@Gothix@Noaani I don't know, I use to be 100% on board with corruption. However, if xp debt doesn't effect everyone equally (corrupt experiencing more debt quicker) and if Greens can attack Reds without flagging Purple I am going to have to considerably review my stance.
That last part I agree with, but we don't know for sure yet.
We know that a green player will not gain a status change for attacking a red player (based on current statements - about a system in a game that is almost 2 years away still), but it is possible that a red player will not gain corruption if they kill a green *player that attacks them first*.
I would be surprised if Intrepid don't give players a means to defend without increasing their corruption.
I don't consider the experience debt penalty to be a factor at all, myself.
Guys for the love of god corruption isnt instant. It will stack. You don't suddenly become super weak after 1 kill. And no you will never see your precious resource disappear in front of you. Resources move around the map and thus you will decide which resource youre fighting over. We don't know what resouce we will be fighting over so based on rarity and abundance alone i see the "corruption not likers" arguments completely invalid. No fool will be grinding resource 24/7 because half the time theyre going to be looking for the resource (more if its more rare). Once at the resource you will decide if its worth competing for and then engage in combat depending on your decision. Again the likelihood of constantly fighting over resource is low due to resources constantly being moved and thus corruption gain isn't always going to happen. You can also party up or ask guild members to help if you fear your corruption level is getting too high. And lets not forget that depending on the resource the defender will almost always fightback so there will be zero corruption gain whatsoever from either side. If someone isn't fighting back then that means that the resource doesn't mean much too them or they don't want to be flagged as combatant. In which case they either run, or just die and in which case you either get corruption and the resource plus the resources dropped by the dead body, or you just get flagged as a combatant and get the resource. The only scenario in which the attacker loses the most is if the defender fights back and proceeds to kill the attacker. Again, we don't know how resources will be gathered in AOC or the type, abundance and rarity of resources
We don't even know what all the death penalties are.
Seems rather absurd that a player who stays green because he doesn't to fight would run away, wait to heal and then initiate an attack on his assailant - who would then run away because suddenly she doesn't want to fight. Either you're in the mood to fight or you're not.
Hardcore PvPers are going to complain about casual PvPers ruining the game. Casual PvPers are gonna complain about hardcore PvPers ruining the game.
More than likely one group is going to be sour and my current bet is on the people who want to be able to kill anyone, anywhere without any penalty.
The corruption system seems to be designed to prevent the REPEATED killing of non combatants. You see somebodies face you don't like? Kill him, but you'll get some corruption. We don't know HOW much you will get yet, but the assumption is that it won't be TOO much initially. Only after repeatedly killing non-combatants will you then start gaining enough corruption to affect skills/xp loss.
There's still some danger always at getting killed by a random out there, but the game appears to be trying to encourage consensual combat without outright banning non-consensual combat.
Guys for the love of god corruption isnt instant. It will stack. You don't suddenly become super weak after 1 kill. And no you will never see your precious resource disappear in front of you. Resources move around the map and thus you will decide which resource youre fighting over. We don't know what resouce we will be fighting over so based on rarity and abundance alone i see the "corruption not likers" arguments completely invalid. No fool will be grinding resource 24/7 because half the time theyre going to be looking for the resource (more if its more rare). Once at the resource you will decide if its worth competing for and then engage in combat depending on your decision. Again the likelihood of constantly fighting over resource is low due to resources constantly being moved and thus corruption gain isn't always going to happen. You can also party up or ask guild members to help if you fear your corruption level is getting too high. And lets not forget that depending on the resource the defender will almost always fightback so there will be zero corruption gain whatsoever from either side. If someone isn't fighting back then that means that the resource doesn't mean much too them or they don't want to be flagged as combatant. In which case they either run, or just die and in which case you either get corruption and the resource plus the resources dropped by the dead body, or you just get flagged as a combatant and get the resource. The only scenario in which the attacker loses the most is if the defender fights back and proceeds to kill the attacker. Again, we don't know how resources will be gathered in AOC or the type, abundance and rarity of resources
Corruption may not start high but there is also no way to work corruption off that we know of. So you kill one green player and now you are red, anyone in the area can attack you without changing flag state.. so for the sake of argument let's say a green attacks you... You defend yourself now you have more corruption and this happens 2 more times. Now you have a stat penalty effecting everything you do because of one stubborn gatherer.
As far as resources go from Dev quotes and live streams they sound like they will be local to a node or region it's hard to interpret. So node A has high quality ore and always will have high quality ore but the deposit will move around the node area. It's more than easy enough to talk to your guild or alliance and see if anything has popped up. I am one of those fools who when I'm online at Max level will farm 24/7 and I'm not afraid to attack someone to defend it... Unless a raid is open, I usually have 2-3 nights set aside for raid the rest is for making money or gifts.
Corruption should be fairly easy to work off if you've only killed one green. You already get double death penalty for dying while red. The intention is not for a person to have to experience that 3 times just for killing one non-combatant.
Corruption should be fairly easy to work off if you've only killed one green. You already get double death penalty for dying while red. The intention is not for a person to have to experience that 3 times just for killing one non-combatant.
As far as we know.. right now there is no way to work off corruption. It's been stated that the only way to remove it is to die via pvp. If there was an in game way to work off corruption I wouldnt have taken the time to post.
