What are your thoughts about the flagging system?

ArchivedUser

I personally love world pvp and finding out about the gear dropping and stat dropping chance when you die Is slightly upsetting. Why not insted when you die just give a debuff that gives you less stats and no chance to drop gear. So that people who like world pvp aren't taxed for playing the game how they like to play. 

Everyone what are are your thoughts and ideas on a new system or in defending the current system?

ArchivedUser

Or for each person they kill get a debuff that makes them easier to kill to avoid camping insted of the gear drop.

ArchivedUser

necrodamus666 said:

I personally love world pvp and finding out about the gear dropping and stat dropping chance when you die Is slightly upsetting. Why not insted when you die just give a debuff that gives you less stats and no chance to drop gear. So that people who like world pvp aren't taxed for playing the game how they like to play. 

Everyone what are are your thoughts and ideas on a new system or in defending the current system?

Or for each person they kill get a debuff that makes them easier to kill to avoid camping insted of the gear drop.

What you describe is pretty much the way corruption works right now.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/33075/information-world-pvp/p1

ArchivedUser

I guess my issue is the gear dropping part.

ArchivedUser

O your link is very helpful! Thankyou.

ArchivedUser

no one has seen it work in action yet so its hard to tell but from the info we have it seems to be robust but we will not know till the alpha im guessing 

ArchivedUser

Perhaps instead of gear dropping or being destroyed, it could just get damaged, so players could repair it.

In this way players do not lose the gear, but there is still cost involved as consequence.

Also until players go to city to repair the gear it's useless, so it prevents camping as players would become less effective without certain gear pieces (specially if it's a weapon), and since there is no fast travel, it would take time to reach the city and repair it.

Having gear with a chance to become damaged, would also eliminate the need to reduce stats separately, since stats would practically become reduced by not having all gear pieces on you.

And since inventory would be limited, players couldn't just carry 5 spare sets of gear on them (inventory could have harsher limit for extra gear pieces, and higher capacity for consumables, materials and other stuff).

ArchivedUser

for me its like coming back to an "old friend" Lineage 2 had this same system implemented!

the term was "if you go red your dead" and that's just what it is! If you want to live life on the dangerous path and kill players that have A. no interest in PvP ( sounds crazy i know but they exist ). B. or low lvl and you are just griefing the hell out of them, well then you deserve a bit of "karma" don't you? ( funny going red in Lineage 2 actually gave you "karma" points, which you could only get rid of by killing mobs .. the more karma the more hours ..... or if you had been a real bad boy/girl days ... dare i say weeks ) So yeah part of that was punishing players by being able to drop gear! IMO its a good system, you think twice before just mindlessly attacking some one!    

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Perhaps instead of gear dropping or being destroyed, it could just get damaged, so players could repair it.

In this way players do not lose the gear, but there is still cost involved as consequence.

Also until players go to city to repair the gear it's useless, so it prevents camping as players would become less effective without certain gear pieces (specially if it's a weapon), and since there is no fast travel, it would take time to reach the city and repair it.

Having gear with a chance to become damaged, would also eliminate the need to reduce stats separately, since stats would practically become reduced by not having all gear pieces on you.

And since inventory would be limited, players couldn't just carry 5 spare sets of gear on them (inventory could have harsher limit for extra gear pieces, and higher capacity for consumables, materials and other stuff).

this seams like a much better idea.

ArchivedUser

What the system is trying to do is promote meaningful PvP and discourage ganking. What that means is there are zones were PvP is ok, and zones that aren't.

I'd imagine not ok zones will be towns, newbie tutorial zones and so forth. I'm hoping caravans are not on this list because they've mentioned a "zone" that follows the caravan. 

There will be PvP zones and battlegrounds and I'm really hoping the open sea is PvP. 

This will mean if people actually want to PvP, not just gank, they have options. There's a deincentive to just murdering lowbies or camping nodes. Also allows some people to opt in and out of PvP.

I hope what they plan to do is see how restrictive the system is during Alpha and scale it back if need be. I feel opponents to this system are gankers or people who think all PvP will be restricted this way. Even as is, it sounds like you need to accumulate a fair amount of corruption before gear starts to drop. I'm going to also assume there will be quests to help you lower it. 

Ultimately, I'm going to reserve judgement until I actually see the system in action but as of right now, I'd rather they have a flagging system that has more teeth than less.

