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.

Living as a red player

124»

Comments

  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Serukka wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Slipree wrote: »
    Punishing pvp because of griefers won’t work. Griefers always find ways to grief. They work around systems, not in spite of them. Being red should be hard, but you should be able to defend yourself regardless. Not flagging when attacking a red player, and not being able to be cc’d is bad mechanics.

    It's not punishing PvP, just PK

    Those systems exist as they do for a reason. Non-combatants being immune to player-sourced CC is in place because it's proven a problem to allow it in other games that use a similar system. I don't have the links on hand, but you can find videos of lockdown kills on greens that gave them no chance to flag up or escape, which is something they don't want to have as an option in Ashes.

    After all, if a green is running away, then you've achieved the goal that PK would accomplish, which is getting them out of an area you want to lay claim on.

    There's no mechanical difference between trying to CC a green to keep them from running away, and trying to CC them out of 'self-defense' as a red. There's no way to prevent one but allow another, and so neither are allowed.

    Edit: Ultimately it's on you to improve your skill and adapt to the rules of the game


    Question
    Say at a farm spot there is a person taking my mobs.
    I hit him once and he turns to me to flag up.
    Will I still gain corruption upon killing? Since I initiated. Even tho at this point is consensual to a degree

    If you werent already corrupt upon hitting them, you will both simply be combatants since you both hit eachother. In which case, no you wont gain corruption.

    If you are corrupt already, they will remain a non-combatant even after retaliating. And as it is currently designed, you will gain more corruption upon killing them. Been debating this mechanic in several discussions.

    If you go by what corruption is designed for, punishing a PvP engagement that couldnt be defined as griefing with more corruption makes no sense.

    The point is I’m already red. Which contrary to how some people think around here, DOES happen from world pvp. (The best pvp), and not just from grief/pking unwilling participants(which. Is a joke in a pvx mmo, you already consented by installing imo)

    I agree, I was just explaining the way it works to that Serukka person.

    GJjUGHx.gif
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Slipree wrote: »
    Punishing pvp because of griefers won’t work. Griefers always find ways to grief. They work around systems, not in spite of them. Being red should be hard, but you should be able to defend yourself regardless. Not flagging when attacking a red player, and not being able to be cc’d is bad mechanics.

    It's not punishing PvP, just PK

    Those systems exist as they do for a reason. Non-combatants being immune to player-sourced CC is in place because it's proven a problem to allow it in other games that use a similar system. I don't have the links on hand, but you can find videos of lockdown kills on greens that gave them no chance to flag up or escape, which is something they don't want to have as an option in Ashes.

    After all, if a green is running away, then you've achieved the goal that PK would accomplish, which is getting them out of an area you want to lay claim on.

    There's no mechanical difference between trying to CC a green to keep them from running away, and trying to CC them out of 'self-defense' as a red. There's no way to prevent one but allow another, and so neither are allowed.

    Edit: Ultimately it's on you to improve your skill and adapt to the rules of the game

    Reading comprehension?

    I’m talking. About people who go red from world pvp because it happens, not being able to cc a green and get away from it when attacked, because the green doesn’t flag, and you can cc him. Now you have 2 options. 1 kill him and get more corruption, or 2 dying is never an option

    They already have diminishing returns for cc anyway, and if you’re getting cc’d and killed by 1 player, you’re just bad. If it’s a bunch of players, how would you expect to win that anyway, you string em along until your buddies show up, or gtfo.

    Objective based PvP (which is what Ashes has been widely advertised to focus on) will rarely end up with players going red, because the content is not infinitely respawning, the drops are valuable, and it's designed around group combat.

    It doesn't matter that corruption can happen in objective based PvP, because if you're playing in a group as intended then the effects and threat is already severely mitigated by the incoming healing, buffs, and other defenses provided within your group.

    Are you under the impression groups will just let their red flagged players die without contest in group PvP? If so, that's a shitty group.

    If the group support is so weak that an enemy doesn't even have to attack the healers or tankier members to kill one red in the group, that's also a shitty group.

    I really dislike coming back here for one whiny PK enthusiast, but this doomsaying about playing red is entirely a solo PKer issue, and I care as much about their whining as I do about solo PvEer whining.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    Exploitable af. Me and an alt corruption farming and removal. Most clans would keep alts just for this. (Obv not in same clan )
    Even if killing a PKer removed slightly more corruption than killing a mob - you'd need to kill him several times over in order to clear your own corruption. And PKers respawn in random locations, so you wouldn't even be able to control your corruption clearing properly. And that's not even mentioning that constantly having an alt with super high corruption value would simply invite BHs to come to your location before you even gain corruption on your main char. And those BHs would kill your alt, which would simply remove him as an option to abuse this particular feature.

    There's nothing to abuse here. The situations of "a PKer is in the same location as another PKer who's also his enemy" would be insanely rare, because it would require both sides of the encounter (who are also enemies) to remain green, while at least one player on each side decides to flag up and then PK a player on the opposite side.
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    Slipree wrote: »
    In a pvp game that’s focused on player crafted gear, not raid dropped gear, it needs to be a sink, else crafters won’t mean anything once everyone has a couple gear sets. If you die a few times in a set/weapon, it should become useless, without at minimum, paying a crafter to repair it.

