I understand what you are trying to say, but you are once again wrong about a few topics.
- You don't PvP for resources you need. You PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people, as you have stated countless times before - Resources cannot be monopolized, as resources will spawn randomly on random locations - if "first 5 kills must be free!" were are thing, as that is what you are trying to achieve, you wouldn't have farmers out there finding and getting the resources you need, as you would be busy killing anyone leaving the city gates
- if "first 5 kills must be free!" were are thing, as that is what you are trying to achieve, you wouldn't have farmers out there finding and getting the resources you need, as you would be busy killing anyone leaving the city gates
You are wrong. If there will be safe PK (small amount of corruption), it will still take time to clean back to green state. PKs can and will be killed by "greens" on spot without penalties for "greens", while defending PKs will raise corruption on successful defense and will pass the safe limits eventually. They won't be able to farm city gates anyway.
Another example, you guild runs to specific location, to farm/start siege. You see enemy following you, spying. What do you do? .. There can be many moments, when you must PK. Punishing for each is hindering gameplay.
I understand what you are trying to say, but you are once again wrong about a few topics.
- You don't PvP for resources you need. You PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people, as you have stated countless times before - Resources cannot be monopolized, as resources will spawn randomly on random locations - if "first 5 kills must be free!" were are thing, as that is what you are trying to achieve, you wouldn't have farmers out there finding and getting the resources you need, as you would be busy killing anyone leaving the city gates
Why wouldn't you PvP for resources? As the games designed you won't be able to gather all types of items on one character if you take any kind of refining or crafting profession.. green players drop more resources than purple. Kill a green deposit loot and continue on your merry way until your killed carrying the least amount of valuables resetting your corruption.
As for killing weak players that isn't the goal of someone into PvP. We want people to fight back, as good as AI is you still can't get past the fact it's a scripted fight. Fighting another player brings out more challenge... If you don't fight back that's your choice.
Resources can't be monopolized? I fully plan on having guild control over a resource node in our area.. not only do you control supply you control who supplies it and the price it's selling for. When the resource node moves so does the guild. When your no longer interested in said material pack up and leave and move onto the next profitable resource.
- You don't PvP for resources you need. You PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people, as you have stated countless times before
Firstly, as others have already mentioned, you are definitely wrong about this one. You do PvP for resources, it's inside game design. Also you can not farm all resources yourself, and if players grind the area actively they can indeed monopolize resources, and then ask stupid prices for them. Abusing green color is a possible reality.
Secondly, you are saying that I have stated (and a countless times to be exact) that I PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people? Are you on drugs and hallucinating? Just lol... no comment.
What is corruption? "Long ago, the world of Verra was besieged by a great calamity. A corruption befell the land, twisting and perverting every facet of nature, spawning hideous beings of every description; from troll-like creatures to towering behemoths. Nothing escaped its touch." (https://www.ashesofcreation.com/a-world-with-consequences/)
We can take this concept and apply to the corruption system. Rather than viewing corrupted players as "unlawful" - perhaps we should view them as going through the process of Corruption. Jeffery mentioned corruption as "undoing Creation" and I think that is suitable as players become more ineffective as their corruption score increases.
This means the corruption system can somewhat be lore related.
We know that the system has been put in place to reduce non-meaningful conflict.
This may cause confusion because "corrupted" means to act dishonestly, which although it also fits the context, it's does not mean that the corruption system is a faction based lawful/unlawful relationship.
Why being corrupted isn't a viable "unlawful"
If you want to be the unlawful outcast/mercenary guild - being corrupted is not the most efficient way to be successful.
Player inventory is restricted. On player death a percent of raw materials are dropped which means the attacker may or may not have anything to loot, depending if the defender is carrying raw materials. IF they are carrying raw materials, you won't receive a large quantity and IF you want more you'll need to kill many, risking your corruption score and perhaps end up having to start your own caravan which is at risk of being attacked.
These events mean that your task is time consuming, comes with low reward or with a potential of no reward at all.
A viable "unlawful"
Since Ashes of Creation is not faction based, you do not need to be good per say. There are various ways to pirate/mercenary/steel your way to success which emphasise meaningful conflict.
The main source of transport will be mules and caravans. With particular emphasis on caravans, being the target with the juiciest loot, an unlawful player/guild can focus on hunting caravans down.
This will not be an easy task and will take skill on you or guilds behalf because caravan locations will not be specified. Perhaps scouting known trade routes, looking for natural resources or even "following targets" will help you find potential prey.
Success on taking down caravan will provide you with a certificate of heavy goods ( which means you get more than targeting a random player, and you don't need to risk starting your own caravan run).
Because caravans are conflict fields you will not become corrupted when killing targets within its zone.
For me personally the second "unlawful" option sounds far more interesting and memorable. You could build a better/infamous rep that can build a more positive gaming experience. Ofcourse many features need to be tested and it will be an exciting journey to see how things will develop up to launch.