ArchivedUser

Griefing, aka becoming corrupt, is not something that should be encourages and is done on your own risk. The chance of losing gear is associated with that risk.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

Griefing is not something that should be encouraged

I agree that griefing shouldn't be encouraged, but occasional theft should be.

And occasional theft isn't griefing.

ArchivedUser

Losing gear in games through PvP always seemed to inspire a bustling Merc for Hire market. I've played games like this were gear dropped on death but you could always hire someone stronger to defend you and try to keep you alive.

Made "going red" much more fun, risk and reward were well balanced.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

FliP said:

Griefing is not something that should be encouraged

I agree that griefing shouldn't be encouraged, but occasional theft should be.

And occasional theft isn't griefing.

That like saying stabbing someone is ok as long as you don't kill the person.

Theft is an action of crime, crime causes corruption. Occasional theft might be "fine" because if you don't do it often, you might not ever get negative karma/become corrupt and risk your gear.

However, that still doesn't make it right and theft should also count towards corruption.

ArchivedUser

Crime does not cause Corruption.
Killing a non-combatant causes Corruption.

If you want to be a thief, attack caravans.
You get way more looted resources from a successful caravan attack than you do from killing non-combatants.
You can also steal from combatants you kill.

(I'm an opponent of the system as a proponent of consensual PvP.)

ArchivedUser

My issue is with some people exaggerating their statements calling even a single kill "griefing".

People are saying how griefing is so bad (which I do agree).

HOWEVER then people go and claim that even a single kill = griefing, which is most definitely NOT. This is my issue with those people and some of their posts.


I agree that following a same player and killing him repeatedly (griefing) is bad. I do NOT agree that one or two kills of some player should be called griefing by people. I actually strongly despise that.

Occasional kills should NOT be punished with "debuff". Occasional kills add to danger in environment and to world dynamics, and are a GOOD thing.


Corruption "debuff" should only start be placed on you if you killed same person more then 2-3 times in certain period of time (fair amount of time is to be considered, I will not claim here what time period is fair for this).

Occasional single kills should be covered ONLY BY bounty system, which is why bounty system should be here for.



** Bounty system = interesting mechanics to deal with occasional murders.

** Corruption DEBUFF = PUNISHMENT... and if every single occasional kill would be PUNISHED by debuff, then this is not what I would call a PVP friendly game (not even close).



It will be up to IS to consider when it's fair to start "debuff punishment", depending on what they wish out of their game. This will not be on players (that yell "punish every single kill") to decide.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

Crime does not cause Corruption.
Killing a non-combatant causes Corruption.

If you want to be a thief, attack caravans.
You get way more looted resources from a successful caravan attack than you do from killing non-combatants.
You can also steal from combatants you kill.

(I'm an opponent of the system as a proponent of consensual PvP.)

Mostly for my own curiousity rather than debate, could you clarify what your last statement means?

You oppose the system as a whole or just that it helps promote consensual PvP?

ArchivedUser

The Corruption system for Ashes is insufficient to qualify as consensual PvP combat.
Also, as described, the system appears to be insufficient for adequately curbing unwanted PvP combat.
If I'm attacked and killed when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not going to care that my killer gained Corruption. I'm still going to be pissed that another player forced me to deal with that attack against my wishes.

If I enjoyed PKing, I would just rely on creating alt zombies whose sole purpose is to gain as much Corruption as possible before being destroyed by other players.
That would be a fun side game. Not a deterrent at all.

ArchivedUser

Dygz said:

1. The Corruption system for Ashes is insufficient to qualify as consensual PvP combat.
Also, as described, the system appears to be insufficient for adequately curbing unwanted PvP combat.

2. If I'm attacked and killed when I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not going to care that my killer gained Corruption. I'm still going to be pissed that another player forced me to deal with that attack against my wishes.

1. The very point is that Ashes should NOT be a "consensual only" open world PvP. To have a fun and dynamic world of conflict, to REALLY have that working in practice, OCCASIONAL attacks (non consensual) should in fact BE ENCOURAGED, and not punished. 

(This of course does not include griefing, that I already agreed should be discouraged, but ONLY griefing, and not OCCASIONAL non consesual PvP).

I'd even go as far as rewarding your first non consensual PK (of particular target) per 6-12 hour period, then ignoring next 2 PKs on this target, and only then starting to apply corruption slowly if it goes beyond that.

