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.
Denial of gameplay as a "strategy?"
BigBadAardwolf
Member, Warrior of Old, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Currently, large guilds are incentivized to spawn camp during node wars/guild wars, with the express intent of forcing players to either drop citizenship (if they can make it to the NPC before getting ganked again), or drop guild in order to continue playing unmolested.
I feel this creates a pretty major quit point that needs to be addressed; if I'm excited to log in and do some grinding with the boys, and suddenly we're literally unable to do anything except die repeatedly, (theoretically) lose access to the benefits of Citizenry, or access to our guild (What's a guild leader supposed to do when they're getting spawn camped?), then we're just going to play another game where we feel there's a better balance of power and that we have a chance to get some W's in.
I get that this is a niche game, that caters to a niche audience, but it seems counterproductive to champion a game design that creates a pretty obvious quit point.
It also seems like it would be useful for players to have either a warning *before* logging in, and prominently displayed somewhere on the UI that they are entering/are in a zone currently engaged in a node war, even if they aren't part of the node war (I was killed at storage because they were rolling anyone that might be helping, had no idea the zone was at war).
While we're at it, it doesn't seem right to me that *a single person* has the ability to upend hundreds of peoples' plans, without warning, for hours at time. Currently, most of the New Aela wars on Vyra are long and drawn out, meaning that if those players that went to do something else because they were getting spawncamped decided to log back in four, five, eight hours later, they might find themselves *still* being spawn camped, and with little, if any ability to progress their character, this creates a separate quit moment, where the player's perception is that of "I like the game, but every time I try to play it, I get spawn camped."
If you expand the area that players can't be camped, then the spawn campers will just spread out further; functionally all that creating a "safe zone" does is corral the weaker players so they can be picked off by groups, while giving stronger players a focal point for their griefing/denial strategy.
I'm just wondering if denial of gameplay like this is part of Intrepid's intention with their design - Since it's a monthly sub, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that they want/need people to continue playing the game. Maybe they just want that first month payment, I don't know. It would be nice to get some clarification on the team's intent, versus what's reasonably implementable.
In a similar vein, is it intended that nodes be able to build a crafting station and then intentionally demolish it after "their" people have gotten whatever benefit it is? Being unable to advance core character aspects doesn't feel good, especially with gathering professions - This seems to incentivize devolution of a server, where the goal is to obfuscate and frustrate individual growth, rather than giving the players the illusion of a semi-even playing field. It doesn't have to *actually* be an even playing field, players just need to *think* that it is, and that they have the ability to at least stay competitive with the server's average gear score/power level.
We had a great, evenly matched fight up in the tropics with a group that was kitted out about equal to my group, and made some friends as a result; this was over a caravan (that had long been destroyed, and that we had no actual investment in), not interpersonal drama, and we've also had our caravans hit by groups that we made friends with because of how much fun both sides had. I have a guildie that's going in hard on learning medieval tactics, and another guildie that's new to the game and is just cutting their teeth on PvP and has become bloodthirsty for more.
I would rather lose every single PvP fight and feel like I have a chance, than to steamroll my opponent; I don't learn anything, I don't get to refine a rotation, I don't get challenged in new, unpredictable, or unique ways, I don't have to think about strategy, and I don't get an adrenaline rush. The same goes for me if I'm losing, but the end result is the same, nothing is gained from these interactions and all I have in return is a repair bill (and potential xp debt). It's clear that some of the testers in the alpha would rather force other testers out of the testing environment. I have heard one griefer laugh about "ruining peoples' Christmas" by camping them at the storage, which is the sort of toxic and counterproductive behavior that I would expect from a live environment, not a test.
Just wondering if this is intended gameplay or not, so I can adjust my expectations accordingly.
I feel this creates a pretty major quit point that needs to be addressed; if I'm excited to log in and do some grinding with the boys, and suddenly we're literally unable to do anything except die repeatedly, (theoretically) lose access to the benefits of Citizenry, or access to our guild (What's a guild leader supposed to do when they're getting spawn camped?), then we're just going to play another game where we feel there's a better balance of power and that we have a chance to get some W's in.
I get that this is a niche game, that caters to a niche audience, but it seems counterproductive to champion a game design that creates a pretty obvious quit point.
It also seems like it would be useful for players to have either a warning *before* logging in, and prominently displayed somewhere on the UI that they are entering/are in a zone currently engaged in a node war, even if they aren't part of the node war (I was killed at storage because they were rolling anyone that might be helping, had no idea the zone was at war).