This is also my own opinion and people like to play games differently. It's nice to hear the many points raised
I don't intend to be vulgar, so take this as a form of expression.
There are plenty of a**holes on this planet, so we do not need a game mechanic to encourage it even further.
The Bounty Hunter system is in place to battle this kind of behavior, not to encourage people to get hunted.
Hmmm. Alright, how about a mechanic where if the Corrupted player ends up killing the Bounty Hunter, that removes his corruption.
I think that would be fair; this makes being a Bounty Hunter potentially dangerous, because if you fail then you've let a killer run free only to kill and loot again, obviously. But the Bounty Hunter would have little to fear from a corrupted player obviously, unless said Corrupted had friends he wasn't aware of.
Because caravans are conflict fields you will not be corrupted when killing targets within its zone.
@Diura Need to change it to "you will not become corrupted" If you enter a pvp conflict field already red, you will stay red. You just won't gain further corruption, since everyone else participating will be purple. However, there are three options when inside a conflict zone. Attack, Defend, and Ignore. Those that are green inside a conflict zone that have chosen Ignore, would still cause someone to gain corruption for force flagging them, then killing them if they did not attack back. @XeroForever Hmmm. Alright, how about a mechanic where if the Corrupted player ends up killing the Bounty Hunter, that removes his corruption.
Corruption is only removed by death by action of a non-aligned character. Aligned characters stated so far are group member, friends list, guildmates, and alliance members. Another common misinterpretation is that ALL corruption is removed on said death. That is not the case. Corruption has a value, and a certain amount of that is removed each time the "red" character is killed. So someone that has gone on a killing spree previously may need to be killed several times before their corruption state is cleared.
Because caravans are conflict fields you will not be corrupted when killing targets within its zone.
@Diura Need to change it to "you will not become corrupted" If you enter a pvp conflict field already red, you will stay red. You just won't gain further corruption, since everyone else participating will be purple. However, there are three options when inside a conflict zone. Attack, Defend, and Ignore. Those that are green inside a conflict zone that have chosen Ignore, would still cause someone to gain corruption for force flagging them then killing them if they did not attack back.
This is indeed true ^^ I took the situation from a non flagged stand point, I should have specified. I would like too hope that combatants within the conflict zone can not target "ignore" players. I'm curious to how this works in practice
I don't really get this bounty hunter thing. I am trying to understand but what other than a life and some loot does a corrupted have to loose by being killed by a Bounty hunter? where does the bounty come from. and what would stop people to work together. one as a bounty hunter and one corrupted maybe split the profits? what will happen if say a corrupted kills 5 people and take there loot and brings it to a save place. then gets killed by a friendly bounty hunter someone who he teams up with just to loose his corruption state?
Because caravans are conflict fields you will not be corrupted when killing targets within its zone.
. Those that are green inside a conflict zone that have chosen Ignore, would still cause someone to gain corruption for force flagging them, then killing them if they did not attack back.
Everyone in a conflict zone is purple, there are no greens. At least that was my understanding from listening to live streams. But that brings up an interesting paradox with being in a caravan zone, meaning if you choose to not participate when asked, do you have to move away to stay green?
I think bounty hunting should have more options cause I have a feeling that the world is going to be immense and without fast travel, there is going to be plenty of spots that corrupted players can hide. I wish they made corrupted players have a cool down of notoriety, where they lose corruption with time and eventually become just "wanted and non-combatant" players and gain a bounty on their head in gold. That's where you can have bounty hunters focus on those players and if you find them and kill them yourself, you get payed.
Right now as I understand it, when you get corruption, the only way you lose it is if you die? I find it ridiculous, as long as your online and out in the world, your corruption level should decrease if you decide to stop killing players. That way bounty hunters have a time frame to catch you and steal your loot, if not, then at least get a payout in gold even when the player manages to become a non-combatant.
Everyone in a conflict zone is purple, there are no greens. At least that was my understanding from listening to live streams. But that brings up an interesting paradox with being in a caravan zone, meaning if you choose to not participate when asked, do you have to move away to stay green?
Everyone in conflict zone should be purple or else this would be extremely abusable:
Abuse scenario:
Me and my friends organize a caravan and ask friends to come help. Some friends are part of caravan, and huge number of friends stay green, following our caravan creating green shield around it completely hogging it to make enemies not able to target us or the caravan.
Or at least making it severely harder.
I believe I do not have to explain how extreme level of abuse this would be.
Just imagine caravan moving and horde of green players around it hogging it out.
I kind of agree with you Valerian, but I'm going to withhold judgement until it can be tested. Hopefully its implemented in a good way that's not to punishing to attack and kill an equal level player.
Unfortunately as it stands right now with what we know and without it being tested i foresee multiple ways to currently abuse / take advantage of being a green player in the open world in a PvX game.