    Yes and these sinks in Ashes will be durability, node destruction, crafting itself and corrupted drops. When you need to deconstract gear of a similar level/quality to repair your gear, when the content rotates and that requires gear to be deconstructed in order to quickly adapt to the new content, while there is a constant risk that the gear in your bank disappears in a node destruction/demotion, then this sounds to me like enough sinks. Full geardrop aren't even a sink, they are a high speed redistribution mechanism - so it makes no sense to insist on that as a necessity.
    Slipree wrote: »
    If you don’t lose anything, there’s nothing to fight for. That’s the problem with mmos that want to do it all. Doesn’t work. Not unless you separate pvp and pve gear. Which is an even worse solution.

    Yeah, IF you don't lose anything. But you are. So with the premise already not applying we don't need to worry about that.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • ralangorfralangorf Member, Alpha Two
    Podgnil wrote: »
    Serukka wrote: »

    Will have to see how it plays out.
    I do agree that this ‘godly’ system feels weird and enacts controversy.
    I also understand that random pk’ing drives away a lot of players and only leaves behind a small group of players who enjoy full pvp mmo’s. Many games have tried to balance this thru the years with different systems and they always fail and every time the players left to play the game are these ‘pvp/griefers’.

    I agree that this corruption system just sounds odd, if I want to be a murdering jackass the punishment should come from the world and its players not some magical stat dampening that makes me weak. I could live with dropping all my gear upon death when red. But making me unable to kill another player after x kills just feels lame.

    I really enjoy pvp and I really like mmo’s. People often tell me ‘well go play x pvp mmo’
    But I played them all extensively and I want to play this game.
    Just hope that somehow being red or living the lawless life is a possibility somehow, someday.

    I agree completely, such decisions kill banditry and robbery in the world of the game) Yes, of course, so that the game does not turn into a bloody swamp in which people are killed as soon as you leave the city, there must be tools that regulate this. Perhaps even prisons in nodes, in which the most malicious griefers can sit for a couple of days. Punishment must be logical and follow from the laws of the world. Ashes strives for the players to create the world, so why then did the developers take this issue completely to their own discretion)) This process should be self-regulating, the number of raids increases, players tighten laws, increase their security costs, pay more taxes. Banditry ceases to be profitable, the players begin to feel safe, and they tell the mayor that they do not want to pay so much. Okay, the tax will be reduced, no one wants to catch bandits, and so on and so forth... You understand. I understand that the system is complex, it is difficult to predict how it will work and whether it will work, but we have a couple of years of testing for this.

    I can tell you why it's like this. They don't want you to purple often. I think that's a bad idea imo. It's currently setup to just never purple which is bad. The previous 1.0-3.5 archeage system which this was primarily stolen in concept from is far superior. If offers a jail sentence jury from your peers. I suspect Steven did not appreciate people just afking their timers and not really receiving consequences. Or in worst case scenario like myself. Popping draughts after 4 kills and never receiving a punishment ever.

    The current system sounds bad imo and way too exploitable. It needs a rework. It's rife for rmt with droppable items being associated with it. And it's a non starter for pvp. If the system is too harsh to ever engage with it. It's not a good system. There's definitely a better balance between this and previous jail timers of archeage. But this isnt it. Tbh. Maybe it's just improving jail timers. Archeage you could forget kills. Perhaps they just don't let that happen. And 3 of 5x kills is good enough. Sometimes you got 5 people with packs who you'd like to engage with. The risk would still be there. But you shouldn't leave it in this state. In this state there's no reason to fight them.

    Tldr it's a carebear paradise cause the systems are overturned. I suspect this is a knee jerk reaction to past archeage purple systems.
  • ralangorfralangorf Member, Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    Much of the push back above is about individuals griefing greens as a ‘bad guy.’ I’m more concerned about large guilds just mopping the field of any greens not in their guild. That scale of griefing will cause mass attrition of the pve player segment, and Ashes will be relegated to an MO2-esque existence.

    The corruption system is the weight bearing beam holding up the PvX house. You may not get to live your best life as an rp criminal, but that may come at trade-off of hundreds of players sticking around. I can’t even guess how many subsystems will need to be in place to constantly adjust the pendulum of corruption over time.

    I think it's fine if a guild wants to clear an area that they're holding. This balance we speak of is tough to get but the reality is. If they can't why group? What are the benefits to them holding an area for pvp or wealth gain when it's rng and the greens can easily just rng their way into profits. You remove the social and group aspect entirely. The trick is what throne and liberty did. You let this event happen. And you give the pve andies some peace variant that's just slightly worse cause no risk.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Ha! Plus Steven will tell you that Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvP game.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Ha! Plus Steven will tell you that Ashes is a PvX game; not a PvP game.

    Pvx games are pvp games.

