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
As a matter of fact, it absolutely wasn't and I don't even remember a single person complaining about that.
Griefing would be:
1. Harassing someone specifically to ruin their gameplay
2. Harassing random players with a sole purpose of getting satisfaction from that
3. Harassing players with no benefit for the person who does that
Doing any of this systemically provides another strong reason to qualify those actions as griefing.
None of these points apply to the situation I described. Following your logic, you could call camping a raid boss by a guild griefing as well. Which is not the case. The rewards for killing the boss are finite and that guild wants it.
And PKing wasn't always an option. First of all, it could be risky. Secondly, if the spot is 1 minute away from teleport, what's the point of PKing them, if they will be back 1 minute later?
If you want to compare this size, you have to do it with an rated battleground in WoW. That's larger scale with deathmatch and map goals, which adds complexitiy. All sizes are provided (https://www.wowhead.com/zones/battlegrounds), 6v6, 10v10, 15v15 up to 40v40.
It's the same in WoW and you need to anticipate enemys actions. There is a move called "blind vanish", but probably that would lead to an in depth discussion which is quite pointless to explain for a non-wow player (no offense meant, just a fact).
Quite same in WoW + there are debuffs that can't be cleanses or harm the cleaner, so it shouldn't be done. You have to see and know this as a player to act correctly.
But, back to the discussion in general:
All MMOs, expect one (which is dead), features visible health points bars. All of them. PvP MMOs, PvE MMOs, PvX MMOs.
So, as several guys in this thread already mentioned: Because some minority of L2 players say "it's fine" the majority of the rest should adapt and got the wrong view on it? You know by yourself that it's the other way round. There is absolutely no problem to see hp bars but it add depth and increases pvp quality.
So, I just can repeat. Hopefully the remain with the current decision, that HP bars are visible and you get all the information or at least an indication (25%). All other workarounds are not needed and not worth the effort, only to argue around copying a dead game for a minority of players.
Let's just wait for the testphases. I foresee, that there is no real chance in any way that the majority of players doesnt want to have HP bars. I'm convinced about that. This real issue remains: Non-Combatant players can be attacked against their will.
Nah, that's griefing. It would be understood as such by the vast majority of players.
Circumventing intended consequences to harass another player.
If PKing has too many consequences at the time or you don't think it's worth it, leave the person alone and share the space. If it is worth it to you to have that farm space all to yourself, then commit to the PK and stop misusing game systems to troll the other person.
Refusing to accept the risk for your reward in hopes to bother the person so much that they leave is not the intention of Ashes' design
But, as this will not change anymore, which anyhow will decrease playerbase significantly once all players that are not pre-informed check this after release (I'm waiting with some anticipation and fun for it), you need more punishment. Is corruption really enough? We will see. My personal take: No.
Im not sure if that's possible like this, but let's imagine: There will be situations where you are farming stuff with 2-3 friends and a 40 man raid will roll over you. If done fine, maybe a few players out of the raid are corrupted, all the others not (as long as a raid will not completely switch to be "corrupted" but only the attacking player in the raid group - will this be the case?). Therefore stilll 35 will normal combatants will defend their 5 corrupted friends once other guys our bounty hunters add. Or those 5 just escape and the 2-3 killed non-combatants will not be in a position to farm on, because still 35 players left that will stop that again and again. And they can add a second 40 raid, because if you are a toxic pvp hardcore guild, you got more behaviorally disturbing people in it, usually.
"It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior"
So he should correct his expectation then. I disagree with Steven about this topic entirely. And I'm convinced I'm not alone.
And the root cause of it starts at forcing non-combatants into pvp gameplay. That's no reward out of risk, that's only risk and moreover, those players are not searching for risk in this particular situation (fishing, gathering flowers and ore, killing some pigs for leather). The just want to farm for their own progress for their content (and we all agreed in another thread that gathering and crafting is solo content, right?).
That does not mean they dont want to play a pvp game or playing in groups and raids, no, it's completely the other way around, they want to play both contents and the want to have the choice of doing so without disturbance. If they want to play 1-2h without fighting and your 24/7 competiton, let them play without pvp competion. The pve content will be challenging (stated from intrepid), so that's fine - you can do your challenging content and you are not harassing other players at the same time - that sounds like a plan and mature behaviour without any issues beside don't fulfilling the dreams of toxic players - but nobody needs and wants them, they should be removed from the game as fast as possible by all means.
"He's ok" anyhow is no argument. It's an excuse, it's a killer argument to stop discussion and constructive solutions that are not only based on one or two MMO games, but 20 others.
Perhaps I will buy a alpha test key to get better connections. Because the wrong experience can skip all the hope for this game within the next month.
There must be rewards if player time is invested. It's simple like this. Otherwise players fall back.
Being overgeared and only thus good pvp'ers then is only fun for one, this, playerbase. Not for all the others.
Should everybody gets everything - No. Nobody ever said this. Shoud there be ways that rewards can be reached by playing different types with different approach to PvE/PvP - Yes. This must the case, otherwise the playerbase will decrease rapdily.