@T-Elf sorry if that was confusing. The bullet point there was from @Diura post just above that, and when she quoted me in her response, it looks like I posted it. I guess next month we will find out the answer to some of the smaller flagging mechanics like that. I imagine (which means not confirmed from IS) that if you choose Ignore when you come upon a caravan or a caravan runs into you, you will have a timer to exit the "bubble" surrounding the caravan. Otherwise, since we know some caravans can be driven by players, people will use them as mobile flagging zones. My main point in the above posts was to make clear that by entering a conflict zone, corruption will NOT be cleared.
@Valerian we will have to wait and see. As it is stated now, corruption will NOT clear over time. The rational behind that was to keep people from making PK alts, running out from locked freeholds, going on killing sprees, then running back into their safe zone locked house to avoid PK corruption penalties. Would defeat the purpose of corruption being a punishment for what is seen by the developers as anti-social gank/griefbox actions if people were just able to park their toons inside a safe area, go afk, and wait out a timer. Steven has said in a couple different interviews, if you want to be a murderer, go right ahead, but there will be real penalties to that playstyle.(paraphrasing). We have no confirmation on whether people will be able to loot reds that they kill for items, beyond the often quoted "have a chance to drop or destroy items." The bounty hunter mechanic while a fun thing will not be a full time gig, and you can bet the gold rewards for killing someone from the boards will be minimal at best to stop exploits.
There should be ways to work off corruption with player activity.
This way you can't hide in safe areas and wait it out, you need to be active outside, and still risk being attacked for bounty, while working your corruption off.
Having corruption on you forever if no one kills you (even if you are not continuing to kill others) would be just silly.
Steven: You do not, i was about to get into that. If you kill a person who is not flagged for combat, a noncombatant, you will gain a corruption value and that value is determined by a few factors. The disparity of level between you and the opponent. If they are higher level than you, you gain less corruption, if they are lower level than you, you’ll gain more corruption, if they are an equal level to you, you will gain a moderate amount of corruption. If you kill a person who is a non-combatant, you’ll gain a corruption value.
Now this corruption value stays with you until you die. If you die while corrupt, the death penalties that you will receive will be tripled from what it would have been had you died while a noncombatant. So those death penalties include a negative experience that you gain an experience debt. It doesn't necessarily de-level your character, but that experience debt, as it accrues, will cause skill penalties, will cause stat penalties, and if you just go on a PKing rage where you are just killing a bunch of noncombatants, that death penalty, that experience debt is just going to rack up and it’s going to adversely affect your ability to participate in combat. So this prevents PK alts from being made. So that’s corruption. If you die, you’ll lose a value of corruption equal to your level in game and how much experience loss you accrue from death.
Another added downside for being a corrupted player, is that while normal death causes the loss of a certain percentage of your gatherable materials and mats, if you die while corrupt, you have a chance now, based on what your corruption score is, to drop equipped gear or completed items. So, that is the flagging system in a nutshell.
Argentdawn said "As for killing weak players that isn't the goal of someone into PvP. We want people to fight back, as good as AI is you still can't get past the fact it's a scripted fight. Fighting another player brings out more challenge... If you don't fight back that's your choice."
You want people to fight back, but if they don't, you just kill them anyways? So, you don't care if they fight back?
I understand everyone will have a different play style. It doesn't sound like loot-gain is going to be a beneficial option for PK'ing green players though. You might gain some loot, but is it enough to balance corruption, that's your choice.
You want corruption to go down over time, some mention with activity and others haven't specified. If I was PK'd as a green I would also like my xp to go up over time. I didn't choose to fight and incur a penalty, why shouldn't I get that back by just existing or doing my regular activities?
But it was my choice to not fight back so why should I gain xp for nothing. Also, it was your choice to finish off a green player, so why lose corruption for nothing, or some mundane activity or necessary quest?
IS' goal, to me, appears to be to sway PvP into Meaningful conflict with others that are PvP'ing but without predetermined factions. To me it sounds like they are trying to say they don't think random PK'ing is meaningful in their game. Again, just how I am reading it.
The corruption mechanic sounds like it would deter players from killing other players for just being in their zone mining/farming. Also, if you belong to a different node and mine/farm in yet a different node you are helping the other node first, and yours second by returning with materials. Resources are suppose to be farmed or mined out and repopulate elsewhere in the world. So yes, I guess a small group could chief the resources for awhile in their ZOI, but eventually there would be nothing to hog.
I was also under the impression trading those good between towns was suppose to spur the economy, create meaningful conflict, and add a strategic level to advancing your node versus the one you are trading with.
Steven: You do not, i was about to get into that. If you kill a person who is not flagged for combat, a noncombatant, you will gain a corruption value and that value is determined by a few factors. The disparity of level between you and the opponent. If they are higher level than you, you gain less corruption, if they are lower level than you, you’ll gain more corruption, if they are an equal level to you, you will gain a moderate amount of corruption. If you kill a person who is a non-combatant, you’ll gain a corruption value.
