Things we DON'T like about AoC.

While it is important to voice to the developers the things we enjoy about the game, and to encourage the game's creation, it's also equally important to voice our thoughts and opinions on things we don't like about the game and are concerned about.
What are some things you've seen that have you little concerned about or that you simply don't like?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Songcaller

I did say some players will go red just to get bounty hunters to come.

Solvryn

I hope Bounty Hunting isn't just a flavour text for anti-PK mechanics and that everything that goes into corruption, BH, and Military nodes are more complete.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

I can't speak for all bounty hunters but most bounty hunters will have the best gear possible before they face a corrupt player. It is true people will game the system but any system will be gamed. If it only takes one death to clear corruption then friends can clear the corruption before bounty hunter is even informed.

And this is why I'm gonna be giving a ton of feedback "to prevent party/guild/alliance/raid-mates and people on your friend list from killing you if you're red". They already can't flag on you, so why should they be able to kill you? This is one of the biggest exploits in the system, so I hope that Intrepid has already changed that and just haven't told us.

Neurath wrote: »

A bounty hunter has to flag which means friends of a corrupted player can also kill a bounty hunter. I think I will have to make bounty hunter contacts to be fully operational. The rewards are based on kills not combat. Thus, bounty hunters are already unlikely to group up unless it is imperative.

BH flag only against the PKer, so PKer's friends would have to go red themselves if they wanted to help. So while it is possible that they'll try and help somehow, the BH would still have the upper hand.

Also, you gotta think about this in the context of the bigger picture of the game. How would a PKer appear while being in a group? The most likely case is PKs in a dungeon against another group, while the victim group did literally nothing to stop it. And considering that even Dygz said that his party would probably just fight back, I do think that most groups of people would fight back. But even if they don't flag up against the attackers, they'd at least immediately kill the PKer in response (cause it'd still be 7vs1). So in such cases a BH wouldn't even have the time to learn about the PKer.

Most other cases of PKs will probably be amongst solo players or some small group gankers, at which point a well-gear BH would probably easily deal with the PKer (well, relatively speaking). And this would only be more common if the corruption gain is not as huge as it currently seems to be.

Again, this is mainly coming from L2 experience. People would PK here and there, mostly for farming spots (though more often the target would just fight back). There'd always be some uberPKers, but those would usually pick a glass cannon build and try to kill weaker players, so literally anyone with good gear would wipe them easily. L2's corruption gain/removal values were laxer than AoC's are supposed to be, which is why people felt better about PKing more often. But L2 also didn't have a BH system, so all PKers either grinded off their corruption or were killed by normal players that happened to be near the kill spot.

I do think that with a proper design and balance of said design, Ashes could still have those normal somewhat common PKs, while also curbing some of the uberPKers because there'd just be more BHs around to simply prevent huge genocidal runs by those psychos.

Agreed and it should linger if you were on any of these lists so you can't leave pk and rejoin.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

But like you like you say yourself, players are much more kill-hungry than mobs. A green player can just run away from a mob if they think the mob will kill them. But running away from a PKer would be more difficult, especially if the PKer attacked while the green was preoccupied with other content.

It's easier to finagle your gameplay to account for mob behavior in order deal with or avoid their attacks - in ways that are not possible vs human players.
Corruption is intended to sufficiently deter unwanted PvP encounters. If I'm encountering unwanted PvP attack more often than I am mob attacks - that means Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent and I wouldn't play the game anyway, so... returning resources would be irrelevant.

NiKr wrote: »

And if corrupted are meant to just be treated as mobs - why da hell is there a BH system? Any player can just go kill mobs and get the reward from them, so why do we need a whole separate system that, for some reason, gives out additional rewards for killing "mobs"?

So there are more opportunities for PvP, of course.
BH system entices players to hunt the monsters. I don't think it gives additional rewards for killing mobs. BH system is like a quest - where the target mob is a Corrupted player.
And, at the end of a quest to kill mobs, lost resources are not returned to the players who were killed by those mobs.

NiKr wrote: »

If Intrepid decides to remove the BHs completely, I'll live with that. But if they want to keep that system in - I'd expect a much more holistic system that serves all sides of its encounter equation.

Steven wants more PvP rather than less PvP. I highly doubt he would remove the BH system.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

If I'm encountering unwanted PvP attacks more often than I am mob attacks - that means Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent and I wouldn't play the game anyway, so... returning resources would be irrelevant.