There must be the hardest possible punishment if a player is harassing another and stealing him the most value of all life: Time. The game MUST prevent this toxic behaviour, corruption should lead to -99% health points for the guy doing it. If repeated, a service ticket with priority is written and the player must be banned permanently.
The situation is of course completely different if both players are pvp-flagged and ready for that content at this particular situation. There is no griefing, because being attacked is a decision which was done consciously from the player that gets attacked. There is no issue, it's his decision. I've been playing on pvp servers for so many years and got pk'ed thousend times - because it was MY decision.
Once this differentiation is really understood, the discussion will make sense.
We don't need huge systems, rules, workarounds, we need mature and non-toxic players, if the game should be fun and get popular. We need a huge playerbase for structured, mature pvp fights. So we must get rid ouf all the other players as fast as possible. All workarounds and catastrophic "designs" and playerbase of "your" L2 should never be shifted into this new MMO, done from mature professionals (hopefully) that take care of the time of the player, giving him rewards and progress.
Define mature and non toxic. This is a pvp game, remember. You won't change people, and I'm not sure I'd classify players who fight other players in a player vs player game as "toxic".
Most player combat will not be consensual. People don't make sure the other person is fully prepared before ever engaging.
All you can do is find a rule set people can live with or not have open world pvp.
If it is difficult to do that (ie u cant see a heath bar) that is 2 much work investment and risk at that point. So again no point seen a heath bar from non combatant. The only reason you would want to see is if you are trying to wait for them to be low to kill them or feed them to mobs.
It's quite trivial. As long as you are running around as combatant, so pvp-flagged actively, you are ready for pvp'ing, otherwise you did a wrong decision before - by yourself (nobody forced you).
It will 100% consensual without this design error. I've been playing in pvp MMOs for decades, but also played PvE and PvX MMOs. The huge difference is: If you dont want to play PvP, you decide this by your own, not by the game. It's your choice. It's still or especially your choice in a PvX game. In WoW (for instance) thats like flagging yourself pvp (like on "pve servers") or you are permantely pvp-flagged (on pvp servers). This way it is solved in several other MMOs, so you can really decide by your own, your decision matters.
Being toxic has a direct relationship with being mature. That's not a question of age.
You can have frictions and drama as long as both parties play pvp consensually. That's fine - that's ok, that's the thrill. This is valid for open pvp, instanced pvp - it's valid to 100%. If you are pvp-flagged you know and you want to get attacked - you decided that by your own before.
You never should allow, by design, to mix things up -> Non-Combatant still gets attacked. Corruption? That will not help him in this situation, he's already dead. Time, exp, even items/materials (!) are lost. It's no survival game, right?
I've already mentiond several examples (here or in other threads) why this will lead to a decrease of playerbase in the game which overall will harm the entire game and mass-scale designs critically.
Still some want to ignore this difference in having a real choice or not and getting the point what's the root cause of it, not the workarounds aferwards. The enrire discussion would not exisit, because it's all desined "around" this design error. No thats tons of effort and costs just to get workaround-systems and designs and punishments to whatever degree over month and years. Because of this fundamental wrong decision and invalid design but to fulfill wet dreams of toxic, childish players that attack and harrass others and steal them playing time, progress and loot. It's a shame. I'm looking forward to the feedback (will be a shitstorm) coming up in the next month and years, still at release and afterwards. All tracking back to this root cause.
Aren't we all sinners?
Alright this is definitely extremely overkill. Corruption exists as a deterrent to meaningless PK, that is: over 'grind spots', petty dislike, or just to annoy someone, but it's not a game breaking status.
If you're regularly not PKing over those meaningless things, you won't (and shouldn't) have your whole game experience warped by one kill. One kill of corruption is going to be fairly common, because it exists as an aspect of player choice in which you can take that minor hit to stats and exp dept in order to make an objective gain for yourself with a pretty quick decision. Aka, you kill the player in the area you want to monopolize, eat the consequence of that aggressive choice, and benefit until they come back.
this
I actually find that entertaining lol. It's always going to be frustrating when it's happening to you, but that just adds tension to the game and fun memories later on.
Open world pvp exists in tons of mmos, in tons of formats. A lot of us have experienced this in multiple ways. We do in fact have something to add to this conversation.
I can't speak for others, but the overall message I'm trying to convey is that efforts to create some perfect, consensual and "fair" (what ever that means) scenario in open world pvp are futile.
You either have it or you don't have it. Systems like Corruption, Concord, Faction etc are levers you can adjust to mitigate it as you like. The moment you start reorganizing the game and altering how it is presented just fit into some arbitrary box labeled "fair", you create more problems than it's worth.
And the adjustments never end. Once players find a way around it, and they will, you will have to "fix" it again. And again, and again.
My main concern is a design, where it is possible to attack players that dont want to do pvp at this point of time. If there would be a possibility to control this entirely by they player, it would be fine.
As this design will not change, corruption must punish as hard as possible. If the attacked player reacts and fights back, all is fine, no issue.