While we're at it, it doesn't seem right to me that *a single person* has the ability to upend hundreds of peoples' plans, without warning, for hours at time. Currently, most of the New Aela wars on Vyra are long and drawn out, meaning that if those players that went to do something else because they were getting spawncamped decided to log back in four, five, eight hours later, they might find themselves *still* being spawn camped, and with little, if any ability to progress their character, this creates a separate quit moment, where the player's perception is that of "I like the game, but every time I try to play it, I get spawn camped."
If you expand the area that players can't be camped, then the spawn campers will just spread out further; functionally all that creating a "safe zone" does is corral the weaker players so they can be picked off by groups, while giving stronger players a focal point for their griefing/denial strategy.
I'm just wondering if denial of gameplay like this is part of Intrepid's intention with their design - Since it's a monthly sub, I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that they want/need people to continue playing the game. Maybe they just want that first month payment, I don't know. It would be nice to get some clarification on the team's intent, versus what's reasonably implementable.
In a similar vein, is it intended that nodes be able to build a crafting station and then intentionally demolish it after "their" people have gotten whatever benefit it is? Being unable to advance core character aspects doesn't feel good, especially with gathering professions - This seems to incentivize devolution of a server, where the goal is to obfuscate and frustrate individual growth, rather than giving the players the illusion of a semi-even playing field. It doesn't have to *actually* be an even playing field, players just need to *think* that it is, and that they have the ability to at least stay competitive with the server's average gear score/power level.
We had a great, evenly matched fight up in the tropics with a group that was kitted out about equal to my group, and made some friends as a result; this was over a caravan (that had long been destroyed, and that we had no actual investment in), not interpersonal drama, and we've also had our caravans hit by groups that we made friends with because of how much fun both sides had. I have a guildie that's going in hard on learning medieval tactics, and another guildie that's new to the game and is just cutting their teeth on PvP and has become bloodthirsty for more.
I would rather lose every single PvP fight and feel like I have a chance, than to steamroll my opponent; I don't learn anything, I don't get to refine a rotation, I don't get challenged in new, unpredictable, or unique ways, I don't have to think about strategy, and I don't get an adrenaline rush. The same goes for me if I'm losing, but the end result is the same, nothing is gained from these interactions and all I have in return is a repair bill (and potential xp debt). It's clear that some of the testers in the alpha would rather force other testers out of the testing environment. I have heard one griefer laugh about "ruining peoples' Christmas" by camping them at the storage, which is the sort of toxic and counterproductive behavior that I would expect from a live environment, not a test.
Just wondering if this is intended gameplay or not, so I can adjust my expectations accordingly.
3
Comments
Spawn Camping: The Quit Point That Keeps on Giving
Alright, let’s start with the big one: spawn camping by large guilds during node and guild wars. You’re absolutely right—this is a soul-crushing mechanic in its current form. I’ve been there, logging in pumped to run some gathering with my crew, only to spawn at the Emberstone and get flattened before my screen finishes loading. Last Saturday, I tried to hit up a resource node near Halcyon during a war—bam, dead. Rez, dead again. Three deaths in two minutes, lost a stack of iron ore I’d schlepped across the map, and my XP debt ticked up enough to make me question my life choices. It’s not just the loss; it’s that sinking realization that I can’t play the game I signed up for. That’s the quit point you’re talking about, and it’s brutal.
Why It Happens: Incentives and Mechanics
Big guilds have every reason to camp spawns right now. Node wars flag citizens as combatants (per the wiki), and with no death penalties during these events (confirmed in dev streams up to March 2025), there’s zero downside to zerging respawn points. They rack up kills, force players to either drop citizenship (if they can sprint to the NPC between ganks) or ditch their guild to escape the flagging, and effectively lock down the zone. It’s a denial-of-gameplay tactic, and it works like a charm—too well, honestly. I’ve seen 20-man squads from guilds like [RedactedName] (keeping it vague, no callouts!) set up shop at New Aela’s main spawn, picking off anyone who dares load in. It’s not even a fight—it’s a slaughter.
For guild leaders, it’s a nightmare. Imagine you’re rallying your 10-person crew for a caravan run, and half of them can’t leave town without eating dirt. I’ve had guildies drop mid-session, saying, “Sorry, man, I’ll catch you when this war’s over.” One guy even quit the guild because he couldn’t handle the constant respawn deaths—thought it’d unflag him (it didn’t, since citizenship was the trigger). That’s not leadership material; it’s babysitting a massacre, like you said. And for solos or small groups? Forget it. You’re either cannon fodder or stuck hiding in a corner, praying the war ends before your sub does.
