not pointless skirmishes.
Which is my major critisim. For me it's harassing and the permission to do so a wrong design. The permission is artificial, because in realtiy nobody wants that pk-ing of non-combatants. And thats the scenario, you shouldnt talk about "mob feeding" or "combatant vs combatant" with me, because I'm clearly in another scenario. I described that already, not need so repeat it for you again.
Limited level? Corruption is a consequence of doing stuff that is incorrect in terms of attidue and behavior, because a non-combatant was attacked, so a player that doesnt want to play pvp. Is it really that difficult to understand and tolerate this situation form a non-combatant point of view?
What do you think? Will the majority be non-combatant out there or combatant? Do an assumption, I'll give you mine afterwards.
It is no view, it is harassing and disturbing others. Killing (unortunatly not yet attacking) a non-combatant leads to corruption, so there is (unfortunately) a permission to do that (my critism) but there is a consequence (that will not solve the issue entirely) because in reality nobody wants it, that's why a punishment (like corruption) is in place. It all circles around the fact that some player base cannot accept that non-combatants sometimes doesnt want to get attacked or killed.
It's the other way round, that's what the majority wants, to decide by their own choice when to play pvp and when not.
I do admit that PKing might be more abundant in Ashes due to player loot (which is why I hate it
And the video kinda explains my approach to pvping and PKing as well, but obviously in a different context. For them the activity is not about killing, but about the goal of being a pirate. And to me pvp/PK is simply a means to the mob grinding end. I've had quite a few "contests" for spots where I'd simply come into a room that was occupied by someone who knew me, I'd say "ya gotta get out man, cause I wanna farm this spot now" and they'd leave simply because we've fought each other countless times before and the result was always the same.
And I've had even more situations where a single hit was more than enough to telegraph the difference in power between us.
And on the opposite side I've seen a tooon of people just running around looking for anyone to pvp. They'd be permaflagged and would not miss a single person running by.
If Ashes ends up having piracy (considering that we have free trade) - that'd be great, even if it's a niche activity, just as it seems to be in ED.
No, I see this different for this specific case of non-combatants.
Mustn't be a good one just because it's in.
For whom? The one attacking harmless greens during their quests? Well, what to say.
Only for the attacker of harmless greens, not for the harmless green one.
You are very very fixed only on one side of the coin, and that's the attacker-perspective.
Your strenght is only proved by fighting in equally ballanced fights, not in fights where a 10h+ top-geared combatant attacks a fishing green non-combatant. It's wet dreams of teenagers and elitist community behaviur that will lead to toxic gameplay. Nothing more.
So I'll be real interested in how exactly people will calculate their own risk/reward equations. Cause you wouldn't know how much stuff a person has on them, which means that gaining corruption on that random person might not reap rewards equal to the risk.
But then if you try and spy on a gatherer or try to track his activity - that's time spent not gathering yourself (and potentially not doing anything else valuable), which then decreases the value of your time, even if the risk/reward of corruption is now more equal.
This kind of stuff is exactly why I was really disappointed when we learned that mules will just be gimped caravans. I had really hoped that mules would be used as an additional storage for gathering WHILE you are gathering. And so if you see someone with a mule going back to a node - you'd know for sure that they're carrying a ton of stuff and the risk/reward would be real easy to calculate.
Though I just double-checked how exactly mules work and their crates are supposedly refillable in the wild. So maaaaybe what I expected is still possible? And then the overall situation would depend on how much our own bags can carry as opposed to mule crates.
And then it'd be a question of balancing and design. Do Intrepid want to push people towards using a mule for gathering (by making us only able to carry, say, 30min of gathering in our inventory) or will mules be simlpy a transferring tool for solo players who'll depend on the protection of the corruption system. Which would then pretty much lead to piracy/robbery, cause attackers will be killing mules instead of players (especially considering that mules give less corruption).
There is a 60 second timer to logout while corrupt. Force-disconnecting the client during the cooldown will leave the character in-game.[21][26]
Depending on the location of the PK, 60s can be a reaaaal long time.
1, logging out does not clear corruption, you need to log on and clear that corruption yourself so nothing really changes. If you are purposely getting corruption from pking that is not harassing that is part of the game. This game has pvp in it, that should be expected.
2. If they have a alt account for pking lower players you gain reduced stats and the more kills you get the more corruption you gain life time on the account. At the end of the day if they are choose to full pk that is not harassment and just part of the game. Its a lot of effort, and this game is mainly a group oriented one so sounds like they as wasting a lot of time of their own progress to hunt for solo players they can pk.
This is going to be a tiny faction of players and an extremely uncommon thing, most people aren't really going to be doing this let alone doing this effectively. So the way I see it, you are trying to make a argument for less than 1% of players that will be pvpers trying to make alts to kill very low levels and gain not much for it.