@Argentdawn If a green attacks a red wouldn't that flag them as combatant? So if a red kills that green there shouldn't be further increase of corruption. Personally i feel the bounty hunter thing should be tweaked. Its not fun as a bounty hunter killing a guy with 2 broken legs. A super corrupt guy should be super weak yes, but if having bounty hunter status temporarily is a thing, then corrupt players should get a fair fight vs the bounty hunter. Makes the hunt more fun and gives a small cushion of hope to corrupt players.
As of Right now based on stevens interviews directly a green player does not flag purple for attacking a red player because they are "basically monsters" .
As of Right now based on stevens interviews directly a green player does not flag purple for attacking a red player because they are "basically monsters" .
Hmm that could be troublesome... That allows greens to abuse reds. I suppose ill stop posting in this thread till we have more info and a clearer fleshed out system. Problem with gaming is that people will always find a way to exploit and abuse a system and the devs try their best to prevent it. Can't please everyone i guess
Corruption should be fairly easy to work off if you've only killed one green. You already get double death penalty for dying while red. The intention is not for a person to have to experience that 3 times just for killing one non-combatant.
As far as we know.. right now there is no way to work off corruption. It's been stated that the only way to remove it is to die via pvp. If there was an in game way to work off corruption I wouldnt have taken the time to post.
The point remains that you don't just stay red up to three deaths just for killing one green. You might stay red for three deaths if you have killed three greens. Also:
More than likely one group is going to be sour and my current bet is on the people who want to be able to kill anyone, anywhere without any penalty.
The corruption system seems to be designed to prevent the REPEATED killing of non combatants. You see somebodies face you don't like? Kill him, but you'll get some corruption. We don't know HOW much you will get yet, but the assumption is that it won't be TOO much initially. Only after repeatedly killing non-combatants will you then start gaining enough corruption to affect skills/xp loss.
There's still some danger always at getting killed by a random out there, but the game appears to be trying to encourage consensual combat without outright banning non-consensual combat.
Thats the wrong assumption and it seems like half of you dont read and just respond.
No one here wants to kill without any consequence, its that the risk vs reward is currently unbalanced and extremely one sided.
Right now a resource gatherer has ALMOST no negatives.... besides some % of resources lost, which lets be honest, will be under 50% with the way the current balance has been from these dev's towards gatherers.
So we have these PvP players losing tons of stats and gear and TIME, hell they are the ones getting harassed by pretty much the entire game...Especially since greens can attack for free....Thats not risk vs reward, because a person gathering resources has no risk, its all reward, and that makes for a poor balanced game where the market will be flooded with resources, and the caravans wont even be worth PvPing for if the resources are so abundant, PvP players actually would be helping the economy in this scenario, from over stocking resources.
This especially applies if you are in Late game content area harvesting rare resources This kind of unbalanced system would quickly over flood the economy and ruin the game, it has happened so many times im sure even some of you carebears have experienced this.
@NTBRO You missed one of my previous points so ill post it again
'And lets not forget that depending on the resource the defender will almost always fight back so there will be zero corruption gain whatsoever from either side. If someone isn't fighting back then that means that the resource doesn't mean much too them or they don't want to be flagged as combatant. In which case they either run, or just die and in which case you either get corruption and the resource plus the resources dropped by the dead body, or you just get flagged as a combatant and get the resource. The only scenario in which the attacker loses the most is if the defender fights back and proceeds to kill the attacker. Again, we don't know how resources will be gathered in AOC or the type, abundance and rarity of resources'
@VoidShadow I like the suggesting of Corrupted players not being penalized when being attacked by Bounty Hunters. In the end, I think both sides of that scuffle would benefit and enjoy it more knowing it was as fair as possible.
As for Reds being 'monsters' I get it, I am not going to rally against it, but it is unfair to the PvP community. In case some of you don't know, I am for the corruption system, a PvE players, and generally against the "give PvP more freedom" crowd.
Yeah, for one thing, being attacked when not in the mood is already a huge negative for casual PvPers and non-PvPers. Regardless of who wins the battle or any death penalties.
Mobs will be around. It's not like other players are the only significant risk. And if a green is killed, they get twice the death penalty as they would if they died as a combatant.
Gatherers will have to consider how much time it will take them to reacquire their desired quota for their play session and the possibility of losing some rare or ultra-rare resources along with common resources.
We don't even really know what greens will generally be focused on. If it's people taming wildlife, will that wildlife still be around for them to tame once the green victim respawns and returns to the area.
If what all you care about is PvP combat, that may be of little importance to you. But, it's going to be of huge importance for those who only care about crafting/artisan tasks. Especially casual-challenge/casual-time players.
Problem with gaming is that people will always find a way to exploit and abuse a system
This is so very true, and has been a thorn on my side sense the beginning of my mmo adventures. The problem with pvpers with complete free will ( and I am as hardcore as they get) they abuse and troll ppl to the point they make others miserable. I have seen pvperd kill a community from there relentless camping and real ganking.
(Real ganking not the regular pvp some pvers call ganking, when it's just pvp)
Pvers have a legitimate gripe and pvpers stand by ( well it's a pvp game log off if you dont like it) true but your an asshole. You ruin it for pvpers like me who are not trying to troll and anger ppl for the sake of angering ppl.
So then the pvers who make the majority of a community and the cash cow of the mmo start complaining l. Devs see a growing problem and now have to put in place save guards cause some jack ass kid had to kill a lvl 22 60 times in a row. I have tried in vain for years to make pvpers understand basically don't be an ass.
I have also tried to explain to pvers that being attacked suddenly and you were innocently minding your own business picking cherry blossoms is not a gank.