The Quit Point Impact
This isn’t just a “git gud” issue—it’s a design flaw that risks tanking player retention. You hit the nail on the head: if I’m excited to grind with the boys and we’re stuck dying repeatedly, losing citizen benefits or guild access, why stick around? I’ve got other games—FFXIV, New World, hell, even RuneScape—where I can log in and feel like I’ve got a shot at progress. Ashes is niche, sure, built for a PvX crowd that loves risk vs. reward, but there’s a difference between “high stakes” and “unplayable.” Right now, this leans hard into the latter, and it’s driving people away. I’ve seen chatter on the subreddit about testers dropping out after war-heavy sessions, and I’ve felt that itch myself.
Intrepid’s banking on a monthly sub model—Steven Sharif’s been vocal about wanting a living world, not a cash grab (think his 2023 interviews). But if spawn camping keeps pushing folks to log off—or worse, uninstall—that first month’s payment might be all they get from a chunk of the player base. It’s not sustainable. I doubt they want a revolving door of testers quitting; they need us sticking around to stress-test this beast. So, is this intentional? Maybe in spirit—wars are meant to disrupt—but the execution’s off, and it’s creating a feedback loop of frustration instead of engagement.
Fixing It: Counterplay and Balance
How do we fix this without gutting the PvX core? I’ve got some ideas, riffing off your post and my own pain. First, spawn protection—say, 30 seconds of invulnerability on login or rez, scaling up to 60 if you’re killed within a minute of spawning again. It’s not a free win; you still have to move fast, but it gives you a shot to reposition, offload gear, or group up. I’ve seen this work in games like Planetside 2—spawn shields don’t stop fights, but they blunt the “die before you play” trap.
Second, dual respawn points. Right now, you’re locked to your home node’s Emberstone or wherever you last died—why not always offer two options, like home and the second-closest spawn? Campers can’t cover both without splitting, and it gives you a coin flip’s chance to break free. I’ve tested this in my head during wars—if I could’ve spawned at Miraleth instead of New Aela’s killbox, I’d have slipped out and kept playing.
Third, a war opt-out mechanic. Maybe citizens get a 15-minute grace period post-declaration to “evacuate” (drop combatant status, lose node benefits temporarily, but avoid PvP flagging). It’s not ideal—losing citizen perks sucks—but it’s better than being forced into a meat grinder or ditching your guild entirely. Guild leaders could use it too; imagine rallying your crew somewhere safe instead of watching them bleed out.
These aren’t perfect. Invuln could be abused (run into a fight, tank hits, rez), and extra spawns might dilute war pressure. But they’d shift the balance from “campers win” to “victims have a chance,” keeping the risk vs. reward alive without breaking the game. What do you think—any counterplay you’ve tried that’s worked, even a little?
Community Stories and Scale
I’ve got a war story that mirrors yours—two weeks back, my five-man crew tried defending a caravan near the tropics. Got jumped by a 15-man guild, fought tooth and nail, lost the cargo, but walked away laughing because it was a scrap, not a spawn trap. Compare that to last night: logged in, died five times at Halcyon’s storage, no chance to fight back. One’s a thrill; the other’s a quit button. I’ve heard testers on Discord saying they’ve dropped guilds or swapped nodes over this—Vyra’s war-heavy meta isn’t helping. How widespread’s this on your end? Are you seeing whole groups bailing, or just solos like me getting fed up?
UI Warnings: A Simple Fix with Big Impact
Your call for a pre-login warning and in-game UI indicator is genius—seriously, why isn’t this a thing yet? I’ve had the exact same “killed at storage, no clue why” moment you described. Logged into New Aela last Tuesday, started sorting my mats, and wham—dead to a roaming war party. No warning, no heads-up, just a repair bill and a “guess I’ll figure it out” shrug. The node UI (“N” key) shows war status if you dig for it, but who’s checking that every login? And if you’re not a citizen—like when I got rolled at Halcyon as a visitor—you’re even less likely to know until you’re a corpse.
