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

You could be lucky and get a 30 day flying mount from a raid.

Solvryn

Neurath wrote: »

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?

No, once someone flags purple they're purple to everyone.

Songcaller

You can't flag purple against red to my knowledge. No one will turn from green when mounted either.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

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?

If he goes purple - he'll be CCd.

Neurath wrote: »

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?

The boon is the reward system. If the reward system is utter shite, I doubt anyone will become a BH.

Songcaller

Yeah but why would you go purple? Just evade, get mount out and ride off. Can't be stopped with no cc on green.

Solvryn

Neurath wrote: »

Yeah but why would you go purple? Just evade, get mount out and ride off. Can't be stopped with no cc on green.

You can kill mounts as they behave as battle pets.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

Yeah but why would you go purple? Just evade, get mount out and ride off. Can't be stopped with no cc on green.

I feel like you're shifting the scenario?

If Green attacks Red, Red starts winning the fight and Green flees... this is literally the best possible situation for the Red player, I would think?

Songcaller

Yeah but you need cc to dismount a player. Good luck catching a dude on a mount with no cc on green.

Azherae

Neurath wrote: »

Yeah but you need cc to dismount a player. Good luck catching a dude on a mount with no cc on green.

Is this guaranteed true, though?

We know that players can't be CCed but we don't know if their mount can be if targeted separately.

We don't know if the attacking player's mount has skills that dismount the other player regardless of status, as a specific separate effect like in BDO.

Given the rest of the design, I'm not sure that CC immunity needs to extend to a green player's mount, for the goals of the design to be achieved.

Songcaller

So, a mule is green and gives corruption on death but green can't be cc'd so you can just ride off on a mule.

Not clear if a mount is green but a mount doesn't give corruption so you could nuke the mount and kill the mount to dismount someone.

Green player already had upper hand against red but no cc on green means more greens will still not bother to pvp at all and will still be corruption Producers.

I don't see why there should be a 'game play loop' of giving resources back to green players when the green players are already buffed to high heaven against reds.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

Not clear if a mount is green but a mount doesn't give corruption so you could nuke the mount and kill the mount to dismount someone.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
If a combatant player, or their summon, kills a non-combatant player, including any of their controlled entities, such as their battle pet, mount, or summon, the player's character will be flagged as corrupted.[9][10][2]

Mag7spy

Part of me feels like this could become a pretty toxic thread "We" in these terms is very subjective can't say i agree with all points here lol... Its more so personal complaints.

Songcaller

So all aspects are green. Not sure why you countered with a 'we can kill the mount' counter point to my argument then. You would just turn red and the green can't be cc'd. Bit of a pointless exercise really because you will get naff all from a mount and the green can dance away like the pied piper.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

Green player already had upper hand against red but no cc on green means more greens will still not bother to pvp at all and will still be corruption Producers.

I don't see why there should be a 'game play loop' of giving resources back to green players when the green players are already buffed to high heaven against reds.

To me going Red is still about taking someone's farming spot away rather than pretty much any other reason. And if that spot is somewhere deep in a dungeon, unless the green can respawn in the neighboring room - that's several minutes of traversing the dungeon to get back to the same spot.

If the green didn't fight back and decided to just run away - good for me, I'm not corrupted but I still got the spot. Either that green won't come back cause he's not a fighter or if he comes back - I just flag up first against him and still put him in an unfavorable position (in case he cared about who struck first).

This is why I think that returning mats to a green would be fine (that is, again, if the red is even killed), because the disruption has already happened. And the scale of that disruption could vary from "the green just got here and hasn't killed a single mob or gathered a single item" to "he's been farming this spot for hours now and has a shitton of resources on him". But at that point it'll be on the green to decide if he wants to risk his loot or not.
But no matter what he decides, my main goal with attacking him was to remove him from the premises.

And all the PKers who kill others purely for their resources or just for fun should be properly hunted, just as a robber or a murderer would be irl. And the BH would be different from a random green, because the BH is paid by the government to find and kill the Red, while the random green would just be a vigilante of sorts whose reward would be purely the Red's loot rather than something bigger.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

So all aspects are green. Not sure why you countered with a 'we can kill the mount' counter point to my argument then. You would just turn red and the green can't be cc'd. Bit of a pointless exercise really because you will get naff all from a mount and the green can dance away like the pied piper.