Ether way way both sides are stuck in the middle and we have this corruption system. pvpers are worried it will be to strict and pvers worry it won't be enough.
Where the hell was I going with this.... guess im venting
I appreciate the concept of reducing unfriendly PvP, I really do. It can be very irritating to many players not interested in the PvP aspect of the game for them to be bullied and harassed by more skilled/better geared players. That said, I don't think the current system is the best approach. There are a couple major flaws in the system as it stands that have probably been pointed out in various places on this thread already.
1. If you are attacked by someone who is not corrupted, you have 3 options: * Running away -- You give up whatever they wanted and turn tail. * Defending yourself -- Fight back. This can have one of two outcomes: - You become a Combatant and kill them. Nice. - You become a Combatant and die. And they suffer almost no consequences NOTE: As they attacked you, they have the advantage in the fight, probably catching you by surprise and landing some damage. This makes the second option more likely. * Not fighting back and forcing them to kill a non-combatant, marking them as Corrupted and allowing other players to attack them without penalty, as well as providing varying degrees of debuffs. I strongly disagree with this approach, as it rewards complacency over self-defense. In a role-playing game such as an MMO, a system that does such, to me, breaks immersion. It becomes a question of betting your life on whether or not another player is willing to kill you, or is just pressuring you to react.
To summarize: If someone attacks you, the only time they are actually punished is if you let them kill you without fighting back. Even if you kill them, their death punishments are reduced as a result of being a Combatant. One key issue that this system ignores entirely is that a lot of the people who cause the problems as PKers know what they're doing. This means that if someone is targeting you with the intent to PK, most likely, you're going to die one way or another.
2. Sometimes, it is necessary to engage and kill non-combatants. There are many reasons one might need to do this, the most prominent of which is that people can often infringe on another player's current farming area. It's an MMO. There are a lot of people vying for resources, not all of whom are the nicest or most conscientious of people. Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do. Farm too close, learn the hard way not to. It's part of learning how to play among thousands of others. Acquiring Corruption for teaching players this valuable lesson is a harsh response.
3. Corrupted players can only remove Corruption through death. This is flawed in multiple ways. For the players who aren't regular griefers, acquiring Corruption presents a major issue in that it necessitates at least one death. Thus it either becomes a matter of running from players who can freely PK you for a time, or finding a remote location and a way to kill yourself so as to remove that penalty. In other words, it's a total pain. Disagreements or disputes over farming areas or mobs are bound to happen, and are a part of the game regardless of whether restrictions on PKing are put into place. Punishing people for PKing in these situations encourages people to engage in other negative behavior such as farm or mob-stealing by allowing them a certain degree of protection.
It's clear that a lot of thought went into this world PvP system. I feel that it is appropriate for handling the griefing of lower leveled played by high leveled players. Where it falls short is when players approach the same level. There is a fine line here between regulating player interaction, and interfering with the flow of the game. When it comes to high to low player griefing, interference is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of the game for the lower leveled players. With similarly leveled players, it is a balancing act that will be heavily influenced by the amount of Corruption gained for similarly leveled players, one that I'm sure will be argued for the entire span of this game's life. But more than that, any form of PKing essentially guarantees you a death, one way or another. That is a major concern that I have with this system.
The paragraphs before this spoke of the logistics of this system and how it is most likely to impact players. However, they did not mention the most critical shortcoming of this system: It is a system put into the game to regulate a game. A deliberate structuring that players must work around and make the most of. It doesn't work as a part of the world itself, but rather, as a rule in a game that players must follow. For a company that intends to revolutionize the world of MMOs, it's a very basic and old-style approach. Even if it is functional, it takes heavily from the immersion of the game. Although I recognize the effort to combine Bounty Hunting with Corruption levels and agree that that's a step in the right direction, it's not enough to distract from the fact that the system was designed to regulate a game.
We've gotten through most of the major complaints about the system currently set to be implemented. But I would be remiss to point out a flaw in something without attempting to present some sort of solution of my own that I conceive to be better. Thus, if somehow, miraculously, you have made it to this point in my little comment, I would like to explain my ideas for what could be done regarding PKing and griefing in World PvP.
For PKing where the level difference is deemed significant enough where the lower leveled player has virtually no chance of winning, I believe that Corruption should be a punishment as a result. This version of Corruption, however, includes only stat dampening. As you may have realized, this removes the bounty hunting aspect of Corruption. Instead, bounty hunting would use a different stat to mark its prey.
I call this stat Infamy. Players can acquire Infamy through various actions. This stat also increases item drop rate as the number rises. Initializing combat with another player will give the attacking party a certain amount of Infamy. A player who kills another player whom he or she attacked will receive a larger amount of Infamy. If the player/party being attacked kills their assailants, the player/party who was attacked acquires a very small amount of Infamy. At a certain threshold of Infamy, a bounty is issued by the town/system/game. Once a player acquires a Bounty, they are considered to be an Outlaw. This bounty can then be added to by players with sufficient funds in their storage/treasury. If those funds are removed, so too is the bounty. Once a player acquires a bounty, their party can be hunted and killed by bounty hunters. This puts pressure on players to avoid associating themselves with known griefers/PKers. Unlike the current system, killing a bounty hunter increases infamy even further. To prevent people being stuck as outlaws forever, Infamy decays over time. The more Infamy one possesses, the faster it decays. Being killed by a bounty hunter reduces Infamy significantly, and fulfills any player-made bounty requests. Fighting over Caravans does not provide Infamy in any way.