Current State and Blind Spots
Right now, situational awareness in Ashes is a mess during wars. The wiki says node wars flag citizens and sometimes nearby players (depending on range), but there’s no proactive signal. I’ve spawned into chaos with zero context—mobs aggro’d, players fighting, and me dead before I can tab out to check the forums. Non-citizens get it worse; I’ve been ganked at storage because a war party assumed I was reinforcing, like you said. It’s not fun—it’s a cheap shot.
Compare this to other MMOs. Guild Wars 2 has WvW alerts—log in, and you know your borderland’s under siege. WoW’s war mode flags you with a UI toggle and a “you’re in danger” vibe. Ashes? Nothing unless you stumble into it. For a game built on player-driven conflict, that’s a glaring hole. Testers need to know what they’re walking into, especially in Alpha Two when we’re still learning the ropes.
Proposed Solution: Warnings Done Right
A pre-login warning’s a no-brainer. Picture this: you hit “Play,” and before the world loads, a pop-up says, “Warning: New Aela is at war. Expect PvP as a citizen or near conflict zones. Proceed?” Boom, informed choice—dive in, gear up, or pick an alt in a quieter spot. It’s not hand-holding; it’s basic courtesy. Pair that with an in-game UI element—maybe a red border around the minimap, a “War Zone” tag under your health bar, or even a pulsing alert like “Node Conflict Active: 2km radius.” Non-citizens could get a “Proximity Risk” note if they’re within, say, 5km of the action.
This wouldn’t fix spawn camping, but it’d cut the “I had no idea” deaths. I’d have bailed on that Halcyon storage run if I’d known—saved my mats, my sanity, and my sub time. Intrepid’s got Unreal Engine 5 humming (per dev streams); slapping this into Phase III (May 2025) seems doable. They’ve tweaked UI before—January 2025’s Treasure Hunt stream showed new icons—so this isn’t a stretch. What’s your ideal warning look like? Text, icons, both?
Broader Implications
Better warnings could shift player behavior too. If I know a war’s on, I might group up before logging, hit a different node, or prep for a fight instead of winging it. Right now, ignorance feeds the campers—unprepared players are easy pickings. Clarity could level the field a bit, giving us a shot to adapt. I’ve seen Reddit threads begging for this—testers want agency, not ambushes. You seeing this blind-spot issue elsewhere, like sieges or caravans?
Mayoral Power: One Person, Too Much Chaos
The “single person upending hundreds of plans” point is a gut punch—I’ve lived it. Mayors declaring war solo is wild, and on Vyra, it’s a regular thing. New Aela’s been locked in 8-hour wars because some mayor decided to poke Miraleth or Castus without a plan. Citizens get flagged (wiki confirms), and suddenly my crafting night’s a forced PvP slog. No heads-up, no vote, just “welcome to war.” Last week, I logged in at 7 PM, died three times, waited it out, came back at 11 PM—still a killbox. Like you said, it’s hours of disruption, and it’s exhausting.
Design Intent vs. Reality
This is Intrepid flexing their “player agency” muscle—mayors as movers and shakers, driving conflict (Steven’s 2024 Q&A vibes). I love the idea: a sandbox where one choice ripples out. But in Alpha Two, it’s raw and unbalanced. One mayor—elected, appointed, whatever—can tank a node’s vibe with no checks. Citizens can’t opt out without dropping citizenship, which isn’t viable if you’ve got housing or crafting sunk there (I’ve got a Tier 2 workshop I’m not abandoning!). And wars dragging on 4, 5, 8 hours, like you’ve seen? That’s not dynamic—it’s a slog that punishes everyone but the instigator.
I’ve watched guilds exploit this. Mayor declares war, their crew’s ready, everyone else scrambles or dies. It’s less “political drama” and more “dictator simulator.” Your point about logging back in and still being camped is dead-on—I’ve had nights where I gave up, tried again later, and nope, same mess. That’s not risk vs. reward; it’s “hope your mayor’s not a troll.”
Balancing Mayoral Power
How do we tweak this? A prep phase could work—say, a 24-hour “war preparations” window (like the June 2024 stream’s commission tease) visible to citizens. You’d see it coming, rally, or bounce. Or a citizen veto—60% vote “no” within an hour, war’s off. Keeps the agency but adds a check—nodes are player-driven, not mayor-driven. I’ve also thought about a cooldown: one war per week per node, so it’s not constant chaos.
Downside? Prep might slow the sandbox pace, and vetoes could bog down decisions. But right now, it’s too unilateral. I’d rather scramble for a day than lose a week to a bad call. What’s your take—too much red tape, or just enough to curb the madness? Seen any mayors pull this off well, or is it all grief?