Now this corruption value stays with you until you die. If you die while corrupt, the death penalties that you will receive will be tripled from what it would have been had you died while a noncombatant. So those death penalties include a negative experience that you gain an experience debt. It doesn't necessarily de-level your character, but that experience debt, as it accrues, will cause skill penalties, will cause stat penalties, and if you just go on a PKing rage where you are just killing a bunch of noncombatants, that death penalty, that experience debt is just going to rack up and it’s going to adversely affect your ability to participate in combat. So this prevents PK alts from being made. So that’s corruption. If you die, you’ll lose a value of corruption equal to your level in game and how much experience loss you accrue from death.
Another added downside for being a corrupted player, is that while normal death causes the loss of a certain percentage of your gatherable materials and mats, if you die while corrupt, you have a chance now, based on what your corruption score is, to drop equipped gear or completed items. So, that is the flagging system in a nutshell.
@Azathoth Thank you for responding, forgive the wall of text and any typos its late here.
(You want people to fight back, but if they don't, you just kill them anyways? So, you don't care if they fight back?) -Personally i wouldn't just attack someone in passing, However in a resource rich area i would gladly defend my stake. Node ZOI aside resource control could end up being more beneficial as far as income and server presence are concerned.
(You want corruption to go down over time, some mention with activity and others haven't specified. If I was PK'd as a green I would also like my xp to go up over time. I didn't choose to fight and incur a penalty, why shouldn't I get that back by just existing or doing my regular activities?) -I cant accurately address this because at the moment we are unaware of the extent of both punishments. The exp deficit in PvP seems like a poor fit because the PvE player gets penalized for something they can't control. Removing the EXP debt and adding gear durability damage and resource % drop to PvP deaths would probably be more appropriate.
-Corruption going down over time or chunks as the player is killed i have no problem with. My concern lays with the diminishing ability to defend yourself, if no ganking has been performed (Large level difference) and someone has only attacked people the same level in a resource area who chose not to fight back they gain more and more corruption. Eventually that player will be unable to defend themselves even 1v1
(The corruption mechanic sounds like it would deter players from killing other players for just being in their zone mining/farming. Also, if you belong to a different node and mine/farm in yet a different node you are helping the other node first, and yours second by returning with materials.) -This one is more of a person to person basis. For those who don't particularly feel the need to reside in a capitol can float from node to node, the only thing influencing them is their guild and any alliance they may carry.
(I was also under the impression trading those good between towns was suppose to spur the economy, create meaningful conflict, and add a strategic level to advancing your node versus the one you are trading with.) -The goods gathered would still make it to market, inevitably someone will buy the goods to use or to turn a profit 2 towns over, the initial sale on resources gains a profit margin fairly under the control of the group protecting a resource deposit, caravans would need to be created for transport meaningful conflict then arises, the node is being developed as all of this is occurring and the guild or group of people organizing all of this is at a strategic and financial advantage above the others. IF that group also holds influence in that node keeps taxes low enough to maintain node level, open up housing in town to draw more people and advances the node in a way advantageous to the majority of citizens they will flourish at a much faster pace than any neighbors.
Well if this is how it will be, and I can't fight people who grind out all resources in the area, abusing green color to protect themselves... if i get punished for main reason Ashes stands for, fight about resources... then honestly...
RIP Ashes.
I certainly hope this is not how it will be. Because if it will be how it was written here, then all casual resource conflict is dead, protecting your resource locations area is impossible without ruining your characters permanently. Green players can abuse green status, farm all area out safely, monopolize market, and basically prosper, while PvPers can go look for another game.
Again honestly, if I'm gonna be punished for fights about resources (even if it's not griefing or ganking) then RIP the game.
We'll know more after alpha 0, but it seems, IS will have to work this case thoroughly.
Caravans, IMO, will move from stating point to end point. Only those points will be chosen by players, to not allow it be used as moving pvp zone.
Everyone, who gets inside caravan (or castle siege, etc) zone is flaged as combatant, whether he stood afk on the road, or ran intentionally there.
This is logical and fair.
But the corruption system brings most speculations, how it will work. IMO, it's unfair to have only 1 way to clear off it, by death. Should be some quest/grind/price method as well. I've provided several samples, where killing "innocent" is not a "bad" action, but is done by neccesity.
Btw, drop of equipped items brings another system into view. Equipment. Since it's tradable, sooner or later market will be filled with old-used equipment, and new droped/crafted items might become ... literally priceless.
Anyway, it's a long road ahead for IS, and first we should find out, how the system currently works.
Well if this is how it will be, and I can't fight people who grind out all resources in the area, abusing green color to protect themselves... if i get punished for main reason Ashes stands for, fight about resources... then honestly...
RIP Ashes.
I certainly hope this is not how it will be. Because if it will be how it was written here, then all casual resource conflict is dead, protecting your resource locations area is impossible without ruining your characters permanently. Green players can abuse green status, farm all area out safely, monopolize market, and basically prosper, while PvPers can go look for another game.