I imagine Infamy to be a stat that almost everyone has a certain amount of, but relatively few approach the threshold for. The decay should be enough that the average player stays well out of range of becoming an Outlaw. That deals with the extreme PKers in the game, but it does little for the everyday combat and interactions players experience competing over resources. For this, I have come up with a system that encourages players to think carefully before attacking another player. This system revolves heavily around guilds and allies and knowing who you are messing with. Thus I introduce Enmity. Enmity is a system where players who have some sort of beef with another player can officially mark that player as a Sworn Enemy. Once the player has become an Enemy of another, neither player's party will gain Corruption or Infamy when attacking or killing each other. Furthermore, the guild members of Sworn Enemies are able to attack and kill the party of their guild-mate's Sworn Enemies without acquiring Corruption or Infamy. However, if opposing guild members try to fight, they will acquire Infamy. Sworn Enemies can be acquired through two ways:
1. Players who are attacked and killed in an environment that is not meant to support PvP (i.e Caravans etc), can mark their killers as Sworn Enemies.
2. Players can express their dislike towards another player and make their personal opposition official. Both players must agree to become Sworn Enemies, in this case.
Sworn Enemies can revoke their opposition by making amends with each other. Both players must agree to end the dispute. Because there can be a great deal of harassment as a result of becoming sworn enemies, declarations of opposition expire a week from their creation.
Enmity also extends to Guilds. I would like to stress the importance of Leadership in Guilds by allowing Guild Leaders and any high-ranking official the Guild Leader permits to declare War in a similar way to how players do. Should a member of a guild be attacked and killed, the Guild Leadership can opt to declare War on the attacker and the guild he/she is associated with. If the attacker is kicked/leaves the Guild he/she was with, his Guild is no longer at War with the Guild that declared it. This declaration lasts a week, or until both parties agree to desist. Guilds can also agree to go to War with each other if both of the Guilds' Leadership consents. When two Guilds are at War, the same thing would happen as would with a player-to-player conflict, just on a larger scale. This would stress the importance of strong, intelligent leadership in guilds. And the inclusion of Enmity in player interactions necessitates players to align themselves with allies so as to prevent themselves from being harassed while playing. Players would also be held accountable for their actions by their own Guild to avoid unnecessary conflict. I believe this would foster a strong, realistic, competitive and cohesive game environment that encourages people to become part of a community. Naturally there are parts that could be added or changed.
As a whole, I would like to see a solution of this nature, where the world works so that players behave differently, rather than rules and distracting game systems are put in place to discourage certain behavior.
OP you need to learn the difference between PvP and Griefing. You want a license to grief as you consider it valid PvP. Griefing will not be tolerated....hence the corruption system. Griefing will never be tolerated in this game.
I love PvP and spend probably the targets percentage of my time doing exactly that. There static areas (castle system/arenas), transient areas (siege and war declarations betweens nodes/guilds), and there are mobile areas (caravan system).
And even then open world PvP is not banned, because you can still murder anyone anytime anyplace you want. Its upto you if you if you are prepared to pay the price for that.
And this game also needs to give RP's a place to exist. Such players need peaceful areas to conduct peaceful activities. You cant have peaceful activities with a bunch of clowns that want to turn such events into war zones for the shits and giggles.
Rofl you are asking me to learn yet you have no idea what you are talking about...
You are pretending as if any time a kill out side a siege or a caravan is "griefing", god these games must be hard for your type lmao....
Do you even know the corruption system stacks ? Occasional kill come with minimal to no penalty. You get punished when you start stacking up the KDR on people that shouldnt, couldnt or wouldnt fight back because they want to do other things AKA a griefing penalty. And the ONLY people who will complain about it this is those players whose game play evolves around griefing. So cry moar.
@Sikuba The term 'potent debuffs' is a misnomer. Killing one green player doesn't give the attacking player a 'potent debuff' it just reduces their stats some. The more greens that are killed the larger the 'debuff' and we don't know the original amount of the 'debuff' for one kill. I am under the impression IS won't 'punish' PvP/Red players so drastically by killing one Green they won't ever do it again.
Go on a "green hunt" without taking a dive in PvP and those stat bonuses will increase potentially becoming *potent*.
The incorrect use of terminology is in a lot of cases why forum members chase each other around bushes in this type of thread.
@Rune_Relic I agree with you - OP wants a license to grief and make the play time miserable for others. That's the exact feeling I'm getting.
@Sikuba I really liked your post. There are indeed some issues with the system (as much as we know of it, at least). Let me elaborate a bit with some questions:
1. So, as a non-combatant, I am more or less forced to fight if I get attacked, otherwise I lose more resources. Yet, the attacker doesn't get flagged this way, but I still lose (so I'm helping him if I actually attack). This sounds completely off for me.
2. Everyone who gets a surprise attack on someone who is farming, is more likely to get the kill (just like in real life - if you get hit by a sucker punch before you can do anything, it doesn't matter if you're a black belt in Kung Fu). Again, the defender is at a disadvantage because fighting back means the attacker gets no penalty (and you lose some resources too - fewer, yes, but you still lost).
3. What happens if a non-combatant drops an AOE effect to kill some mobs, then some other non-combatant gets into this AOE? Will the first guy get flagged as an attacker? If not, how can you prevent it? By not creating any AOE spells that can be laid on the ground?