Tester Anecdotes
I’ve got a story—our New Aela mayor last month declared war on Castus over a trade route beef. Cool, except Castus had 50 active players to our 20. We got steamrolled, spawn-camped for 6 hours, and half my guild logged off. Mayor’s guild got their kicks; the rest of us got repair bills. Contrast that to a Miraleth war where the mayor warned us on Discord—small fight, lost, but fun. Prep makes a difference. You seeing similar chaos, or is New Aela just cursed?
Safe Zones: A False Hope?
You’re spot-on that expanding safe zones won’t fix camping—it just shifts it. I’ve seen threads pushing for PvP-free crafting stations or town centers during wars, but like you said, campers adapt. I tried hiding at Halcyon’s forge during a war—guards didn’t care, got ganked mid-craft, lost my hides. Node war combatants are fair game (wiki rules), and guards only agro corrupt players, not war flagged ones. Safe zones sound nice, but they’d herd weaker players into a pen, ripe for picking, like you noted.
Why It Fails
Campers don’t need to sit at the spawn—they’ll spread out, lock down choke points, and wait. I’ve seen it: war on, 10 guys at the Emberstone, 5 more at the gate. Bigger safe zone? They’d camp the edge. Ashes’ no-fast-travel design (which I dig for immersion) means you’re stuck running or dying—no teleport to safety. Guards could patrol harder—smack down campers near key spots—but that risks flipping the balance, making wars toothless. Your “focal point for griefing” call is sharp—it’s a strategy magnet, not a shield.
Alternative Counterplay
Instead of safe zones, what about active counterplay? I mentioned spawn invuln (30-60 seconds)—enough to dash or offload. Or dynamic spawns: if one’s camped, the game shifts you to a random spot 1km away after two deaths. Risky—could drop you into worse—but it breaks the lock. I’ve also thought about NPC militia buffs during wars—citizens near spawns get a temporary guard escort (say, 2 minutes) to push out. Not invincible, just a nudge.
These keep the PvX vibe without coddling. Safe zones feel like a band-aid; counterplay’s a scalpel. What’s worked for you—any tricks to slip the noose, or is it all despair?
War Stories
Last war, I tried kiting campers away from Halcyon’s spawn—Ranger mobility ftw—died, but bought my buddy 30 seconds to stash gear. Small win, big loss. Seen guilds post up with siege gear at spawns too—overkill, but effective. Your “spread out further” prediction’s playing out already. Thoughts on countering that?
Crafting Stations: Gatekeeping Progression
The crafting station build-and-demo trick is sneaky, and it’s killing me you pointed it out—I’ve seen it too. New Aela had a leatherworking station up last week; I queued some hides, logged off, came back—gone. Mayor’s guild used it, trashed it, and left us gatherers high and dry. You’re right: it’s a progression bottleneck, especially for professions. I’ve spent hours on rare mats—tiger pelts, anyone?—and without stations, I’m stuck.
Why It Hurts
This isn’t just annoying—it’s a power play. Big guilds lock in gear, lock out others, and widen the gap. Your “devolution of a server” line is chilling—why level a node if the elite sabotage it to keep you down? Gathering’s already a grind (wiki says Tier 3 mats take 2-3 hours solo), and stations are chokepoints. If they’re transient, solos and small groups stagnate while the top dogs snowball. That’s not “semi-even”—it’s a caste system.
I’ve watched it happen: guild builds a forge, crafts epic weapons, demos it. Next war, they’re kitted out, we’re swinging sticks. It’s less about node growth and more about gatekeeping. Alpha Two’s a test, not a live server—why incentivize this now?
Fixing the Gate
Lock stations as permanent once built—or at least a 24-hour public access window before demolition. Citizens vote on construction (like housing), so it’s not a clique’s toy. Or tie stations to node level—Stage 3 gets a forge, stays ‘til it delevels. Keeps the strategic depth (sieges can still trash it) without screwing casuals. Downside? Guilds might hoard mats pre-build, but that’s better than no access. What’s your fix—seen this much, or am I just salty?
Tester Pain
My guildie’s a blacksmith—lost a week’s progress when our station vanished. He’s half-ready to quit professions. I’m sticking with gathering, but it’s bleak without crafting payoff. You seeing this gatekeeping elsewhere, like trade or housing?