3. Point being if you are corrupted someone will see you and kill you. Or groups will hunt you. in the alpha I'd say you should test the corruption kill people and see how long until you get attacked so you can understand.
I find it interesting you ignored my point about corruption being the most minimum amount of pvp and you are choosing to focus on that. Do to the limited amount of pvp around corruption creating large arguments against it doesn't make sense when you feel pvp is harassing.
AGAIN THIS GAME AS NODE AND GUILD WARS. That means you can be attacked without them getting any penalty and you could be pvped and camped all day along. Why are you putting so much effort in talking about a pvp system that will have a very minimal effect on the overall pvp in the game lmao. Over the pvp that will be the main focus and not minimal.
If you are against non- consensual pvp so strongly its clear you prefer pve. But you need to realize AoC is going to have a ton of non consensual PVP.
All I'll say is that anyone who thinks that the current 'finger in the wind' testing is still going to be 50% might be surprised, and that discussion from awhile back about whether or not people wanted ways to mitigate the amount they drop on death might have temporarily landed on 'Ok we'll add some mitigation of this and see how it shakes out' after all.
In that commissions showcase it definitely looked that Steven lost A TON on death. So at least before all the most definitely complaints from people the current tune is already fairly high.
I forget, what was your opinion on my idea of "stolen goods" bags and BHs tie-in to return those goods to the initial victim? I really feel that a mechanic like that would lessen the impact of PKing even more, while making the PKing more fun (cause BHs are hunting you even more actively) AND making BHing way more viable.
My opinion was 'That's effectively how ED works, it seems like an obvious solution to me'.
I care less about the returning of the goods, and I can see some weird exploits coming up in that aspect of it.
But remember that it doesn't make a lot of sense to engage me on this, I'm too Econ biased and for me, the whole stack is wrong, from 'The way Corruption works" right up to the fact that "Stolen Glint" exists but so far not other stuff.
Maybe 'stolen Glint' is the first phase of testing the thing you're suggesting.
As for the Commissions Showcase, maybe Steven didn't have a good enough bag.
The killed guy for sure needs more than 60secs from his closest respawn point back to the spot he was killed. His "risk" (with absolutely no reward) is much higher.
The corrupted guy had fun, reward (loot) and bit risk, but if he escapes and logs out, that's it. He will log in later and try to ged rid of his corruption (which will still be active). Between this, perhaps he just logs into his twink/alt and starts playing normally - or is doing the same shit again.
What about account-wide corruption?
Several people have suggested this. It is not planned for the game. And I'm personally highly against it, because it ruins any altoholic's life simply for killing one person.
But I have suggested account-wide PK count in the past. Though I'm sure you wouldn't care about that, cause you don't want people to be attacked at all.
I have a better suggestion: the moment you get PKed, you click a SOS button on your client. It sends a signal to Intreprid, they track the IP of your abuser and forward it to US Army that immediately launches a Tomahawk missile on the location of the IP address to make sure it never happens again. And in case if player uses VPN or location spoofing service, just nuke the entire continent to be 100% sure.
Getting corruption is only a consequence of killing (unfortunatley not attacking) non-combatant players that dont want to pvp - it's irrelevant whether they have to expect it or not. They are non-combatant for a reason. The game allows it to be non-combatants. So, from their point of view it is harassing them. Otherwise they would be combatants. But we had this already thousand times. You can repeat it, I will still dislike it and will bring in the perspective of the non-combatant, because I don't care about the harassing guy attacking and getting corrupted. This game has "pvp in it" should and must refer to pvp, where both parties commit to that. As this is not the case, it's criticize by me.
This is good news. So corruption works account-wide, right? It has nothing to do with the specific character with whom you did it? Well that's really really fine then. More punishment. Good thing.
It's also possible to play as different playertype and also solo. That's promised from intrepid everywhere. The killing argument "groups" and "hardcore 24/7 pvp" ist only one side of the coin so only half of the truth. We also reached this point thousand times and you will never convince me to change my opinion on that. But up to you if you want to try again. Attacking a non-combatant player is bad design, I know that it is "in the game", but it is still bad. It needs several workaround-systems afterwards just to get this wrong decision corrected somehow. Guys are than talking about "hp bars" and crazy stuff and it's all just becaue of the same two root causes over and over again:
- Player got the attidue to disturb, harass, attack and kill other non-combatant players so players that dont want to play pvp at this certain moment
- Game allows this situation to happen
Hope for that. Really. Would appriciate it, if it is true and the majority of player types (like me, more time-casual players) will benefit from it, which leads to a healthy game overall.
