Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about 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 Phase II testing is currently taking place five days each week. More information about 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.
Consensual PvP System in Ashes of Creation
Kotako
Member, Alpha Two
The type of competitive imbalance we have at the moment encourages exploitative behavior, as players look for ways to manipulate mechanics and stats, rather than engage in fair and meaningful battles. Large guilds, hardcore players and zergs dominate, while solo players and small groups are left with no options.
At this point in the game development, Intrepid Studios has created a stunning world better than most mmorpgs out there, however the PvP system is fostering one of the most toxic, divisive and exhausting environments imaginable among players.
Let’s face it, right now, those who treat the game as if there’s no life outside of Verra have significant advantages over casual players. The result? Casual players are leaving already or will eventually leave, and when that happens, even the hardcore players will suffer. A PvP system that only benefits hardcore and zergs will collapse the game inevitably and the population will lessen affecting all participants including Intrepid.
It is my opinion that the best strategy for Ashes of Creation moving forward is a consensual PvP system that allows players to engage in combat when they feel adequately prepared, rather than forcing them into unwinnable encounters with the consequential anguish.
Please Intrepid allow players to opt-in when they are ready to fight, not when they’re forced.
Completely eliminate PvP zones and instead make the whole world PvP but only when the fight is consensual. This will also prevent in large scale exploit abuse and large-scale zerg dominance as individuals don’t mind if a guild is "the 8th wonder of the world" or a player "the last coca cola in the desert" as long as they can enjoy the game without someone coming and killing his or her character for no other reward than bragging rights, ego, glint and some materials.
All comments are welcome and appreciated.
At this point in the game development, Intrepid Studios has created a stunning world better than most mmorpgs out there, however the PvP system is fostering one of the most toxic, divisive and exhausting environments imaginable among players.
Let’s face it, right now, those who treat the game as if there’s no life outside of Verra have significant advantages over casual players. The result? Casual players are leaving already or will eventually leave, and when that happens, even the hardcore players will suffer. A PvP system that only benefits hardcore and zergs will collapse the game inevitably and the population will lessen affecting all participants including Intrepid.
It is my opinion that the best strategy for Ashes of Creation moving forward is a consensual PvP system that allows players to engage in combat when they feel adequately prepared, rather than forcing them into unwinnable encounters with the consequential anguish.
Please Intrepid allow players to opt-in when they are ready to fight, not when they’re forced.
Completely eliminate PvP zones and instead make the whole world PvP but only when the fight is consensual. This will also prevent in large scale exploit abuse and large-scale zerg dominance as individuals don’t mind if a guild is "the 8th wonder of the world" or a player "the last coca cola in the desert" as long as they can enjoy the game without someone coming and killing his or her character for no other reward than bragging rights, ego, glint and some materials.
All comments are welcome and appreciated.
1
Comments
1) In my experience a surprising amount of people do mind if other people are more powerful or more successful than them in these games even if those people never kill them or anything like that.
2) Without the concept of the capacity of non-Consensual PvP, there isn't that much to 'enjoy' in Ashes in the first place, because it's a game built on that principle.
I'm not saying there aren't solutions, we've seen many and are still seeing them, but Intrepid is specifically targeting the demographic that doesn't like those solutions, and therefore doesn't have to compete with those other, bigger studios.
"For what...?"
"Just about everything, really."
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption
When you don't want to fight - you just don't fight and the attacker gets fucked over if they kill you. Hell, all these "hardcore pvpers" have been whining about the corruption penalties since before A2 even started and have only become louder about it since its release.
Pvp zones are avoidable and caravans are meant to be a social thing. Also, in the final release the only constant pvp zone would be the ocean, which is also kind of a social thing cause ships are meant to cost a lot (iirc).
The current lawless zones are meant to replicate that ocean location w/o having the ocean itself.
Consensual PvP just brings out the worst in people because they feel safe behind the system, using it as an excuse to be total jerks. I see it all the time, pve griefing scary
This would be the deathknell of the entire game.