Design Intent: Grief vs. Glory
Your core question—is denial of gameplay intended?—is the million-dollar one. Intrepid’s pitched Ashes as a PvX sandbox where conflict shapes Verra (Steven’s “massive back into MMO” line). Node wars, guild wars, caravans—no death penalties during events (dev notes)—it’s built for chaos. Spawn camping, mayoral power trips, station demos? Fits that raw ethos. Corruption’s harsh penalties (wiki details) curb random PKs, but wars are a free-for-all by design.
Griefing or Testing?
Then there’s your griefer laughing about “ruining Christmas.” That’s not PvP—it’s toxicity, and it’s a red flag in alpha. I’ve had epic losses—like that tropics caravan fight you loved—where I learned, bonded, got the adrenaline rush. Spawn traps? No lessons, no thrill, just repair bills and XP debt (PvE-only now, per November 2024 dev fix). My guildie studying medieval tactics shines in open battles, not rez loops. The newbie craving PvP? Loves kills, hates helplessness. You’re dead right: steamrolling or being steamrolled is empty—nothing gained, just frustration.
I think Intrepid wants meaningful conflict—wars that spark rivalries, not ragequits. The griefer’s an outlier, but the system enables him. Alpha Two’s testing extremes—300 players per server worker (March 1, 2025 notes)—to find the line. Reddit’s Castus war thread got a dev nod: respawn tweaks coming. But as of March 08, 2025, it’s rough. I’d kill for a dev post: “Wars are brutal, not soul-crushing—here’s the plan.”
My Fixes
Spawn Buff: 30-60s invuln, dual spawns.
War Prep: 15-30min grace, visible to all.
UI Clarity: Pre-login + in-game alerts.
Station Lock: 24hr minimum, public use.
Mayor Check: Prep or veto option.
Keeps the soul—risk, reward—without the despair. What’s your dream fix?
Conclusion: Stick or Switch?
This post’s a wake-up call—Ashes can be niche without being a quitter’s pit. Your tropics fight? That’s the dream—fun, fair, memorable. Spawn camps? The nightmare we need to kill in alpha. I’m in for the potential—nodes, guilds, my axe mattering—but I’m adjusting too. If this is intended, I’ll adapt (big guild, maybe). If not, Phase III’s my hope. You sticking it out, or eyeing greener pastures? Swap some war tales—I’ve got plenty!
Guild wars will most likely be used to do the kind of stuff you were talking about in the OP. It's a pressure tactic that's meant to win against and opponent. They'll have their own goals as well, but I definitely foresee them being used to other purposes. I'd personally prefer (and hope for) if guild wardec costs were balanced appropriately, so that the strong bully-type players don't just go wardecing everyone they see. Balancing those costs is a whole separate discussion, especially considering that guild wars barely even work as is in A2.
Node wars should probably be a pure prime-time thing (i.e. you can declare and fight only within that time window), so that they're not as pressuring as guild wars should be, cause they have way higher personal costs for the players and impact way more casual players than GWs do.
As for respawn camping, I think it's solvable by having a third option of respawn - random within your node's ZOI. Can't be camped if abusers don't know where you'll appear, and ZOIs are quite big so it's not like they can position their players in all the perfect spots.
On the topic of high frequency deaths in pvp events - I made a whole post about it, because this has been a change in design direction. Previously you'd only suffer gear decay if you die in a pvp event. Now it's the whole list of death penalties, but just with a smaller XP debt value. Imo that's dumb as fuck and will inevitably lead to a much bigger player loss, while also drastically reducing pvp in the game. I have no damn idea why they'd change this (well, I have one, but it's conspiratorial).
As for mayors - it's mostly an Alpha issue. We only have a few nodes with only a single election type in them. On full release we'll have 4 election types with waaaaaaay more nodes, so if there's a shitty mayor who's doing the kind of shit you mentioned - their node will decay to all hell and they will no longer be the mayor. Yes, it will impact the players who were just minding their own business being citizens of that node, but that IS an intended design. Player actions changing the world around them is a desired thing both by Steven and by quite a lot of players who got interested in this game.
Realistically speaking, it's a bit of a tough situation for players who lack any real diplomacy skills. If you can’t navigate that aspect, you're going to struggle in any game with PvP, literally any game.
Have you thought about forming a coalition with other players to push back against your aggressors? Or maybe try working out a strategy with them, like bribing or even joining forces. There's always room to learn and adapt.
Do I really have to teach people how to play?
Or should Intrepid created a school for teaching people how to be a gamer?