Not, if that was a 1v1 skirmish. Perhaps not, if you have true stealth from rogues and the player is not seen anymore in the field - but still on the map, which is something different. A well experienced rogue will escape if he is only seen on the map but not on the field.
Sure, lots of testing needed.
We are talking about 60 critical seconds for logout. What if the player disables his internet - will he technically logout or will his avatar remain for some time on the field to get punished from other players?
Toxic players are abusing all the time. Perhaps due to a lack of experience you dont know that, but it still is true. We are not talking about regular situations, but nasty approaches only against non-combatants players.
You assume that on the entire realm within seconds there will be several groups and players around just for one reason: Hunting the corrupted guy. Well I don't share this opinion and assumption at all. I'm talking about the situations that are not crowed with 40 players, but small skirmishes or 1v1 situations (and they will happen very often)
During this situations the context is different and clear. But I'm not talking about node wars, guild wars or caravans. I never did. You just dont understand that. I gave several examples with Jason and Kevin, read them. Moreover in this intended (!) pvp fights we are talking mainly about combatants fighthing each other. Why the hell should a player be non-combatant (so not attacking anyone!) during this structured fights and why the hell should a silly player attack a non-combatant during this situations? That assumption is just weird, it will not happen.
What I'm talking about wil happen somewhere else, beside the crowed spaces. In 1v1 situations and small skirmishes at fishing, at mining ore veins or whatsoever. So in the open world.
Please tell me that you can differentiate between the topics I'm talking about and the topics you are randomly throwing in.
You can't imagine the situations I described? But than you didn play MMOs for a long time. This happens frequently. And as long as it is allowed it will happen even more. Punishments are good - but wouldnt be needed, as aleady mentioned. And as it is like it is, unfortunately, corruption punishment should be as hard as possible. Account-wide. No logout within the next 60 minutes. Highest possible death penalties we can imagine. This attacks to harmless greens must be punished hard for that cowards naming themselve pvp players.
Which is what I dislike in general and will dislike sometimes during my gameplay. And therefore I dont like the situation that I cant avoid it that other players control my gameplay by attacking me at any time, although I'm non-combatant so he sees that I'm by intention doing different stuff. And the game provides him permission, but no permission for me to avoid it. And this design is bad. It advantages players that want to harass and distrub other players, so griefing and ganking. I cant do anything against it, in that situation, I've no choice.
The allowance of non-consensual pvp is the critism I have, bot ONLY in context of non-combatant being attacked and killed. Because it's stealing my time and disturbing my gameplay - whatever it is at this specific point of time.
Nothing new for you, hm? So why are you continuing asking and discussing? I will not change my mind. I dislike this decision. I like really a lot on Ashes, but not that design. Therefore I want to get the highest possible punishments for thoese type of players I'm referring to. I don't care if that happens 1% or 5% of the time. Every thousandth counts.
Overall, this situation reminds me about people who are afraid to fly on a plane, despite it being the safest transport method, as fatal accidents are extremely rare and statistics prove it. You can't use logic to convince them that it's fine and their fear is irrational. You just can't. So doing that is almost always pointless
Like you said though, he's still gotta log back in. He's still gotta farm that off, and while he does he's marked on the map for bounty hunters.
If he ganks one guy a day, maybe he find a quiet time to do that. But after the first time or two, the whole node is gonna be on the lookout for him. When my node has a problematic ganker, I personally am planning on putting together a posse, and going to go deal with the problem.
He can maybe hide for a bit, but not forever. It just takes one player who notices when he likes to grind it off and report back. He's still marked on my (bounty hunter) map while he's corrupted.
The more people he ganks, the more time he has to spend on that, and the easier it is to hunt him down.
Alts don't change a thing. The only thing more alts or more gankers does is give me and my crew even more reason to hang around, because we know we'll run into one of them. They all gotta grind it off eventually, and I don't care which bounty I claim.
All that 60 seconds needs to do is stop him from logging out the second he sees me coming.
Character on the account not account wide lol. So what they go somewhere at 7am, that doesn't mean other people aren't going to be on just cause there is less lmao. If they go corrupt that is up to them it is not going to be a common occurrence do to all the draw backs.
If attacking another player is bad design for you, why are you investing in a game around that that is going to have a lot of pvp. I'd recommend more pve focused games.
I feel you really don't understand how node / guild wars work as well, so you don't really understand the full scope of the level of pvp this game is going to have. And clearly just wanting to ignore it thinking it is different.
If you are on the alpha i look forward to your reaction when you get jumped as you are alone somewhere from a guild / node do to a dec while you are doing your own thing and not trying to be in the war. Do to a person being in your area randomly.
You can complain as much as you want, one of the core elements of this game isn't going to be changed regardless how much you hate owpvp. Its like jumping on a racing game and saying you hate racing.