I'm assuming by "pvp attacks" you mean that you're getting killed, right? Cause unless Intrepid change the system to "attacks build corruption or up to corruption", you might get prodded by some jerks on semi-regular basis, just as you would sometimes get agro from mobs.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

If I'm encountering unwanted PvP attacks more often than I am mob attacks - that means Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent and I wouldn't play the game anyway, so... returning resources would be irrelevant.

I'm assuming by "pvp attacks" you mean that you're getting killed, right? Cause unless Intrepid change the system to "attacks build corruption or up to corruption", you might get prodded by some jerks on semi-regular basis, just as you would sometimes get agro from mobs.

I wouldn't assume that.

I'm relatively certain that people would be MORE likely to 'attack and not try to kill' particularly when a mob fight is happening.

Same old circle we've been wondering about for most of last year. How will we get meaningful PvE while players are free to interrupt/attack you during it. Removing the ability to CC you is a wonderful change and probably enough to retain a lot of players who would otherwise rightly leave, but, whereas mobs can be avoided, players have much more behavioural freedom.

Even if one is like me and considers that once you have ENGAGED a mob/player, it is fine that the outcome is the same (Mobs being very smart, having few leashes, etc), it's generally much easier to proactively avoid mobs.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Same old circle we've been wondering about for most of last year. How will we get meaningful PvE while players are free to interrupt/attack you during it. Removing the ability to CC you is a wonderful change and probably enough to retain a lot of players who would otherwise rightly leave, but, whereas mobs can be avoided, players have much more behavioural freedom.

Yeah, it's all same old, same old. Until, at the very least, alpha2 we can only really go in circles discussing the same stuff in the same way. And we won't know how many players the game will really push away with whatever design it decides to go with until we hit release.

Songcaller

I get so fired up I have to leave the forums for a few weeks every so often lol.

MybroViajero

The doubts and intrigue that remain after each update.

I appreciate each update, as it is a great relief for me to have monthly information about the development, but sometimes I have the feeling that after an update there is a "void" of information, as if I need more or as if I need a specific answer to some doubt about that update.

I think that's part of the monthly updates, it leaves you with the intrigue to know more and I understand that Intrepid can't and shouldn't show more but I think that's one of the things I dislike the most about AoC development.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

If I'm encountering unwanted PvP attacks more often than I am mob attacks - that means Corruption is not a sufficient deterrent and I wouldn't play the game anyway, so... returning resources would be irrelevant.

I'm assuming by "pvp attacks" you mean that you're getting killed, right? Cause unless Intrepid change the system to "attacks build corruption or up to corruption", you might get prodded by some jerks on semi-regular basis, just as you would sometimes get agro from mobs.

I mean continuing to attack me when I don't fight back.
I was supposed to edit and reword that a bit better, but... apparently got distracted by work (and dance rehearsal).
LMAO

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

I mean continuing to attack me when I don't fight back.
I was supposed to edit and reword that a bit better, but... apparently got distracted by work (and dance rehearsal).
LMAO

Then I hope that Steven changes his stance on the nameplate decay visuals, cause that's the most direct way to grief people w/o killing them. I really don't know why they even have that. Maybe AA had smth like that? L2 sure as hell didn't and it worked just fine there.

JamesSunderland

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I mean continuing to attack me when I don't fight back.
I was supposed to edit and reword that a bit better, but... apparently got distracted by work (and dance rehearsal).
LMAO

Maybe AA had smth like that? L2 sure as hell didn't and it worked just fine there.

AA always lets you see peoples health bars(with exact numbers and %)

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

I mean continuing to attack me when I don't fight back.
I was supposed to edit and reword that a bit better, but... apparently got distracted by work (and dance rehearsal).
LMAO

Then I hope that Steven changes his stance on the nameplate decay visuals, cause that's the most direct way to grief people w/o killing them. I really don't know why they even have that. Maybe AA had smth like that? L2 sure as hell didn't and it worked just fine there.

I'm not sure that would be good for Ashes, though.

Aside from combat (mostly because speculative and untested), I believe that almost everything in Ashes other than the Open Seas PvP thing is design-consistent. Just not necessarily a draw for everyone. Which is the point.

So, 'keeping' Dygz or 'keeping' me by changing things, I don't feel should even begin to be a goal. Not for us specifically nor for our 'demographics'.