4. Same question as above, but for when a non-combatant goes in the middle of your mobs (etc, etc) such that you hit him too when you use an AOE. Should it be ok to be forced to single target stuff because of someone wanting to flag you for PvP without risking any penalty after they kill you? I bet there will be more ways to do this once the game is out.
Now, I do understand the concept of shared resources. If the game/system protects players from being attacked at all, then everyone wanting to gather stuff will simply remove the flag and farm in peace, while others are frowning nearby because they weren't the first to get there. This becomes frustrating fast (no one is going to be the first every time). Putting enough resources in the world is another way, but it's the "standard" way... so maybe this is not something desired.
I think we need some changes in place that prevent repeated kills but also "protect" somehow the people who are defending. Let's be honest, no one is going to attack you unless you are actually focused on gathering, or they know they can win for sure (maybe from level difference, gear, etc). Everyone is (and should) try to have all advantages before starting a fight. That means you mining a resources and him coming from behind and getting your life down by at least 25% before you can do anything
Ideas:
A. Very important - players should have an idea about how strong someone
attacking them is. Of course, gear swapping and other stupid "exploits"
should not be available. How to do this I am not 100% sure, because I
don't know the devs' vision for the game regarding this, but I do have
one idea:
Put a little icon, with thick colored borders, next to
each player's name, with 6 possibilities: green, yellow, white(or
gray), orange, red, black. These colors should change according to the
difference in level and gear between you and the other players (i.e.
giving you a rough estimate of what chances you have to actually win a
fight with someone). They should also take into account penalties from
corruption and other things.
Green = unless you do stupid mistakes, the fight should be yours.
Yellow = that player is below your level/gear, but can still cause you some issues if you are not careful.
White/gray = more or less equal level. This fight should be determined by skill, not gear.
Orange = the guy has better gear and/or higher level, but you can still win if he's not good at the game.
Red = big difference in gear and/or level. Best to avoid unless he's low on life or such.
Black = huge difference between the two of you. RUN!
B. Make corruption dependent on the level difference, gear difference and how even the fight is (e.g. it's not like someone has any chance in a 3v1), even when killing one guy AND even when you fight back.
Sure, you get his resources, but if he can't really fight back, it becomes a risk for you to get those resources back without getting killed by others. Being a predator should not be without consequences. Just as an example, considering point A from above (i.e. when you get attacked by someone with this color and you run away or attack back, he gets corruption):
Green = 1/5 of the amount needed for the first/next threshold,
Yellow = 1/3,
White/Gray = 1/2,
Orange = 1,
Red = 1.75,
Black = 2.5.
Yes, this means that corruption should happen every time to the attacker. Otherwise, no one is going to be able to farm anything unless they fight back and win. But then others will be nearby and kill you immediately. This is forced PvP and I don't think it's right.
C. The quantity of resources dropped by the defender should be reversed. The fewest should be when you run away. While I can understand why the reversed is implemented, tell me how many of you are NOT going to attack someone that wants to kill you when you know you have a chance???!!! The people running should be only those that know don't have a chance or simply don't care about it. Why penalize them the most?!
D. When you are targeting mobs with your abilities, they should not flag you for PVP if you hit another player. That should happen only when you target the player (not PVE objects). Sure, he can attack you when you're fighting mobs, but won't be able to abuse your AOEs to make you an attacker and not risk a penalty.
E. With all the penalties in place (especially the ones for the defender), I think there should be a mitigation factor to the fact that someone attacks you by surprise. It can literally be anything... immunity for 2 seconds, a shield of extra hit points equal to twice the hits you received until you attacked back (that lasts for 10-15 seconds), getting a warning that someone is targeting you, implementing a huge difference between damage done by abilities and players' hit points (i.e. fights lasting a long time), etc.
Seriously, the first-attack bonus should be mitigated or minimized somehow. It's huge. Secondly, when someone is waiting to attack you after you fought another player is going to become an issue... like everyone's gonna wait for people to be low on life and then attack them (because, remember, they remain flagged if they attack back).
This turns into a binary system - people on low life will always run away; people on full life will fight one guy, then run away
F. Some way to mitigate ganking, i.e. many players versus much fewer players. Why? because some people want/like to play alone. And because crying for help in general chat is NOT fun (especially when no one gives a damn).
In my opinion, guilds are going to be completely overpowered within the current system.
G. What @Sikuba said about sworn enemies, making amends and this extending to guilds.
I do believe the current path of development for the Corruption stat is fine, as long as some more tweaks are done to it (in the lines I wrote above). Also, making something work with the idea of "shared resources" is going to be hard... and hard to keep away from forcing PvP onto everyone.
A while lot of people are making a whole lot of assumptions, many of those assumptions are being made by people that don't even have a full understanding on what the devs have even said on the subject.
If you kill someone your own level in flagged PvP, the corruption gained will be minimal. We don't know how minimal, and I doubt Steven does right now either. What we know is that this penalty will be set (and re-balanced many times no doubt) to make sure that people *ARE* gaining corruption.
The notion that it will never be worth attacking a player and gaining corruption is the same thing as saying "I think Intrepid are useless as developers and will willingly ignore entire systems in their game post launch".
If that is the faith you have in Intrepid, regardless of your stance on PvP or PvE content, you probably should - for your own sake - move on to a different developer.
The next thing people seem to forget is that inventory space will be a big factor in many PvP players activities. We know we will not be able to carry much in the way of raw materials on us - allowing us to do so would negate the Caravan system. It couldwell be that after 3 or 4 PvP kills, a PvP'ers inventory is full of raws and they are best served by heading back to their home node. The corruption earned by killing 3 or 4 players of an equal level is probably fairly insignificant still - though if those players were all lower levels, I'd wager that corruption would be almost crippling.