Again honestly, if I'm gonna be punished for fights about resources (even if it's not griefing or ganking) then RIP the game.
Another MMO ruined by care bears.
100 % agree! I play MMO´s for my own decision what I can do ingame.
If I want to be an asshole ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a murderer ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a parcifist ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a carebear - I wanna do it
Thats why I am playing MMO´s! But this system could destroy the game for me. I vote for penalization ingame for stop griefing, but I want smth which let me be a murderer/pirate/unlawful without any restrictions. The system in Archeage was one of the best what I played before. You need to work hard to get back as green player.
No factions - no conflict - no fun
meaningful conflict - boring as fuck like in guild wars 2. Everytime the same no new situations.
Lol...gotta love the change this mechanic or I quit posts a month before the game even launches a pre-alpha snapshot experience. And the utter narcissism that believes whether you stick around or not the game will be success "If they would only listen to me!" This is the exact reason the corruption mechanic is in place. If it is provoking such outrage from a small subset of the "I will do what I want, when I want, and screw you!" crowd this early, it means they are on the right track. So I will go ahead and negate your vote, with my vote that says make it even more strict. Sucks how that democracy thing works. Wait! You mean to tell me that IS as a private company, has no obligation to listen to randos from the internet on how to run their business?
In old lineage 2 days, 2 opposing guilds could gather at some place and have a long wait for someone to flag. No safe PK, no guild wars, when both sides by default in combat state leads to such situations. Noone would want to start first, getting disadvantage of becoming red. (You attack to flag as combatant, but target removes equipment and dies from 1 shot, you either quit or drop, reducing your side strength)
Once again, my position is not demanding specific changes and not threatening to quit, too early for anything like that. I'm w8ting till we can see, how IS system works, showing possible flaws of strict pk punishment. I hope IS stuff reads such topics, and at least takes into consideration all sides ideas.
Players abusing a system to prevent them from being PK'd when they don't want to fight another player... RIP Ashes CAREBEARS Arhg!
Some players will fight back, not all of course, but some. Are you telling me that you refuse to raid a caravan for a much higher return on resources and are mad killing a single player is a lower pay off? What about someone who gathers enough for a mule, you refuse to look for them? Maybe those will have guards so it would be a better challenge...
You can't attack someone, and if they don't fight back leave them be, you have to "finish the fight you started?"
If you are unwilling to adapt your playstyle to play this game I feel sad for you. Many non-PvP merchant/PvE types are going to play knowing their mules/caravans are roaming PvP spots. Knowing the house/freehold they work so hard for can go down in a siege. They're going to try it first. Maybe they deserve to be killed for playing the way they want to allow another to play the way they want. Seems fair.
Well if this is how it will be, and I can't fight people who grind out all resources in the area, abusing green color to protect themselves... if i get punished for main reason Ashes stands for, fight about resources... then honestly...
RIP Ashes.
I certainly hope this is not how it will be. Because if it will be how it was written here, then all casual resource conflict is dead, protecting your resource locations area is impossible without ruining your characters permanently. Green players can abuse green status, farm all area out safely, monopolize market, and basically prosper, while PvPers can go look for another game.
Again honestly, if I'm gonna be punished for fights about resources (even if it's not griefing or ganking) then RIP the game.
Another MMO ruined by care bears.
This is exactly why I made this thread, for me it was a way to see if I can become a "pirate" in this game and make good money out of it. It seems that right now, with the PVP rules in place, it's going to be hard. Unless, they can give the power to guilds to declare war on another guild. This way, if a guild or 2 is controlling a certain node, the opposing guild who controls another node can kill members of other guilds without penalty.
Now I know the caravan and siege system does this already, but seeing that you can go out and farm on your own in remote areas of the world (by the way it seems very large without fast travel) and farm rare raw materials that is only present in an opposing node. I would like to go there and steal his raw materials, cause if I farm it I will be helping that node and I don't want to. Now you can always buy it off the market, but again, It's probably going to be too expensive. I rather have to risk corruption with the current flag system, but also have a cool down on my corruption status over time. To give us a chance to sell what we stole.
Now unless the game proves to me in time that raw materials aren't going to be a commodity or won't be a thing to sell on the market for lots of gold. Then I guess my whole debate doesn't hold water but I doubt it.
So to summarize, for me it boils down to 2 choices. Either keep but make the current flag system for corruption a little less penalizing (see above) or enable guild vs guild war that by passes the flag system. Which in turn will promote alliances over time. Now this doesn't mean that the flag system will die out over time if every guild goes to war with each other, since I don't foresee every guild going to war with each other anyways. Cause guild wars can be a strategic decision by both parties.
The game can't be called an open world PvP experience if it punishes people for doing exactly that. I like the idea behind the system, but it's heavily flawed. People will go out of their way to die green rather than flagging up to give the "PK'er" corruption. We'll get our concerns answered when the Alpha is upon us, until then I'll remain a skeptic.