There's some things where 'doing it a different way has no real negative effect so it makes sense to change it'. I feel like this isn't one of them, whereas 'no CC on Green players' actually is (because by definition if you are Green you are not threatening the Purple person, so they didn't really need to CC you to get what they wanted).

Consider the 'non-pacifist' response to this, as example, even if it were 'griefing' to attack someone repeatedly while they were fighting a mob, that person will probably just heal to full after the mob and then flag up to fight, ideally.

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

The Nameplate thing technically helps Dygz's situation more than harming it, in many cases. Obviously not all, but it's technically 'better' than 'being accidentally killed'. The other person becoming Corrupted unexpectedly isn't what pacifist players are likely to care about. The other person 'fearing that enough to not bother them', is.

If someone else can see you 'cast a healing spell on yourself' and then 'hits you because they saw that spell' every time', the life bar thing isn't going to matter at all.

I'm just rambling though, it just came to mind because I was thinking about something else, really...

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

Yeah, I guess I can see that point. Though I'd be a bit worried as to how many people this would push away. No matter how much I'd prefer a way more hardcore game, I'd also prefer Ashes to succeed enough to survive for a very long time. And in most cases that survival of pvp mmos either comes in the form of 2k players on a single server paying just enough to cover server costs or in the form of p2w so damn huge that you could never win a single fight as a non-payer.

And while I might be fine with Ashes having a very small population, I'm not sure if the game itself can support that.

Benjiy

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

Yeah, I guess I can see that point. Though I'd be a bit worried as to how many people this would push away. No matter how much I'd prefer a way more hardcore game, I'd also prefer Ashes to succeed enough to survive for a very long time. And in most cases that survival of pvp mmos either comes in the form of 2k players on a single server paying just enough to cover server costs or in the form of p2w so damn huge that you could never win a single fight as a non-payer.

And while I might be fine with Ashes having a very small population, I'm not sure if the game itself can support that.

Thats the point. Todays playerbase is not able to play balanced PvP. Its either griefing, killing or nothing. In my opinion it doesnt matter how good AoC will be. If they set the focus on PvP it will have a very small playerbase and will fail in the End.

I loved the Game once it was announced. But the fact that they wanna go for a PvP MMO detered me to buy some 300$ Packages. And if it will be PvP i wont play it for sure. Player will be toxic etc. We all know this from past PvP MMO releases. Also there is no new successfull PvP based MMO out there for a reason. New World failed because of PvP. After chaning to PvE they succeeded compared to the release time.

Offtopic:
I also dont like the fact they are limiting flying mounts. In my opinion everybody should be able to use flying mounts. But there should be some limited unique ones only available for Kings and Queens. But Limiting them in general is a bad choice. Only AoC Partner (especially streamers) and hardcore player with 24/7 playtime will have access to it. Which is not fair in my opinion.

Everybody should have the chance to get a flying mount sooner or later and not just those who play MMOS 24/7 beause they dont have to work or its THEIR work...

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

If they don't want to do that, they're probably better off in another game, not JUST because of this though, the other aspects of Ashes wouldn't necessarily suit their flows as much as those other games either.

Yeah, I guess I can see that point. Though I'd be a bit worried as to how many people this would push away. No matter how much I'd prefer a way more hardcore game, I'd also prefer Ashes to succeed enough to survive for a very long time. And in most cases that survival of pvp mmos either comes in the form of 2k players on a single server paying just enough to cover server costs or in the form of p2w so damn huge that you could never win a single fight as a non-payer.

And while I might be fine with Ashes having a very small population, I'm not sure if the game itself can support that.

The game wants to push pure PvP-ers away by forcing them to level up doing PvE and pure PvE-ers by letting PvP-ers kill them. Both can be solved. The worst solution is to tune up corruption penalties IMO. But I am not against some areas to be very safe and players with corruption history to get there penalties preemptively. But I don't know where such zones could be placed. I see no place for them. I want the caravan system stay viable.

Songcaller

So, greens can't be CC'd. Does that mean that a green who would go purple against a green but is fighting a premade red can't be CC'd for the whole fight by the red?

Edit: Does that also mean that greens can't be dismounted by CC too? What use is a Bounty Hunter when you have so many boons just being green against a red?

effusivemind

DarkTides wrote: »

I also dont like the fact they are limiting flying mounts. In my opinion everybody should be able to use flying mounts. But there should be some limited unique ones only available for Kings and Queens. But Limiting them in general is a bad choice. Only AoC Partner (especially streamers) and hardcore player with 24/7 playtime will have access to it. Which is not fair in my opinion.