I don't see people spending hours out in the wilderness just hunting and killing people, as multiple systems in the game don't allow for it. I do see PvP'ers hunting people of similar level to themselves though, as the systems will be balanced to where it is viable.
I understand that the stat dampening for players of similar level is minimal. I have gone back and reworded my response to further clarify my point. The "potent debuffs" that I spoke of had more to do with the fact that PKing for any reason results in some amount of Corruption. With the current system of Corruption, as I understand it, possessing any quantity will allow other players to attack you without being punished as a result. As you can see by the diagram below, Non-Combatants that attack Corrupted players are still considered Non-Combatants. This means that anyone is now allowed to attack you without becoming a Combatant or Corrupted. At the same time, as a Corrupted player, you are given incentive to kill Non-Combatants. If you attack a Non-Combatant, and they respond in kind, their status doesn't change. They don't become a Combatant, meaning that they retain the normal drop rate and death penalties as opposed to the half value that comes with being a Combatant. There appear to be a lot of contradictions in this system, many of which I failed to mention in my previous analysis. As I result, I have appended it a bit. This system is a lot more complicated than it appears, and it distracts from the world as a whole. It is workable, but it is going to be a challenging balancing process, the end result of which is still going to be just another system put in place to regulate a game. I'm really hoping to see repercussions that are more integrated with the world, and that is what I tried to give an example of in the second part of my original message.
I'm really interested to know your opinions on this and I appreciate you pointing out the faults in my original post.
The another part of the problem as I see it is an immersive problem.
Someone attacks you in the woods, and instead of thinking of your tactical choices (combat wise) to find the tree where you can get LoS, find the high ground, mobs that could help you, etc...
...you instead start calculating if the other guy will proceed with the kill, or will he just walk away in the middle of it to not get corrupted.
Say what you wish but that majorly destroys any immersion.
We already have a game that has almost an identical flagging concept, and that concept has failed misrebly, and that game is advertised as "open world sandbox mmo", its called Albion Online, a game that has a bunch of dead space because there are so many restrictions and beyond silly PvP protection mechanics that this game has a second name attached to it "horse riding simulator", all you do in that game aside from GvG's or special Castle events is ride a horse in hopes of fighting open world pvp, and usually wasting hours of time with no one in sight.
This AoC mechanic sounds just like Albions or very similar and its very worrisome.
You are now talking about the red zones of Albion, which covers about 7% of the world. There we have hard restrictions to OWPvP with full loot. Now if you would step to black zones, which cover 60% of the whole land mass then you dont have these kind of restrictions and full loot. Red zones are just stepping stone to black zones. So dont give people wrong impression of the rules.
And the problem is that you want open world PvP in Ashes to be something the developers does not want it to be. In AoC PvP is ment to happen in meaningful conflicts and not in ganking. Open world is designed to have just light danger, where you can be attacked, but just sometimes or rarely and not constantly.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. It becomes something to manipulate and work around and distracts from the meaning of each interaction.
I appreciate these developers and how responsive they have been with the community and in receiving criticism. I also acknowledge that this is not an unreasonable solution. If it is further balanced and developed, I'm sure it could become functional enough to keep the majority of players satisfied.
But as I have said before, this solution approaches the issue as a game rather than as a world in which people live and fight together. It contradicts the ideals that the developers have expressed in creating the game. I don't think that it should be scrapped entirely - rather reworked and integrated in a way that is conducive with a realistic social and competitive environment.
A while lot of people are making a whole lot of assumptions, many of those assumptions are being made by people that don't even have a full understanding on what the devs have even said on the subject.
If you kill someone your own level in flagged PvP, the corruption gained will be minimal. We don't know how minimal, and I doubt Steven does right now either. What we know is that this penalty will be set (and re-balanced many times no doubt) to make sure that people *ARE* gaining corruption.
The notion that it will never be worth attacking a player and gaining corruption is the same thing as saying "I think Intrepid are useless as developers and will willingly ignore entire systems in their game post launch".
If that is the faith you have in Intrepid, regardless of your stance on PvP or PvE content, you probably should - for your own sake - move on to a different developer.
The next thing people seem to forget is that inventory space will be a big factor in many PvP players activities. We know we will not be able to carry much in the way of raw materials on us - allowing us to do so would negate the Caravan system. It couldwell be that after 3 or 4 PvP kills, a PvP'ers inventory is full of raws and they are best served by heading back to their home node. The corruption earned by killing 3 or 4 players of an equal level is probably fairly insignificant still - though if those players were all lower levels, I'd wager that corruption would be almost crippling.
I don't see people spending hours out in the wilderness just hunting and killing people, as multiple systems in the game don't allow for it. I do see PvP'ers hunting people of similar level to themselves though, as the systems will be balanced to where it is viable.
This is pretty much the best summary ive seen in this thread. There are so many unknown variables as well. How big are server sizes supposed to be? The game is supposed to be the size of like 30 skyrims or something so what are the chances that there will always be someone trying to kill in an area?
The another part of the problem as I see it is an immersive problem.
Someone attacks you in the woods, and instead of thinking of your tactical choices (combat wise) to find the tree where you can get LoS, find the high ground, mobs that could help you, etc...
...you instead start calculating if the other guy will proceed with the kill, or will he just walk away in the middle of it to not get corrupted.