It only concerns me if Intrepid doesn't have more diplomacy systems, not having this enough is exactly why I am day by day losing interest.
Once again, the system you are currently testing has nothing to do with the final version. Node wars will be much more structured, with a preparation time, and will no longer take place in a chaotic manner. The first test will take place on March 27, featuring a 100 vs 100 battle in a designated area with mandatory tagging, while waiting for the final mechanics to be implemented. Eventually, a war declaration will be required, and cities will have a preparation period based on their level.
For now, we are testing the game in all its aspects, with both its strengths and weaknesses. What you endure today contributes to improving the game for tomorrow. Unfortunately, many players who claim to be PvP enthusiasts are actually just opportunists looking to kill defenseless opponents. Currently, they enjoy great freedom, but this will be much better regulated in future versions.
Finally, the TTK and armor system, still incomplete, do not promote fair PvP. However, the development team is well aware of these issues. Be patient, and keep in mind that none of the current systems are final—everything is still in development and subject to change before the official release.
Yes, but our complaints are part of the process of getting to the final version.
Spawn buff: Already in, as of last night. Sinflow tested it on stream and there is *maybe* enough time to make it to the node NPC and drop citizenship (they were able to, but were being attacked when they dropped). 60s is not enough time.
War prep time: From what I've heard, we are "supposed" to have a timer/heads up, but it's either unimplemented or broken.
Station demos/locking: This was "supposed" to have a cooldown before going into effect in the most recent armorsmithing demo drama on Vyra. The problem I'm ancitipating is one of very slow or backsliding progression; I've already been considering rolling on a different server. If I am considering rolling a different server, I can all but guarantee you that a casual is going to either switch servers to the one that allows them to progress the most, or quit, both of which create dead servers.
Mayor power: I think a good solution is requiring a certain % of declaring node citizens online at the time of the dec to approve the dec. Just give us a pop up dialogue or something.
Long, drawn out, forever wars: I logged back in today to find New Aela was still at war with Joeva, literally 12 hours later. We need a timer on them, or a way for mayors to concede the war (like with guild wars). I do not think it should be locked to a specific time, and that there should be as few guardrails as realistically possible to give players as much flexibility as possible, that's what makes this game shine.
Why are you assuming that I have this mindset?
I understand this is a full-on PvP game. That's why I'm here. That's why I'm testing it. I don't expect to be able to do all the content or "whatever I want," which is why it's concerning to me to see that mayors can indeed do "whatever they want," including circumventing the corruption system by flying away on their mounts to have a guildmember kill them so they don't lose gear.
We have a coalition of guilds in my node that I can draw from for support, yes, but this isn't an issue of "make more friends or git gud" when we're being killed literally as we spawn back in by a team of mages. Our coalition has pulled groups off the emberspring so that people can get away, yes. My point is that *for the average player* this is a pretty significant encouragement to uninstall and play something else that *does* afford them the illusion of parity in combat.
Yes, this is potentially an "alpha only" issue, but we're going to be in alpha/beta for the next what, year and a half? "Wait until they fix it" doesn't address a real issue which is causing *testers* to want to leave/quit. If I had access to the PTR server, I would be playing/testing on it. As soon as that's available to me with P3, then I plan on spending most of my time and attention there.
Uniting a server against a group (guild, node, etc) controlled by (a) bad actor(s) is certainly one solution that could be employed, but, again, that doesn't address the root cause of the issue (players forced to choose between playing or not playing the game by another player in order to wage a war of denial/attrition), just the symptom (players being spawncamped). If the game is ultimately just a bully simulator, that's perfectly fine, they're welcome to make that game, and I'll adjust my playstyle accordingly.
Too Long Didn't Read
Lol for sure for sure. I didn't read it either. I didn't even read the original post.
I don't even know what this thread is about!
If you can't figure it out, coordinate with node citizens engaged in the war and participate instead.
Do you really *want* players to be able to completely disregard their node being at war? Do you think they need to be able to do so effortlessly?
I appreciate your acknowledgements for some of the benefits of conflict and rippling consequences in some of your comment, but I still think your suggested solutions betray a partiality towards everyone being able to do whatever they want whenever they feel like it.
When I played my RvR MMO for 8+ years, we sometimes spent weeks being the underpowered force. We had the time of our lives finding the battles we could win, saving the sieges could defend against, and on the worst days just coordinating to find ways past our enemies' camps in order to do something else.