Edit : My post was a bit off topic so i'll create a new topic.
I'm my opinion casual PK should be allowed but not as a way of life. I mean killing lvl 10 players when lvl 50 or w/e should not be encourage in anyway since the gameplay experience would be bad for those players.
Comments
- You don't PvP for resources you need. You PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people, as you have stated countless times before
- Resources cannot be monopolized, as resources will spawn randomly on random locations
- if "first 5 kills must be free!" were are thing, as that is what you are trying to achieve, you wouldn't have farmers out there finding and getting the resources you need, as you would be busy killing anyone leaving the city gates
You are wrong. If there will be safe PK (small amount of corruption), it will still take time to clean back to green state. PKs can and will be killed by "greens" on spot without penalties for "greens", while defending PKs will raise corruption on successful defense and will pass the safe limits eventually. They won't be able to farm city gates anyway.
Another example, you guild runs to specific location, to farm/start siege. You see enemy following you, spying. What do you do? .. There can be many moments, when you must PK. Punishing for each is hindering gameplay.
As for killing weak players that isn't the goal of someone into PvP. We want people to fight back, as good as AI is you still can't get past the fact it's a scripted fight. Fighting another player brings out more challenge... If you don't fight back that's your choice.
Resources can't be monopolized? I fully plan on having guild control over a resource node in our area.. not only do you control supply you control who supplies it and the price it's selling for. When the resource node moves so does the guild. When your no longer interested in said material pack up and leave and move onto the next profitable resource.
Firstly, as others have already mentioned, you are definitely wrong about this one.
You do PvP for resources, it's inside game design. Also you can not farm all resources yourself, and if players grind the area actively they can indeed monopolize resources, and then ask stupid prices for them. Abusing green color is a possible reality.
Secondly, you are saying that I have stated (and a countless times to be exact) that I PvP for the sole purpose of killing weaker and innocent people? Are you on drugs and hallucinating? Just lol... no comment.
What is corruption?
"Long ago, the world of Verra was besieged by a great calamity. A corruption befell the land, twisting and perverting every facet of nature, spawning hideous beings of every description; from troll-like creatures to towering behemoths. Nothing escaped its touch." (https://www.ashesofcreation.com/a-world-with-consequences/)
- We can take this concept and apply to the corruption system. Rather than viewing corrupted players as "unlawful" - perhaps we should view them as going through the process of Corruption. Jeffery mentioned corruption as "undoing Creation" and I think that is suitable as players become more ineffective as their corruption score increases.
- This means the corruption system can somewhat be lore related.
- We know that the system has been put in place to reduce non-meaningful conflict.
- This may cause confusion because "corrupted" means to act dishonestly, which although it also fits the context, it's does not mean that the corruption system is a faction based lawful/unlawful relationship.
Why being corrupted isn't a viable "unlawful"If you want to be the unlawful outcast/mercenary guild - being corrupted is not the most efficient way to be successful.
Since Ashes of Creation is not faction based, you do not need to be good per say. There are various ways to pirate/mercenary/steel your way to success which emphasise meaningful conflict.
Ofcourse many features need to be tested and it will be an exciting journey to see how things will develop up to launch.
This is also my own opinion and people like to play games differently. It's nice to hear the many points raised
I think that would be fair; this makes being a Bounty Hunter potentially dangerous, because if you fail then you've let a killer run free only to kill and loot again, obviously. But the Bounty Hunter would have little to fear from a corrupted player obviously, unless said Corrupted had friends he wasn't aware of.
@Diura Need to change it to "you will not become corrupted" If you enter a pvp conflict field already red, you will stay red. You just won't gain further corruption, since everyone else participating will be purple. However, there are three options when inside a conflict zone. Attack, Defend, and Ignore. Those that are green inside a conflict zone that have chosen Ignore, would still cause someone to gain corruption for force flagging them, then killing them if they did not attack back.
@XeroForever
Hmmm. Alright, how about a mechanic where if the Corrupted player ends up killing the Bounty Hunter, that removes his corruption.
Corruption is only removed by death by action of a non-aligned character. Aligned characters stated so far are group member, friends list, guildmates, and alliance members. Another common misinterpretation is that ALL corruption is removed on said death. That is not the case. Corruption has a value, and a certain amount of that is removed each time the "red" character is killed. So someone that has gone on a killing spree previously may need to be killed several times before their corruption state is cleared.
I would like too hope that combatants within the conflict zone can not target "ignore" players. I'm curious to how this works in practice
just to loose his corruption state?
Right now as I understand it, when you get corruption, the only way you lose it is if you die? I find it ridiculous, as long as your online and out in the world, your corruption level should decrease if you decide to stop killing players. That way bounty hunters have a time frame to catch you and steal your loot, if not, then at least get a payout in gold even when the player manages to become a non-combatant.