But if toxic guys just want to harass non-combatants running around thats just not ok and wasting the time of a player that, by intention, was doing content without competition or pvp. Corrupted players still can escape, logout after a while, login with their alt/twink, do the same again. For them its fun and no waste of time, but rewarding. For the other player this experience has only disadvantages, no satisfaction, no fun - but thats what games are all about, and not to destroy the gameplay of another player.
Ashes is built on the premise of open world PvP, so you'll never change that it will be possible to attack a player at any time.
Corruption is there so the meaningless PKing is kept to a minimum, but there are objective gains made from killing a player whether they fight back or not. The choice lies in if a player deems that gain worth the Corruption.
It's the 'oh I won't kill them, I'll just ruin their gameplay experience until they leave with no consequence to myself' that's the issue here, which isn't a result of information, but of a toxic PvP population that regularly fights over things that aren't meaningful.
That has to be solved by adjusting the mechanisms of corruption and how it's gained, not by making one bit of corruption a functional game over state.
Kept to a minimum.. true, but I doubt thats possible with the current approach.
Do you think they will listen and adapt it to proposals like this/yours?
Naaa didn't add tension just made combat aids and not about fighting each other but waiting for someone to fight mobs and then feed them to it.
It became so bad that BDO had to change this recently so you were not punished for dying to mobs if a player hit you.
I Wouldn't deny that statements at all, but would expect people to understand the weight of the experience of those who experienced the closest thing to what Ashes is in many aspects.
Perfection is unattainable and "fairness" can only truly be enforced by the stronger one and what that one considers to be such. And yes it certainly is an eternal balance power struggle.
Aren't we all sinners?
If not that's fine.
Sometimes I dont like it and dont want to play pvp and thus dont want to get attacked, as I‘m forced to fight back - or die. But perhaps, at this evening, I just want to do relaxed fishing. Why? Because I want it like this on that Sunday evening. The day before I pvp‘d 10h long, maybe.
I‘m convinced that this opinion and wish to have this choice will fit to several other players, player types and playing styles.
What I expect and appreciate is: Choice. Depending on the particuar day, hour, situation, circumstances, whatever.
Games that put an on/off for open world pvp default to off.
I mean they can put that in if course but you have to realize that is the same thing as just not having it. 100 percent of the time it results in no open world pvp. The only sort of exception was SWG. You had Rebel vs Imperial faction content. There are already plenty of organized methods for pvp built into the game so pvp opt in flagging won't get used for that.
You can't have it, but only sometimes. It's on or it's off.
I sure do want it and i'm willing to deal with whatever imperfection or unfairness comes with it, i'm certainly a very "adaptive person", still that doesn't mean that i'm against getting as close as possible to said "perfection" and "fairness" balance in the process, as long as it is not compromising its essence.
In my opinion, Azherae's idea of only non-combatants targets having invisible HP bars, was the closest thing to "perfection" or "fairness" for those discussions relating to the thread's main point.
Aren't we all sinners?
But unfortunately that will not change, so workarounds are needed and they will never solve the root cause, they will only try to limit the damage.
That sounds terrible, point isn't to stop pking from happening. If someone truly wants to pk they will, and not have the ability to find a work around by being a rat.
The only root cause that needs to be fixed his making it so you can't see a greens heath bar. Meaning if you are attacking them you are committing to kill them, or atleast taking a huge risk.
Which is fine between two combatants.
If the a non-combatant cant be attacked, then there is no „want“, he cant. Attacks against the fishing guy just show no effect.
No, thats a follow up / workaround because of the possibilty to attack players that dont want to pvp.
Which risk? The guy is still fishing and dont want to pvp.
Which risk? You can logout after a while and just play an alt/twink. Later on you log back to your corrupted character and try to get the corruption away, but at a point of time where you are not under risk (Sunday morning, when the kids are sleeping and the open world is empty)
Which risk if a 40 raid rolls over 3 friends? Corrupted? 5 corrupted one escape and log out. 35 still there. Or is the entire raid corrupted if only 5 guys attack? Tbh I cant remember that from wiki or other sources.
It's the only root cause you can think of right now. That's because we haven't been able play around with it. A dozen new root causes will sprung up before we are even out of alpha and those will need to be fixed under the same logic, and then a dozen more during beta. Still more after launch.
And all of them will be just this "one last thing that needs changing".
First it raises the risks of random ganking out in the open world, because the initial attack against an oponent provides less information to the attacker. Normally an attacker immediatly gains lots of information and has an information asemetry advantage in a fully visible HP game they can generally immediatly know if they will win the fight based on that first hit, the attacker can then press home or abort the attack before the oponent gains any usefull information. Intrepid is clearly aware of this which is why they penalize corruption with more information given to thouse attacking corrupted.
Second it raises player skill and game mechanic knowlege and attention needed in any PvP sitiation to fill in the knowlege gap. Paying attention to attacks that have landed, their type and power in combination with the chunk level on the bar should let a good player know what the situation really is. Knowlege that most games simply give out to everyone without needing to expend any attention or thought.