Say what you wish but that majorly destroys any immersion.
That is a very valid concern. Some guy could just attack you out of the blue for giggles and walk away simply to disrupt you from your gameplay. This defines an asshole and since hes now a combatant you can kill him without corruption gain.
I really want to believe that if someone is attacking you, he has a very valid reason and has decided that corruption gain is worth it for their specific scenario so they won't just leave halfway through killing someone. But of course there will always be a guy attacking for zero value and walking away to ruin your immersion fun.
I would also like to believe that the defender will almost always fight back unless they have nothing to protect or the resource being farmed has far less value to the defender than the attacker. But theres always gonna be that one guy that will start gathering something even though he doesn't need it just to see if anyone will attack him or not just to make an attacker gain corruption and then find a reason to kill without consequence afterwards. To me this is griefing and not bounty hunting. Hence my proposal that a fight between a bounty hunter and a corrupt player should be fair and without stat deduction
Like i said, theres many ways to exploit the system.
The issue with repressing PKing is that the current system does not consider PKing a necessary part of the game, rather a negative behavior that must be reprimanded. In many cases, PKing is the result of other negative interactions such as infringements on farm or mobs by other players. Take Black Desert Online, for example. At a certain farming zone, Sausan's Garrison, there are established rotations for clearing mobs efficiently. Several exist within the zone, so if the primary rotation is occupied, one can either compete with the occupying party, or decide to take a secondary rotation. For new players, these rotations are unknown. That is, until the new players begin infringing on the rotations of more experienced players. Thus death occurs until the new players figure out what they are doing wrong. BDO still has a Karma system that does not discriminate between rightful and wrongful killing. But the punishments are less immediate, and can be negated without needing to die. Regardless of the quantity, Corruption can only be removed through death, which can be very costly. Players with Corruption are also open to be killed by other enemies without any repercussions on their killers, making the act of simply defending your farm against an enemy who refuses to fight back a death sentence.
I do have faith in these developers, which is why I'm hoping that by responding and voicing my criticisms, I can positively influence this world. I understand that crafting an entire world from scratch is a tall order, and we can't expect everything to be perfect from conception. But if I or my ideas or critique may prove useful and reduce the strain on developers, I am more than happy to contribute my time and thoughts.
I dunno what "flagged PvP" is supposed to mean. No Corruption for killing a purple or red. Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.
Comments
We know that a green player will not gain a status change for attacking a red player (based on current statements - about a system in a game that is almost 2 years away still), but it is possible that a red player will not gain corruption if they kill a green *player that attacks them first*.
I would be surprised if Intrepid don't give players a means to defend without increasing their corruption.
I don't consider the experience debt penalty to be a factor at all, myself.
Seems rather absurd that a player who stays green because he doesn't to fight would run away, wait to heal and then initiate an attack on his assailant - who would then run away because suddenly she doesn't want to fight.
Either you're in the mood to fight or you're not.
Hardcore PvPers are going to complain about casual PvPers ruining the game.
Casual PvPers are gonna complain about hardcore PvPers ruining the game.
It's s PvX game.
Haters gonna hate, hate, hate...
The corruption system seems to be designed to prevent the REPEATED killing of non combatants. You see somebodies face you don't like? Kill him, but you'll get some corruption. We don't know HOW much you will get yet, but the assumption is that it won't be TOO much initially. Only after repeatedly killing non-combatants will you then start gaining enough corruption to affect skills/xp loss.
There's still some danger always at getting killed by a random out there, but the game appears to be trying to encourage consensual combat without outright banning non-consensual combat.
Corruption may not start high but there is also no way to work corruption off that we know of. So you kill one green player and now you are red, anyone in the area can attack you without changing flag state.. so for the sake of argument let's say a green attacks you... You defend yourself now you have more corruption and this happens 2 more times. Now you have a stat penalty effecting everything you do because of one stubborn gatherer.
As far as resources go from Dev quotes and live streams they sound like they will be local to a node or region it's hard to interpret. So node A has high quality ore and always will have high quality ore but the deposit will move around the node area. It's more than easy enough to talk to your guild or alliance and see if anything has popped up. I am one of those fools who when I'm online at Max level will farm 24/7 and I'm not afraid to attack someone to defend it... Unless a raid is open, I usually have 2-3 nights set aside for raid the rest is for making money or gifts.
You already get double death penalty for dying while red. The intention is not for a person to have to experience that 3 times just for killing one non-combatant.
Also:
This Corruption Score can be worked off with effort through a few mechanics, but the primary means of getting rid of it is through death.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14luppZ3Ub8jmcw_aK65QWxYY4xa8qAo9zRfpYWBxOXE/edit
No one here wants to kill without any consequence, its that the risk vs reward is currently unbalanced and extremely one sided.
Right now a resource gatherer has ALMOST no negatives.... besides some % of resources lost, which lets be honest, will be under 50% with the way the current balance has been from these dev's towards gatherers.
So we have these PvP players losing tons of stats and gear and TIME, hell they are the ones getting harassed by pretty much the entire game...Especially since greens can attack for free....Thats not risk vs reward, because a person gathering resources has no risk, its all reward, and that makes for a poor balanced game where the market will be flooded with resources, and the caravans wont even be worth PvPing for if the resources are so abundant, PvP players actually would be helping the economy in this scenario, from over stocking resources.
This especially applies if you are in Late game content area harvesting rare resources
This kind of unbalanced system would quickly over flood the economy and ruin the game, it has happened so many times im sure even some of you carebears have experienced this.