Everyone in conflict zone should be purple or else this would be extremely abusable:
Abuse scenario:
Me and my friends organize a caravan and ask friends to come help. Some friends are part of caravan, and huge number of friends stay green, following our caravan creating green shield around it completely hogging it to make enemies not able to target us or the caravan.
Or at least making it severely harder.
I believe I do not have to explain how extreme level of abuse this would be.
Just imagine caravan moving and horde of green players around it hogging it out.
Unfortunately as it stands right now with what we know and without it being tested i foresee multiple ways to currently abuse / take advantage of being a green player in the open world in a PvX game.
@Valerian we will have to wait and see. As it is stated now, corruption will NOT clear over time. The rational behind that was to keep people from making PK alts, running out from locked freeholds, going on killing sprees, then running back into their safe zone locked house to avoid PK corruption penalties. Would defeat the purpose of corruption being a punishment for what is seen by the developers as anti-social gank/griefbox actions if people were just able to park their toons inside a safe area, go afk, and wait out a timer. Steven has said in a couple different interviews, if you want to be a murderer, go right ahead, but there will be real penalties to that playstyle.(paraphrasing). We have no confirmation on whether people will be able to loot reds that they kill for items, beyond the often quoted "have a chance to drop or destroy items." The bounty hunter mechanic while a fun thing will not be a full time gig, and you can bet the gold rewards for killing someone from the boards will be minimal at best to stop exploits.
This way you can't hide in safe areas and wait it out, you need to be active outside, and still risk being attacked for bounty, while working your corruption off.
Having corruption on you forever if no one kills you (even if you are not continuing to kill others) would be just silly.
Steven: You do not, i was about to get into that. If you kill a person who is not flagged for combat, a noncombatant, you will gain a corruption value and that value is determined by a few factors. The disparity of level between you and the opponent. If they are higher level than you, you gain less corruption, if they are lower level than you, you’ll gain more corruption, if they are an equal level to you, you will gain a moderate amount of corruption. If you kill a person who is a non-combatant, you’ll gain a corruption value.
Now this corruption value stays with you until you die. If you die while corrupt, the death penalties that you will receive will be tripled from what it would have been had you died while a noncombatant. So those death penalties include a negative experience that you gain an experience debt. It doesn't necessarily de-level your character, but that experience debt, as it accrues, will cause skill penalties, will cause stat penalties, and if you just go on a PKing rage where you are just killing a bunch of noncombatants, that death penalty, that experience debt is just going to rack up and it’s going to adversely affect your ability to participate in combat. So this prevents PK alts from being made. So that’s corruption. If you die, you’ll lose a value of corruption equal to your level in game and how much experience loss you accrue from death.
Another added downside for being a corrupted player, is that while normal death causes the loss of a certain percentage of your gatherable materials and mats, if you die while corrupt, you have a chance now, based on what your corruption score is, to drop equipped gear or completed items. So, that is the flagging system in a nutshell.
You want people to fight back, but if they don't, you just kill them anyways? So, you don't care if they fight back?
I understand everyone will have a different play style. It doesn't sound like loot-gain is going to be a beneficial option for PK'ing green players though. You might gain some loot, but is it enough to balance corruption, that's your choice.
You want corruption to go down over time, some mention with activity and others haven't specified. If I was PK'd as a green I would also like my xp to go up over time. I didn't choose to fight and incur a penalty, why shouldn't I get that back by just existing or doing my regular activities?
But it was my choice to not fight back so why should I gain xp for nothing.
Also, it was your choice to finish off a green player, so why lose corruption for nothing, or some mundane activity or necessary quest?
IS' goal, to me, appears to be to sway PvP into Meaningful conflict with others that are PvP'ing but without predetermined factions. To me it sounds like they are trying to say they don't think random PK'ing is meaningful in their game. Again, just how I am reading it.
The corruption mechanic sounds like it would deter players from killing other players for just being in their zone mining/farming. Also, if you belong to a different node and mine/farm in yet a different node you are helping the other node first, and yours second by returning with materials. Resources are suppose to be farmed or mined out and repopulate elsewhere in the world. So yes, I guess a small group could chief the resources for awhile in their ZOI, but eventually there would be nothing to hog.
I was also under the impression trading those good between towns was suppose to spur the economy, create meaningful conflict, and add a strategic level to advancing your node versus the one you are trading with.
Or even better yet, "I'm a serial killer, let's gather some flowers outside and all will be normal again".
(You want people to fight back, but if they don't, you just kill them anyways? So, you don't care if they fight back?)
-Personally i wouldn't just attack someone in passing, However in a resource rich area i would gladly defend my stake. Node ZOI aside resource control could end up being more beneficial as far as income and server presence are concerned.
(You want corruption to go down over time, some mention with activity and others haven't specified. If I was PK'd as a green I would also like my xp to go up over time. I didn't choose to fight and incur a penalty, why shouldn't I get that back by just existing or doing my regular activities?)