    PvX is pvpve or pvp + pve so yes, it's a pvp game and a pve game. Yes, if you define a pve game as a game that lacks pvp then this concept is hard to wrap your head around but pve is player vs environment. Has nothing to do with if pvp is present or not.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    ralangorf wrote: »
    Podgnil wrote: »
    Serukka wrote: »

    Will have to see how it plays out.
    I do agree that this ‘godly’ system feels weird and enacts controversy.
    I also understand that random pk’ing drives away a lot of players and only leaves behind a small group of players who enjoy full pvp mmo’s. Many games have tried to balance this thru the years with different systems and they always fail and every time the players left to play the game are these ‘pvp/griefers’.

    I agree that this corruption system just sounds odd, if I want to be a murdering jackass the punishment should come from the world and its players not some magical stat dampening that makes me weak. I could live with dropping all my gear upon death when red. But making me unable to kill another player after x kills just feels lame.

    I really enjoy pvp and I really like mmo’s. People often tell me ‘well go play x pvp mmo’
    But I played them all extensively and I want to play this game.
    Just hope that somehow being red or living the lawless life is a possibility somehow, someday.

    I agree completely, such decisions kill banditry and robbery in the world of the game) Yes, of course, so that the game does not turn into a bloody swamp in which people are killed as soon as you leave the city, there must be tools that regulate this. Perhaps even prisons in nodes, in which the most malicious griefers can sit for a couple of days. Punishment must be logical and follow from the laws of the world. Ashes strives for the players to create the world, so why then did the developers take this issue completely to their own discretion)) This process should be self-regulating, the number of raids increases, players tighten laws, increase their security costs, pay more taxes. Banditry ceases to be profitable, the players begin to feel safe, and they tell the mayor that they do not want to pay so much. Okay, the tax will be reduced, no one wants to catch bandits, and so on and so forth... You understand. I understand that the system is complex, it is difficult to predict how it will work and whether it will work, but we have a couple of years of testing for this.

    I can tell you why it's like this. They don't want you to purple often.

    Purple is combatant state, aka the state they heavily encourage you be in for any PvP engagement.

    How did you come to the conclusion that this design is to dissuade players from being combatants? None of your post outlines a logic process.

    As for RMT, gold doesn't drop on death, only (Stolen) Glint, which as far as it's been described can't be used as payment for standard Glint merchants and redeems for significantly less gold value than non-stolen Glint. It's also a ton of hoops that make RMT using the system particularly obvious.
  • abc0815abc0815 Member
    Serukka wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Slipree wrote: »
    Punishing pvp because of griefers won’t work. Griefers always find ways to grief. They work around systems, not in spite of them. Being red should be hard, but you should be able to defend yourself regardless. Not flagging when attacking a red player, and not being able to be cc’d is bad mechanics.

    It's not punishing PvP, just PK

    Those systems exist as they do for a reason. Non-combatants being immune to player-sourced CC is in place because it's proven a problem to allow it in other games that use a similar system. I don't have the links on hand, but you can find videos of lockdown kills on greens that gave them no chance to flag up or escape, which is something they don't want to have as an option in Ashes.

    After all, if a green is running away, then you've achieved the goal that PK would accomplish, which is getting them out of an area you want to lay claim on.

    There's no mechanical difference between trying to CC a green to keep them from running away, and trying to CC them out of 'self-defense' as a red. There's no way to prevent one but allow another, and so neither are allowed.

    Edit: Ultimately it's on you to improve your skill and adapt to the rules of the game


    Question
    Say at a farm spot there is a person taking my mobs.
    I hit him once and he turns to me to flag up.
    Will I still gain corruption upon killing? Since I initiated. Even tho at this point is consensual to a degree

    They are not yours to begin with. If this game ends with mob grinding in one spot for 100hours its GG anyway.
  • cedrodorcedrodor Member
    I feel the stat dampening is a bit much and I wasn't really even planing on going red. Personally I was was hoping to play as a bounty hunter but I kinda doubt there will be much to hunt with a system this punishing and I mean whats the fun of hunting someone who can't defend themselves.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    cedrodor wrote: »
    I feel the stat dampening is a bit much and I wasn't really even planing on going red. Personally I was was hoping to play as a bounty hunter but I kinda doubt there will be much to hunt with a system this punishing and I mean whats the fun of hunting someone who can't defend themselves.

    The stat damp isn't gonna be very noticeable after just one PK, 10 stack is the guesstimate point from Steven that a red player will be significantly impacted by it.

    As a Bounty Hunter, reds don't suffer any stat penalties fighting you specifically, and they gain no further corruption if they kill Bounty Hunters.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    mcstackerson wrote: »
    PvX is pvpve or pvp + pve so yes, it's a pvp game and a pve game. Yes, if you define a pve game as a game that lacks pvp then this concept is hard to wrap your head around but pve is player vs environment. Has nothing to do with if pvp is present or not.
    I'm not aware of any MMORPG that does not have PvE, so any MMORPG with PvP would then be a PvP game.
    But, Steven will tell you that Ashes is not a PvP game - it is a PvX game.

    Yes, I'm pretty sure Slipree was trying to convey "In an MMORPG with OWPVP...." - which both Steven and I would probably say that's not necessarily the same thing as a PvP game.
    Although, even then, what Steven calls PvX, I cal PvP-centric.
Sign In or Register to comment.