The fact that YOU wish open world PvP to be "ONLY consensual" is your own problem. I'm sorry to be blunt here.



2. And sorry to be blunt again but that's also your own problem. If you don't wish to be attacked against your wishes, then non PvE games aren't really the best fit for you.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

My issue is with some people exaggerating their statements calling even a single kill "griefing".

People are saying how griefing is so bad (which I do agree).

HOWEVER then people go and claim that even a single kill = griefing, which is most definitely NOT. This is my issue with those people and some of their posts.


I agree that following a same player and killing him repeatedly (griefing) is bad. I do NOT agree that one or two kills of some player should be called griefing by people. I actually strongly despise that.

Occasional kills should NOT be punished with "debuff". Occasional kills add to danger in environment and to world dynamics, and are a GOOD thing.


Corruption "debuff" should only start be placed on you if you killed same person more then 2-3 times in certain period of time (fair amount of time is to be considered, I will not claim here what time period is fair for this).

Occasional single kills should be covered ONLY BY bounty system, which is why bounty system should be here for.



** Bounty system = interesting mechanics to deal with occasional murders.

** Corruption DEBUFF = PUNISHMENT... and if every single occasional kill would be PUNISHED by debuff, then this is not what I would call a PVP friendly game (not even close).



It will be up to IS to consider when it's fair to start "debuff punishment", depending on what they wish out of their game. This will not be on players (that yell "punish every single kill") to decide

I think i can agree with you here. I tend to love PVP but don't often focus on it. Going out and killing 5 different people once should not cause much effect but if i kill the same person 5 times an applied debuff seems appropriate. (5 here is just a random number i typed could be more could be less i don't care). Having said that i plan on testing how corruption works as soon as possible in the Alphas and betas to decide how im going to end up playing at release. Worst case scenarios i hang out around caravans for my pvp content.

ArchivedUser

This isn't about whether we like to get attacked or not, this is about whether it should count towards corruption or not.

You are like "The first should be encouraged, the next few kills should cause corruption, then the next few kills should be free again.." It will either cause corruption or be free, no if, when and how.

If you attack a player, that is minding his own business, without any reason, sorry, then that should be causing corruption. This is not consensual PvP, as the attacked player intended to do something else and was interrupted, most likely by an even much stronger player.

You will even get a much better fight and consensual pvp if you simply queue up for arena.

I know Open World PK will be part of the game, eg. attacking caravans etc., but that doesn't justify it not causing corruption. PvP doesn't have to be consensual, but if it isn't, you're paying the price.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you wish to PK without consequence, MMORPGs are no place for you. Play DOTA or LoL.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

You are like "The first should be encouraged, the next few kills should cause corruption, then the next few kills should be free again.." 

No, I am like "The first should be encouraged, the next 2 should be ignored, and then everything else after this should put corruption on you" (until reset that happens after fair period of time).

Try to put some effort in reading what other people actually write.

FliP said:

If you attack a player, that is minding his own business, without any reason, sorry, then that should be causing corruption. 

No it shouldn't be causing corruption if it's one of the first 2-3 kills that happened. Only if it turns to griefing it should.

And if he was just "minding his own business" in a conflict based MMO, that is his own problem.

FliP said:

most likely by an even much stronger player.

If someone is attacked by bigger level, I already agreed this is ganking and corruptionable.

If player is simply not gearing up so others are better geared then him, this is again his own problem. This is a conflict MMO and not a charity.

FliP said:

1. You will even get a much better fight and consensual pvp if you simply queue up for arena.

2. Sorry to be blunt, but if you wish to PK without consequence, MMORPGs are no place for you. Play DOTA or LoL.

1. You will not get attacked against your wishes if you simply go play Farmville. This is about open world attacks in a conflict based MMO.

2. (And also again, try to put some effort in reading with comprehension, and don't twist the context and put lies into peoples mouth simply because you don't have anything better to say.)
I do not wish to PK without consequence. I wish OCASSIONAL PK without consequence, to add an actual danger to the world of conflict, instead of only having danger "on paper". Consequence may come if occasional PK turns into griefing.