-I cant accurately address this because at the moment we are unaware of the extent of both punishments. The exp deficit in PvP seems like a poor fit because the PvE player gets penalized for something they can't control. Removing the EXP debt and adding gear durability damage and resource % drop to PvP deaths would probably be more appropriate.
-Corruption going down over time or chunks as the player is killed i have no problem with. My concern lays with the diminishing ability to defend yourself, if no ganking has been performed (Large level difference) and someone has only attacked people the same level in a resource area who chose not to fight back they gain more and more corruption. Eventually that player will be unable to defend themselves even 1v1
(The corruption mechanic sounds like it would deter players from killing other players for just being in their zone mining/farming. Also, if you belong to a different node and mine/farm in yet a different node you are helping the other node first, and yours second by returning with materials.)
-This one is more of a person to person basis. For those who don't particularly feel the need to reside in a capitol can float from node to node, the only thing influencing them is their guild and any alliance they may carry.
(I was also under the impression trading those good between towns was suppose to spur the economy, create meaningful conflict, and add a strategic level to advancing your node versus the one you are trading with.)
-The goods gathered would still make it to market, inevitably someone will buy the goods to use or to turn a profit 2 towns over, the initial sale on resources gains a profit margin fairly under the control of the group protecting a resource deposit, caravans would need to be created for transport meaningful conflict then arises, the node is being developed as all of this is occurring and the guild or group of people organizing all of this is at a strategic and financial advantage above the others. IF that group also holds influence in that node keeps taxes low enough to maintain node level, open up housing in town to draw more people and advances the node in a way advantageous to the majority of citizens they will flourish at a much faster pace than any neighbors.
RIP Ashes.
I certainly hope this is not how it will be. Because if it will be how it was written here, then all casual resource conflict is dead, protecting your resource locations area is impossible without ruining your characters permanently. Green players can abuse green status, farm all area out safely, monopolize market, and basically prosper, while PvPers can go look for another game.
Again honestly, if I'm gonna be punished for fights about resources (even if it's not griefing or ganking) then RIP the game.
Another MMO ruined by care bears.
We'll know more after alpha 0, but it seems, IS will have to work this case thoroughly.
Caravans, IMO, will move from stating point to end point. Only those points will be chosen by players, to not allow it be used as moving pvp zone.
Everyone, who gets inside caravan (or castle siege, etc) zone is flaged as combatant, whether he stood afk on the road, or ran intentionally there.
This is logical and fair.
But the corruption system brings most speculations, how it will work. IMO, it's unfair to have only 1 way to clear off it, by death. Should be some quest/grind/price method as well. I've provided several samples, where killing "innocent" is not a "bad" action, but is done by neccesity.
Btw, drop of equipped items brings another system into view. Equipment. Since it's tradable, sooner or later market will be filled with old-used equipment, and new droped/crafted items might become ... literally priceless.
Anyway, it's a long road ahead for IS, and first we should find out, how the system currently works.
100 % agree! I play MMO´s for my own decision what I can do ingame.
If I want to be an asshole ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a murderer ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a parcifist ingame - I wanna do it
If I want to be a carebear - I wanna do it
Thats why I am playing MMO´s! But this system could destroy the game for me. I vote for penalization ingame for stop griefing, but I want smth which let me be a murderer/pirate/unlawful without any restrictions. The system in Archeage was one of the best what I played before. You need to work hard to get back as green player.
No factions - no conflict - no fun
meaningful conflict - boring as fuck like in guild wars 2. Everytime the same no new situations.
In old lineage 2 days, 2 opposing guilds could gather at some place and have a long wait for someone to flag. No safe PK, no guild wars, when both sides by default in combat state leads to such situations. Noone would want to start first, getting disadvantage of becoming red. (You attack to flag as combatant, but target removes equipment and dies from 1 shot, you either quit or drop, reducing your side strength)
Once again, my position is not demanding specific changes and not threatening to quit, too early for anything like that. I'm w8ting till we can see, how IS system works, showing possible flaws of strict pk punishment. I hope IS stuff reads such topics, and at least takes into consideration all sides ideas.
Some players will fight back, not all of course, but some. Are you telling me that you refuse to raid a caravan for a much higher return on resources and are mad killing a single player is a lower pay off? What about someone who gathers enough for a mule, you refuse to look for them? Maybe those will have guards so it would be a better challenge...
You can't attack someone, and if they don't fight back leave them be, you have to "finish the fight you started?"
If you are unwilling to adapt your playstyle to play this game I feel sad for you. Many non-PvP merchant/PvE types are going to play knowing their mules/caravans are roaming PvP spots. Knowing the house/freehold they work so hard for can go down in a siege. They're going to try it first. Maybe they deserve to be killed for playing the way they want to allow another to play the way they want. Seems fair.
I'm my opinion casual PK should be allowed but not as a way of life. I mean killing lvl 10 players when lvl 50 or w/e should not be encourage in anyway since the gameplay experience would be bad for those players.