Everybody should have the chance to get a flying mount sooner or later and not just those who play MMOS 24/7 beause they dont have to work or its THEIR work...

My position is a hard no to flying mounts in general. Other than what you've mentioned (which has been said time and again) why create such an advanced elaborate world if a small upper-class group is going to be able to fly through it. Someone can easily come up with an overwhelming number of hypothetical situations where that would be problematic.

And for what? I haven't seen one game where flying mounts were added and it actually improved the quality of the game.

The system itself doesn't need to reward players this profoundly for vying for positions of political authority and power. Players will organically do that themselves because that's how humans are. All you have to do is take a look at how monstrously out of hand IRL politics have become precisely because of things like this.

You end up having a large majority of players become leaders who have no business becoming one, and in a systems game, that affects everyone. It's not a small thing.

Can't wait to get hit with the, "THIS GAME IS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!"

By the way, sometimes, game design actually isn't perfect believe it or not. And that deserves to get pointed out. This isn't a cult, and I'm not a cult follower

hleV

Some off the top of my head:

Too much focus on less important things. I know they may have developers for specific things ("art team can't program gameplay"), but they need to get the main gameplay/combat/animations in place already, the rest can wait. After years and years the game still looks like it's in concept phase.
Action vs Tab as two separate modes. You needn't do this, we shouldn't have to switch between crosshair or no crosshair as the meta will dictate the better option, or if you plan to have us switch between them for different situations, then you're needlessly overcomplicating the combat system. We could have the modes automatically apply depending on weapon and ability used, and it'd be perfectly considered hybrid combat.
Shared skills and animations regardless of weapon used (e.g. 2H Sword and Daggers). Not sure if it's 100% decided, but if we don't get separate animations and skills for different weapons, then that's certainly concerning.
Too much faith in karma system from a game from long ago. What worked over a decade ago won't necessarily hold up today, people will meta the shit out of the corruption system, and griefers gonna grief (this includes green players abusing it). Also the corruption score should be account-wide. And the flagging system of who hits who is a nuisance.
What's up with the "News" posts with a bunch of concept art? Why are you selling concept art?

Benjiy

effusivemind wrote: »

DarkTides wrote: »

I also dont like the fact they are limiting flying mounts. In my opinion everybody should be able to use flying mounts. But there should be some limited unique ones only available for Kings and Queens. But Limiting them in general is a bad choice. Only AoC Partner (especially streamers) and hardcore player with 24/7 playtime will have access to it. Which is not fair in my opinion.

Everybody should have the chance to get a flying mount sooner or later and not just those who play MMOS 24/7 beause they dont have to work or its THEIR work...

My position is a hard no to flying mounts in general. Other than what you've mentioned (which has been said time and again) why create such an advanced elaborate world if a small upper-class group is going to be able to fly through it. Someone can easily come up with an overwhelming number of hypothetical situations where that would be problematic.

And for what? I haven't seen one game where flying mounts were added and it actually improved the quality of the game.

The system itself doesn't need to reward players this profoundly for vying for positions of political authority and power. Players will organically do that themselves because that's how humans are. All you have to do is take a look at how monstrously out of hand IRL politics have become precisely because of things like this.

You end up having a large majority of players become leaders who have no business becoming one, and in a systems game, that affects everyone. It's not a small thing.

Can't wait to get hit with the, "THIS GAME IS NOT FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-!"

By the way, sometimes, game design actually isn't perfect believe it or not. And that deserves to get pointed out. This isn't a cult, and I'm not a cult follower

Im with you. i just dont like the fact that flying mounts are only earned by being a partnered streamer for AoC or playing 24/7 as a native player. Flying Mounts are impossible to reach for people working normal jobs even if they spend all their free time playing this game.

If Flying has no usecase then they should delete it completely from the game. But only make flying mounts available to 24/7 player or stream partners is a way of P2W. Even if you dont have to pay for it.

Btw there are MMOs where Flying mounts improved the game. It improved the gameplay like in Guild Wars 2. It had no mounts at all. Then ground mounts first and finally flying mounts. It was well integrated into the World of GW2 and people loving it till today.

Child Item