I was just providing a clarification on a point. And I explained my position in the next post.

Songcaller

In my mind you are replacing the main reasons for world pvp. If the green wants the spot back they can fight for it. If the green wants the resources back they can fight for it.

Again, why would a bounty hunter leave their own dungeon/group just to kill a red because a green didn't fight the red?

I'm not convinced at all that a green needs to be the Lord of all situations in a pvx game. That is penalising both the red pvp players and the bounty hunter pvp players in a pvx game where the pve player is the oddball.

hleV

Neurath wrote: »

In my mind you are replacing the main reasons for world pvp. If the green wants the spot back they can fight for it. If the green wants the resources back they can fight for it.

Again, why would a bounty hunter leave their own dungeon/group just to kill a red because a green didn't fight the red?

I'm not convinced at all that a green needs to be the Lord of all situations in a pvx game. That is penalising both the red pvp players and the bounty hunter pvp players in a pvx game where the pve player is the oddball.

Greens having all those benefits against Reds is supposedly part of Reds' punishment. I don't agree with it and believe it's too severe a punishment, but the majority believe that PKers (regardless of WHY they PK'd) need to be punished as hard as possible, to the point where nobody ever dares to risk PKing anyone.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

In my mind you are replacing the main reasons for world pvp. If the green wants the spot back they can fight for it. If the green wants the resources back they can fight for it.

Again, why would a bounty hunter leave their own dungeon/group just to kill a red because a green didn't fight the red?

I'm not convinced at all that a green needs to be the Lord of all situations in a pvx game. That is penalising both the red pvp players and the bounty hunter pvp players in a pvx game where the pve player is the oddball.

Because in all cases where the green would/could fight - he wouldn't be a damn green. No one is forcing you to take the BH job, but if you took it - why in the hell would you not do it then?

If the green is a fighter, he'll just fight back when the attacker strikes him. If the green wants to punish the red on their own - they're always free to do that and I will always hope that all greens will.

But for literal thousands of players who don't care about pvp, but who will still play the game, farm shit and sell it to pvpers, and support nodes and whateverthefuckelse - why wouldn't you want to keep those players in the game for longer?

And again, my suggestion is to reduce corruption gain values so that more people feel safer about attempting PKs, so I'm in no way protecting or deifying the greens. I just want to counterbalance all those more common deaths and it just so happens that the game already has a system that's meant to hunt the PKers. So I see no reason why that system shouldn't be a bit deeper and more interconnected with other systems rather than just being a dumbass "anti-pk" content.

Literally anyone can do anti-pk content, as you have just pointed out. Any green player is so damn buffed against Reds that it's crazy and has already garnered some complaints. I want Ashes to have a system that would instead shift the burden of killing the Red from greens to BHs. And I just fucking remembered, THIS WOULD HELP THE REDS EVEN MORE! If the greens attack reds less frequently, the reds won't fall down a corruption spiral and instead will just participate in normal pvp against a BH.

So PKers have a better life, greens have a better life and BHs garner good rep with the greens, have good pvp against reds and get a fucking reward on top of that. I cannot understand why you consider this a bad system. Literally everyone gets something good out of it, and if anything the greens get the short end of the stick in this deal.

Songcaller

The reason I'm bounty hunter is for decent pvp. I imagine a lot of corrupted will go corrupted to fight bounty hunters.

In my mind I see large scale fights against corrupted groups as a bounty hunter. I don't plan to travel all over the map to kill lone corrupted players unless it is those who target low level players - those who would die even if they fought back.

I don't classify a dungeon or a grind spot to be a high priority bounty hunter foray because dungeons will be mostly group efforts and the best farm spots will also see more collaboration than conflict due to the node system.

It is difficult to illustrate the most adept bounty hunter practices until we have tested the systems but a sweeping change of resources being magically returned to green players should not happen for the same reasons.

Strevi

I've seen Steven saying on a stream that the corruption will deter PK. Maybe we should ask in the Q&A if he thinks the BH is viable too and how.

Child Item