Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about Phase II and Phase III testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
so the first games were not player vs player?
Separation of playerbase is not the answer. You'll split the traffic of areas with that suggestion. Variables to deter repetitive griefing transgressions while allowing for singular non-griefing PKs is how you maintain a healthy OWPvP community. Too strict or too lenient, and it won't be healthy. Corruption for defending yourself is punishment for PvP, not for griefing, your punishment is reflected in your current stat disadvantage with corruption, and the consequences for failing to get rid of your corruption upon dying. Otherwise, if you're good enough to succeed in ridding yourself of corruption from killing players who don't fight back or are too low level, you get to keep the rewards you risked it for. That being said, corruption in its griefing stages I suggested would be closer to impossible compared to lighter variables of corruption.
picking your battles is part of strategy in pvp, not just ooga ooga caveman charge har har.
what you are describing as a problem, i dont see it as a problem. you could say its different opinions, but i know the abuses that can be done if you didnt have this system.
I already asked you nicely to stop spouting general nonsense such as "pick your battles", "don't PK" and "you can just run away". We're discussing the system's nuances, not ways to avoid engaging it. Stop looking at an individual (me in this case) and what you think their preferred way of playing is. Look at the damn system. And look at it in a simple way:
- you have BH vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have purple vs red (absolutely no problem with how that works),
- you have green vs red, where green is not fighting back (green can't halve their death penalty),
- you have green vs red, where green is on offensive (red is not griefing, yet is penalized on top of their deserved penalty).
What's the reason to pour corruption on top of corrupion and dampen stats for consensual PvP? It's the initial crime that the red has to be (and is) penalized for. Why is red not penalized for walking, cutting down a tree, but for engaging in consensual PvP? Nothing justifies that. The only real solution a player has here is to simply not engage with this system, because it's plain terrible.
You don't know what you're talking about. The way it's currently set out to be, it's gonna be Christmas for green PvPers when they come across a red, compared to how it works for purple/BH vs red. Now I don't know if it's going to be a common/meta thing, and I'm not here to discuss unknown variables, I'm here taking things at face value and the conclusion is clear as a day: green vs red rules are weird, relatively inconsistent and unwarranted in otherwise decently designed system.
I’ve answered that question already.
What advantage in combat does a Green have over a Red that a Purple does not have?
There is no guarantee that a Red can defeat a Green and no guarantee that a Gren can defeat a Red.
If the Red doesn’t want more Corruption, the Red can refuse to fight.
Same as when the Red first killed a Green it was because the Green refused to turn Purple.
An “aggressive Green” can only be created by someone making the willful choice to become Red and reap the consequences.
How are the “aggressive Green” rules more weird than Karma rules?”
Reds are being punished for forcing Non- Combatants into non-consensual PvP.
If you don’t like the consequences of being Red, don’t become Red.
L2 players expect there will be plenty of players who won’t mind turning Red.
Of course, that will be tested in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
Yes, I see on wiki that Steven said
And I think that the intent behind the corruption is that like during a rise in passion and like anger and whatever you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later.
It also doesn't help the game dynamic overall. The gathering process will be more protected than the transporting process. Those who want action and rewards will get more of it playing as teams attacking caravans than solo gankers farming greens.
For example the reward killing a green gatherer is worthless if you want to take his hunting certificates
The level of the node and the distance of the node from the drop will determine the value of the certificate. Certificates redeemed from distant economic regions via the caravan system will provide higher returns (4 to 5 times greater in some cases) than certificates collected from the same region.[16][4]
The ganking play-style was moved into the sea.
On land, caravans will be more rewarding.
It’s exactly the game dynamic Steven wants.
I thought it was about "capturing" the other king, hence why it's bad chess etiquette to knock down the opponent's king on a checkmate.
Oh well.
As Dygz pointed out. It's not a "consensual" pvp. The Red doesn't want to fight back against the green because it would bring him more corruption, just as his first victim didn't want to fight back for their own reason.
It's a mirror situation that makes the Red think about what they do to their victims, in the hopes of preventing more PKing. Your choice is to either run away to lessen the pain (just as it was for the first green victim) or to fight back and create a much higher risk for yourself, because other people can kill you for free for longer (just as it would've been for that green if he flagged up).
we did that in UO all the time haha
i have already explained why. just go play some l2 and ull understand. i dont wanna keep repeating the same thing. even other l2 players agree x.x
the reason i say dont engage is because corruption is an undesirable state to be in. there arent any advantages. it is made like that on purpose so that players avoid it. the point of the system is so that players avoid it. so players avoiding it make the system good, not bad. and players getting fked by it for not avoiding it, makes the system good, not bad. the design is to make players avoid that state, so u only get fk if ur in that state, which makes players reconsider and not be in that state, therefore the design is working as intended
Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.
It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nodes, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.
It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.
Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.
Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.
That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.
So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
Node governments will have to discuss it.
Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.
It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.
A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.
There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.
A green that attacks a red has consented to attack a red. Which part of this PvP is not consensual? Notice how I'm not even bringing a case for a red who doesn't fight back, because red is supposed to be hunted. The problem is with red having to bend over and have the green take him down so as not to risk additional corruption if escape is not viable, which is bad system design. The risk isn't just too high, it's nonsensical to continue being additionally penalized for one thing that you're already being penalized for.
The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.
Not in a convincing way.
I have played L2. You and other L2-biased people thinking that a system worked perfectly in a different game nearly 2 decades ago doesn't contribute much here. For the most part it's fine. Not the part we're discussing, though.
I don't know how to make this clearer. I don't disagree with you here, it's just that telling people "to not engage", "to not PK", "to just run away" does not contribute to the discussion of the corruption system's specifics.
Again, irrelevant to the very specific part of the corruption system we're discussing. I'm not asking to remove all penalties for corruption, I want it to make sense. Whatever extra risk you think is imposed by extra corruption for killing (aggressive) greens can be made up by cranking other sliders up.
also, if you change the system so that reds can fight back vs aggressive greens without getting more corruption or without their stats lowered, then the system becomes more desirable to be in, which is the complete opposite direction and intent of the system.
i agree that it might not be fair that ur stats get dampened, but this is actually fair in many situations other than im a solo player who gets attacked by greens my own level while im red. no matter what you do, someone will always get the short end of the stick. in this case, im fine with it being the solo pk player since the game is designed around group play and it also prevents far worse things.
And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from
I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.
The Red already forced a Green to bend over, so... turnabout is fair play. That's "Karma" for you.
Payback's a bitch.
The Red has a choice.
You can't always get what you want.
I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.
Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."