If you're having a particularly weak day and you don't feel like watching yourself lose, go do something else and come back the next day to reclaim your territory. If it doesn't work, change your alliance, clearly you need to readjust your strategy, if your opponents can consistently wipe you out that effortlessly; you understand each of them had to choose to *be there* to be ready to kill you, too, right? Why can enough of them decide to stand there and spawn kill you, but you can't summon enough players to get past them and do something else in the game?
There's so much logic for cause and effect between development and gameplay in your post. Why is there zero attention dedicated for cause and effect between players and their opponents?
That's such a sad world view, sorry. You want the game to give you the illusion that you matter instead of just working towards actually mattering. That's how afraid of failure and setbacks you are.
You don't need an MMO for this. If you just want a game to produce a cheerful bell sound as a reward whenever you've successfully completed your next Sisyphean lap, you can just play a single-player game, or a mobile game, or whatever multiplayer variant of Stardew Valley gameplay you prefer.
So what's my alternative, if not your "direct" solutions?
Especially for right now, it depends on a lot of factors. It depends on how many things the game has available for *you* to do besides farming. If more content that's relevant for you is coming soon, you shouldn't worry about rewards during the Alpha so much, that's just shortsighted; both because you could be looking for more effective alliances to find more success and rewards in, and because you don't need to rely on your ingame rewards as reward for the gameplay in the first place; the enjoyment of the gameplay should be the reward in this case.
But I'll absolutely grant you this: if the Alpha is going to simmer along at room temperature for another 6-12 months, yes, you should probably get temporary stronger protection of your assets/achievements, so your testing time doesn't feel as wasted.
As for the post-release game loop though?
The more confrontation, and the more impact players can have on others, the more you'll be incentivised to care about what's happening in the world, and how you find your place in it.
There are several caveats here. The impact needs to be meaningful risk versus reward for both sides, not just bullying for bullying's sake. (So, for example, if you beat them out of your territory in spite of being outnumbered, it should hurt them proportionately harder, too.)
Nor indefinite power concentration to the first group that became big.
And smaller groups need to have ways to engage in realistically accessible diplomacy to participate in getting their share of the cake.
But aside from that, the more conflict, the more people care about what they do in the game, and that's always a win for me. And all your suggestions seem to go against those principles.
That isn't my worldview, that's my experience with what players generally want, shaped after watching bully guilds bully, and toxic people be toxic, for ~20 years. I don't care about setbacks, losing in game items, etc. The people we play the game with are more important than the game itself, and the way that my server is currently is egregious.
None of the caveats that you mentioned are in place *right now*. Yes, they may be there in the future, but *right now*, the design rewards forcing players to quit, and that's my largest concern. I know there's changes coming down the pipeline, but over the last week, it seems like there are no repercussions for people griefing.
We have a mayor that is declaring node wars constantly to "punish" other testers for "not playing the way they want." Members of these guilds have come into my fellow guild members' streams and harassed them. I'm not asking Intrepid to litigate things outside of their game; this is just one small example of the type of jaw-droppingly unprofessional behavior I've seen.
Again, I'm not asking to "do whatever I want," because that's unrealistic.
Or, you just Guild War against their guild, and steamroll them for free.
Regarding Node Wars: In our server, one mayor declared Node War on every other node at once, and every citizen of that node became fodder for the entire server. We had some crafters based there for the JM Station who just didn't bother logging in at all, cos of the number of targets on their back.
Both features do feel like there's a lot more work needs to be done on them. Makes me terrified to see what Node Sieges are going to add to the mix, when Node Wars and Guild Wars are currently so badly implemented.
I love this lol, this is content, weclome to EVE Online 2010
So, Intrepid got this right, however Intrepid failed in rewarding pvpers and the people from this node you mentioned absolutely cant live off fighting wars. This could be easily fixed with my idea of gold rewards for kills based on how much you make your target waste gold on repairs when they die
It provided some drama to the server, for sure!
The biggest problem was that they had alts in each node that they just spawn-killed over and over and over again for the points.
Damn, being perma spawn killed is hard, maybe in AoC you could become a ghost and have a timer of 5-10 minutes to reach another spawn.
Hey this is a cool idea. When you respawn at an ember spring, you spawn as a ghost and you need to click on an emberspring to activate your body again. This could allow players to run across the realm to another emberspring if they wanted to, or wait to spawn until it is convenient.
Yes, well, someone batphone the devs about this, or this will be just another idea that will sink under walls of text.