** I personally wouldn't have corruption at all, to have a real danger in the world, but I am kind enough and take into account that people wouldn't like to be griefed, so I vote ok on corruption for griefing. Problem in such requests like we see here is that some people wouldn't like unwanted attacks happening at all. Again, to such people: this is your own problem, this is CONFLICT BASED MMO, and not a Farmville.

ArchivedUser

You seem very triggered as someone that just wants to make his idea clear.

You are just sounding like a child right now. "If you do not want nananan go play nenene".
There is danger even without PK consequences. If you attack someone that is just minding his own business and wants to gather or do something else, you are very likely not to get much PvP out of him. If he wanted to PvP, he'd queue for arena.

You might get that one kill, and the person will just look for a new gathering spot. So, if you want PvP, you would then follow the person or track him down, and that is passing the lines of griefing.

ArchivedUser

FliP said:

1. You seem very triggered as someone that just wants to make his idea clear.

You are just sounding like a child right now. "If you do not want nananan go play nenene".

2. If you attack someone that is just minding his own business and wants to gather or do something else, you are very likely not to get much PvP out of him. If he wanted to PvP, he'd queue for arena.

3. You might get that one kill, and the person will just look for a new gathering spot. So, if you want PvP, you would then follow the person or track him down, and that is passing the lines of griefing.

1. Typical reply. I didn't expect anything better. First twisting peoples words, then when people point this out, calling people triggered and children.


2. I don' care if he wanted to PvP or no. This is conflict based MMO and not farmville. I don't care if he is minding his own business, because this is not about consensus, this is about having "an actual danger in world" and not having it only "on paper" by implementing hard punishment for even occasional kills / thefts.


3. First kill would be encouraged, to add to danger in the world. And if you keep following this person around, and killing repeatedly same target, then YES it is griefing and corruption would happen.

I'm glad that you actually wrote this line. As you wrote yourself here, only if you keep following that player and keep killing him again, THEN it passes the line of griefing.

FliP said:

you would then follow the person or track him down, and that is passing the lines of griefing.

Quoting you one more time.

ArchivedUser

ArchivedUser

The part I object to is is the idea that your stats are lowered making you easier to kill. That is just so cheap. If your location is broadcasted on the map, you're inuring penalties like damage or even loss of gear when die, and we're further gameifying the system by adding a bounty hunter system on it, do we really need to stick a stacking debuff on top?

The system points to really wanting to dissuade pvp in certain zones. If we really don't want pvp that bad in certain zones then just unflag everyone and make it a safe zone.
But then they try to gameify the system by adding a "bounty hunter system", Who the hell is going to stick around for that?
"I killed some dudes, now the cops and robers part start. You'll never take me alive copper! Oh but I have 50% of my hp and I hit like a noodle, so I guess I'll just log off for now until you forget about me." Wasn't that satisfying?

If we really want to end PvP in certain zones, then just end it. Make it a safe zone, but don't create some overly punitive system and pretend like you the option of PvP is really there.

A system that flags murders to be bounty hunted is cool. Maybe even a jail system for when they die, but stealing gear or gimping them is for heavy handed.

ArchivedUser

I'm just glad I'm not the only one to see this.

ArchivedUser

You are not alone. I'd just as soon only have bounty instead of corruption. 

ArchivedUser

necrodamus666 said:

I personally love world pvp and finding out about the gear dropping and stat dropping chance when you die Is slightly upsetting. Why not insted when you die just give a debuff that gives you less stats and no chance to drop gear. So that people who like world pvp aren't taxed for playing the game how they like to play. 

Everyone what are are your thoughts and ideas on a new system or in defending the current system?

First off, dying gives you negative experience. Accumulate enough and that gives you stat degradation, lower health and mana, less proficiency in gear equipped
(Mentioned in an early PodCast, might change)

You have:
Non-Combatant - Normal death penalty 
Combatant - Less death penalty 
Corrupt Player - 3 to 4 times the death penalty
You only become corrupt if you murder(kill) a Non-Combatant (Green).
You do not become corrupt if you kill a Combatant (Purple).
Link if you're interested.

Basically, killing innocent ppl makes you corrupt. 

ArchivedUser

Ziltch said:

Basically, killing innocent ppl makes you corrupt. 

Being "currently" green does not mean they are "innocent people".

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

Ziltch said:

Basically, killing innocent ppl makes you corrupt. 

Being "currently" green does not mean they are "innocent people".

The system is the law! They're innocent ;P