Corruption penalty are so brutal no one killing anyone on purpose atm unless there naked killing botters which i approve of
Caravans are PvP opt in and the current purple zone (which is being moved next weekend) is also Opt in you can take the long way round to aithinar or run through purple zone.
Guildwars and node wars all come with a way to Opt out of the PvP which is drop the tags/node if u realy want to avoid the pvp.
i will say one thing about zergs/smaller guild is the guild tree doesnt provide enough power for the member cost atm way to strong just to go additional members and zerg it up compared to what thje 5% hp/mana and power bonus or what not is enough, 10 extra players offer so much more :P
I would agree
There are missing systems that will more clearly define who is on who's side. Will it be enough to replicate a RvR environment? I don't know, we'll have to wait and see. I love RvR, checkout DaoC, great fun. In Ashes your "team" is your guild at the moment. Maybe your Node if you care about it. Later your Vassal Nodes and Religion. I am really surprised they started A2 without Vassal and Religion, and name plates updated for those. It was short sited to say the least. Without those it created this team death match/free for all pvp environment that really sucks when there are power imbalances and massive grinds slowed even more by bugs. I think Vassals, Nodes, Guilds, and Religion are a great idea because there could be splits between those causing drama and fun scenarios. If you allow players to just turn off PvP than NONE of that matters. And you'd end up with a NW, or a theme park mmo. There's plenty of those.
Corruption needs to be tuned better. Killing guildies, citizens of the same node/religion, should net a very high corruption. Stealing loot should show add corruption, ect. Someone killing a bunch of people from a Node should become wanted by that note even if they aren't corrupt they can keep using the Node which is a slap in the face to that Node. So corruption alone isn't enough, they need more things to encourage the right PvP so it's more meaningful.
I don't disagree with you that the game is toxic at the moment and it may not get better in that regards, but it will get better, it already has made great strides since A2P1 when I started testing. But right now it's not fun to test, not because the high noise floor of toxicity, but because (grind + bugs) not equal fun for me. I personally would like to see more instanced dungeons content because zerging poi's or dungeons isn't fun... looking at NewWorld's meta again.
At the end of the day it's alpha, more than half the game mechanics aren't even in. You're worried about the AC working in the car, when devs are working on making it go and stop properly. Your point is valid though, so if it's not fun to test for whatever reason don't test. The game isn't launching anytime soon, your not going to miss out on anything.
Cherished for who though?
I read a comment today from a TL player who is upset and supposedly quitting because the Devs made a clamp-balance change before the expansion.
Their reasoning was quite literally: "I played and farmed 150 hours of this game over the last month or so to prepare for the expansion and now you're going to make it so that I don't get my full advantage" basically.
I feel like even most 60-90h a month players don't really 'cherish' the PvP against that type of person as much.
I couldn't decide if I found their "I played more hours of this game than my full time job, and now y'all aren't respecting my time" to be ironic or not.
"For what...?"
"Just about everything, really."
No. No toggles. You opt in to fight when you log into the game.
But Ashes isn't targeting 'the people who went to FPS or Battle Royale' nor 'the PvE player that goes back to WoW after leaving a game like Throne and Liberty 'because it has too much PvP'.
It's targeting the EVE/Elite Dangerous/PvP TL player.
And this is why I ofc agree that consensual-only PvP doesn't work, but in a fantasy game, the current doesn't feel like it works either yet (because Intrepid would be the one to prove it to most of those players). Why? It's simple.
I like PvP and combat, but I don't actually fight much in Elite/BDO. I can honestly go a week in Elite without a battle, while still getting all of the feelings that go with 'being ready for one', because I get to change my playstyle to exactly that.
But on the other hand, if a team of 4 decides to interdict me because they did catch me sneaking through wherever I shouldn't be, I know that's basically an instant loss. The gameplay wasn't about 'can I fight' nor for them about 'can they kill me', both are obvious.
So, sure, even I 'don't want to PvP at all' in that situation. Why would I? The game has no limits on it, and therefore the obvious outcome for anyone 'not in a fully specced PvP ship rolling with their whole crew' is at least 'not much of a fun fight' even if not 'guaranteed defeat'.
