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
I feel like you’re trying to twist those words in your favour and you’re the one who doesn’t understand. Personally I have no reason to attack another green player outside of designated PvP Mechanics, Caravans, Events or Zones intended for fair PvP where we both understand the risk involved. It doesn’t give me personal advancement to get a small amount of mats that are low tier from someone outside of a lawless zone when the rewards there are supposed to be far better. Also if I lose a fight to someone fairly group vs group or 1v1 then I’m just bad so it’s my own fault for going into those zones in the first place.
I also don’t like the idea of pushing people out for farming spots or zones because you can’t share a farming spot or wait for them to respawn. If it was a lawless zone fair enough go ham gank or PK them but if it’s just some green gathering some average materials in the forest near my node I’m not going to get mad then kill him because he took some virtual resources some pixels.
However if you attack me first as a green which you shouldn’t as you can’t even CC me or put certain status buffs on me. Then when I clap you and you lose you should feel bad hopefully losing more than me. As I said again that’s not normal PK’ing to go hostile attacking randoms greens without consent that are just going about their normal PvE/Gathering activities outside of riskier designated zones.
I’ve got nothing more to say on this it’s like I’m talking to a wall or shouting into a dark cavern Echo… Echo… Echo chamber! We will see when the game comes out I honestly can’t tell you if anything will change or not. However the current system makes sense to me and if it’s not the way I understand it then it’s just going to be one big PvP server which doesn’t bother me I love it. The corruption systems there for the benefit of the non-PvP players or people that prefer to do PvE/Gathering without some risks.
I’m more pro-PvP than PvE which is why I’m always mentioning PvX. However there is different types of players in this game, and different people that make up the community that’s what you’ve got to understand. It is like they’re literally giving you a place or systems or events to go to PvP, PK players and not have corruption consequences. Then it’s like you’re saying no I don’t want that I just want to kill greens whenever I feel like it because they made me angry and took my farming spot.
Consent has nothing to do with it. As soon as you log into ashes you consent to any PvP that can happen to you.
I posted Stevens own words and you think I am twisting them somehow... You just cant accept the fact that limited PKing is intended gameplay, but griefing is not. If it wasn't, it wouldn't even be allowed, nor would there be systems like bounty hunting that literally rely upon a corrupted player population within the game.
Back to the main point, Corruption PKs should indeed have consequences. But those consequences shouldnt immediately equate to the same consequences intended for true griefing. It would be more in line with Stevens own design if it were made into a system where unreasonable amounts of PKing in a small timeframe result in severe punishment to deter griefing. Not immediate severe punishment to a few PKs in a large timeframe, which would deter PvP as a whole.
RED means you did WRONG.
And vengeance is coming.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
They engage into PvP, they act as Bounty Hunters but they also stay green and have advantage over those BH. They should have no advantage at all. If they PvP then they are PvP-ers not non-combatants.
There must be a way to distinguish between these two cases because it is unfair competition with the BH system.
"Corrupted players may kill bounty hunters without acquiring additional corruption score.[8][9]
Corrupted player's combat penalties do not apply when battling bounty hunters.[8]"
Even if the greens become purple, the Red still have the combat penalties.
This Bounty Hunters concept feels like it was added later, after the flagging system was established. Or as if there are two separate systems inspired by different games and were not properly integrated together.
Vengeance would imply someone who would've fought back in the initial engagement, which would mean no corruption...unless they are utilizing excessive corruption penalties as an advantage like I stated earlier
If you're afraid that others can now freely kill you because you're Red and you DON'T want to die to them - you weren't prepared to be Red.
If you became Red over some daisies that a Green player was gathering, but now you complain that others can freely kill you - those daisies weren't worth becoming Red over and/or you're a weakling who couldn't contest a location better.
In other words, all the Reds complaining that they can be killed by a mob of people w/o being able to defend themselves are just weaklings who won't survive the game Git gud bois
Agreed, @Ludullu
Griefers are the only ones who should be truly punished. So not all reds as it currently is designed are the same.
Hell yeah, lets go!
You and I have had good discussions in the past so I ask.
Why would you not want severity of punishment to correlate with the amount of corruption?
And why is it better to apply the maximum punishment across all levels of corruption and only affecting how quickly one can become uncorrupted?
I think we have already discussed with eachother our views on defending oneself as a corrupted player against greens and the resulting additional corruption for it.
I perefer it being the binary way, cause it's way easier to explain and, imo, seems more logical as well. If you're Red - your penalties are obvious. And you remain Red even if you have a single point of corruption.
Once you step onto the downward spiral - the only way to come off is to either grind or die. If you weren't ready to grind it off - you better be prepared to die
I am asking for some objective reasoning. Not "Because I like it that way"
And red is simply an indicator. We even saw the corruption debuff itself has a number on it, showing there are levels.
It’s just a pipe dream! In all fairness we need the gathering and PvE community. Who is going to sell me mats, craft items and do all the economy activities. We even need the role players who’s going to open a tavern?
From a PvP/PvX players perspective we need them even if they are loot piñatas they’re good for the game! Plus they sub which is more money for intrepid which means hopefully more expansions!
Right now I think those numbers simply indicate how many kills you've got, so it's easier for the person to know how much corruption they have.
Considering they've said nothing about penalty severness steps I doubt that number indicates that kind of mechanic.
And in that oversimplified system, you also deter engagement of PvP as a whole. Others and myself included will utilize corruption as a shield if corruption is too punishing immediately. Anytime someone engages me I let them kill me and then i use my bounty hunter alt or friends to hunt them down ASAP and get everything and more back, and if they fight back, it gets even worse for them if they kill me again.
Severeness is indicated by how much corruption you have. The very existence of an indication of "how corrupted" someone is shows the system isnt binary and as simple as "just being red"
but the punishment is not binary. thats part of the issue.
Again, them killing you may result is gaining corruption but not turning red. This is something I really want to test when we get there…
So you just may die & drop 100%. If you somehow knew they would turn red, it may change the interaction.
Oh is this in reference to that ranger showcase? Where it looked like there is a sort of buffer kill?
if there is a buffer for killing similar level players that is basically all i could ask for. My understanding over these years for corruption is that one iota of it gives the full flag and death effects, but not as much as someone with more corruption.
Yes, the direct corruption penalties do scale, but even then I think the indicator would be showing the "pk count" steps, cause those determine how much corruption you get for kills.
And if the indicator IS showing severeness of those penalties, then I find it weird that it has never been mentioned. Though, of course, it could just be randomly added and the convo never came up. We'll have to see in A2.
I was talking about the death penalties there and unless I completely missed it - those are purely binary when it comes to "are you red or not".
Imo, yes, simpler systems (or at least parts of them) are more palatable by people and are easier to play with. There's still complexities related to the corruption system (sandal knows we've discussed those at length countless times), but the player state is fairly straightforward: green = default, purple = involved with an attack on a non-red, red = has murdered a green.
And death penalties are related to that straightforwardness: default, lessened ones for combatants, huge ones for murderers.
And even that system has been complained about, cause people couldn't understand it. And yes, I guess changing it to "attack anyone and you're purple" would make it even simpler, but that would also drastically change the risk/reward equation of the game. And I've talked about that in the past, so I won't go into it again.
u gotta l2 more xd
gotta fire those warning shots (:
trust me, u will end up pushing players outside of their farming zone, whether you like it or not. or you will pvp
I prefer the red state to stay for a longer time. No camping a farming spot and cleaning the red status in the same place.
Yeah lmfao. Dude is hopeless to talk to
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.