Fully kitted soldiers vs no-kit soldiers is still a wash.
"For what...?"
"Just about everything, really."
Just because the choices are limited does not mean we have to put up with subpar games. It is not a free play game like Eve. It is a sub game. A full £15 a month sub game. Most people will not pay £15 a month to play game modes neither exciting nor preferential. The debate is obviously going to be skewed here as both you and I have paid to test. The issue around old Apoc is all you need to know. Even more lost from corruption free seas at the time.
I merely analyse the data provided. The speed of implementation is the very band aid for the final reveals. What I mean by that is the current defence is 'placeholder systems' but we still cannot assess 'game systems'. Therefore there is an artificial bed rock due to few set parameters. In such a circumstance I merely refer to the penchant that yes, most mmo players will try a new mmo but most mmo players still return to a place they are most invested in after a short time. You only have a short time to snag people.
I have interacted with a lot of arena PvP fans on these very forums that would disagree with you.
These people are just as much a PvP player as anyone, yet they prefer an arena style thst is a more controlled setting. They like knowing it is them vs one opponent (or them and their friends vs the same number of opponents), with no chance of assistance on either side - thus making it a fair test of pure PvP ability
Thus, the only real appropriate answer to the question of "who cherishes open PvP over other forms" would be open PvP players, as it absolutely isn't appropriate to say that it is all PvP players.
Don't be like Dygz and try to claim that not specifically saying "all" means you inherently only mean "some". That isn't how English works.
If you indeed didn't mean to say "all PvP players", then we agree in regards to what you meant to say - even if I am a raider.
Unless you say "in general", or "most" or something else similar, that is indeed what you are saying.
The absence of that qualifier means you specifically do not consider the qualifier to be needed. There is somethings a supposition that a qualifier is implied, and in the case of your comment that English people like tea, you could probably assume the qualifier is implied. This is because there is a long history of England as a country (specifically England) and drinking tea.
However, such qualifiers are not implied in a discussion like this.
When someone asks you "who likes open world PvP", the fact that they are asking a question should tell you that ko qualifiers can be implied, as that implication requires pre-existing knowledge that wouldn't exist if someone were asking that question. Thus when your reply is "PvP players", you are saying "PvP players like open world PvP", which in and of itself is not a true statement.
You you state that you are a writer, but the quality of written content (both online and print) is in such a poor state right now that I was actually going to suggest that you may in fact be a professional writer as a means of explaining your actions here, as it is on par with the poor writing that is so endemic these days.
The poor writing (especially in journalism) is largely a result of the writer not considering thst the reader doesn't have the same base knowledge (or limit of knowledge) of a topic that they do.
In this case, you no doubt watch content from people that prefer open world PvP (those essays you talk about), and probably don't pay attention to content from people that prefer arena PvP (and probably haven't watched any video essays on why arena PvP is superior). As such, you are in an information bubble, and within that bubble it may well be that all PvP players you come across prefer open world PvP. You may even think this enough to consider it such a basic understanding that discussion on it doesn't need the above qualifiers - but you would be wrong.
This is what journalism does often, and is why many people say written media is turning to shit.
It also means my point about your statement being inaccurate is true, and your defense of it as an accurate statement is not only false, but is something you know to be false but stand behind as you intended it to grab attention rather than be accurate.
As a writer, you (and your peers) should strive to be better than some random person on the internet. You shouldn't use bling terms - you should have a valid enough point to not need to use them. If you do not have a valid enough point, you have nothing to write about.
As to my "echo chamber", my experience in Archeage and BDO (which is the only games I draw PvP experience from) tells me that the vast majority of PvP players prefer open world. However, that perspective is coming from a position of being surrounded by players playing open world MMO's, and even thennot all of them do prefer it, which is my point - your comment was that they all do.
Play a game without open world PvP but with an arena, and many people will prefer arena PvP - because that is why they are in that game as opposed to one with open world PvP. So yeah, your comment about an echo chamber is unfounded - if anything we are in the same echo chamber, I am just aware of it.
This is widely inaccurate.
You are stating that the most popular MMO's on the market are not in fact MMO's.