'And lets not forget that depending on the resource the defender will almost always fight back so there will be zero corruption gain whatsoever from either side. If someone isn't fighting back then that means that the resource doesn't mean much too them or they don't want to be flagged as combatant. In which case they either run, or just die and in which case you either get corruption and the resource plus the resources dropped by the dead body, or you just get flagged as a combatant and get the resource. The only scenario in which the attacker loses the most is if the defender fights back and proceeds to kill the attacker. Again, we don't know how resources will be gathered in AOC or the type, abundance and rarity of resources'
I like the suggesting of Corrupted players not being penalized when being attacked by Bounty Hunters. In the end, I think both sides of that scuffle would benefit and enjoy it more knowing it was as fair as possible.
As for Reds being 'monsters' I get it, I am not going to rally against it, but it is unfair to the PvP community. In case some of you don't know, I am for the corruption system, a PvE players, and generally against the "give PvP more freedom" crowd.
Regardless of who wins the battle or any death penalties.
Mobs will be around.
It's not like other players are the only significant risk.
And if a green is killed, they get twice the death penalty as they would if they died as a combatant.
Gatherers will have to consider how much time it will take them to reacquire their desired quota for their play session and the possibility of losing some rare or ultra-rare resources along with common resources.
We don't even really know what greens will generally be focused on.
If it's people taming wildlife, will that wildlife still be around for them to tame once the green victim respawns and returns to the area.
If what all you care about is PvP combat, that may be of little importance to you.
But, it's going to be of huge importance for those who only care about crafting/artisan tasks.
Especially casual-challenge/casual-time players.
This is so very true, and has been a thorn on my side sense the beginning of my mmo adventures. The problem with pvpers with complete free will ( and I am as hardcore
as they get) they abuse and troll ppl
to the point they make others miserable. I have seen pvperd kill a community from there relentless camping and real ganking.
(Real ganking not the regular pvp some pvers call ganking, when it's just pvp)
Pvers have a legitimate gripe and pvpers stand by ( well it's a pvp game log off if you dont like it) true but your an asshole. You ruin it for pvpers like me who are not trying to troll and anger ppl for the sake of angering ppl.
So then the pvers who make the majority of a community and the cash cow of the mmo start complaining l. Devs see a growing problem and now have to put in place save guards cause some jack ass kid had to kill a lvl 22 60 times in a row. I have tried in vain for years to make pvpers understand basically don't be an ass.
I have also tried to explain to pvers that being attacked suddenly and you were innocently minding your own business picking cherry blossoms is not a gank.
Ether way way both sides are stuck in the middle and we have this corruption system.
pvpers are worried it will be to strict and pvers worry it won't be enough.
Where the hell was I going with this....
guess im venting
1. If you are attacked by someone who is not corrupted, you have 3 options:
* Running away -- You give up whatever they wanted and turn tail.
* Defending yourself -- Fight back. This can have one of two outcomes:
- You become a Combatant and kill them. Nice.
- You become a Combatant and die. And they suffer almost no consequences
NOTE: As they attacked you, they have the advantage in the fight, probably catching you by surprise and landing some damage. This makes the second option more likely.
* Not fighting back and forcing them to kill a non-combatant, marking them as Corrupted and allowing other players to attack them without penalty, as well as providing varying degrees of debuffs.
I strongly disagree with this approach, as it rewards complacency over self-defense. In a role-playing game such as an MMO, a system that does such, to me, breaks immersion. It becomes a question of betting your life on whether or not another player is willing to kill you, or is just pressuring you to react.
To summarize: If someone attacks you, the only time they are actually punished is if you let them kill you without fighting back. Even if you kill them, their death punishments are reduced as a result of being a Combatant. One key issue that this system ignores entirely is that a lot of the people who cause the problems as PKers know what they're doing. This means that if someone is targeting you with the intent to PK, most likely, you're going to die one way or another.
2. Sometimes, it is necessary to engage and kill non-combatants.
There are many reasons one might need to do this, the most prominent of which is that people can often infringe on another player's current farming area. It's an MMO. There are a lot of people vying for resources, not all of whom are the nicest or most conscientious of people. Sometimes you've gotta do what you've gotta do. Farm too close, learn the hard way not to. It's part of learning how to play among thousands of others. Acquiring Corruption for teaching players this valuable lesson is a harsh response.
3. Corrupted players can only remove Corruption through death. This is flawed in multiple ways. For the players who aren't regular griefers, acquiring Corruption presents a major issue in that it necessitates at least one death. Thus it either becomes a matter of running from players who can freely PK you for a time, or finding a remote location and a way to kill yourself so as to remove that penalty. In other words, it's a total pain. Disagreements or disputes over farming areas or mobs are bound to happen, and are a part of the game regardless of whether restrictions on PKing are put into place. Punishing people for PKing in these situations encourages people to engage in other negative behavior such as farm or mob-stealing by allowing them a certain degree of protection.
It's clear that a lot of thought went into this world PvP system. I feel that it is appropriate for handling the griefing of lower leveled played by high leveled players. Where it falls short is when players approach the same level. There is a fine line here between regulating player interaction, and interfering with the flow of the game. When it comes to high to low player griefing, interference is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of the game for the lower leveled players. With similarly leveled players, it is a balancing act that will be heavily influenced by the amount of Corruption gained for similarly leveled players, one that I'm sure will be argued for the entire span of this game's life. But more than that, any form of PKing essentially guarantees you a death, one way or another. That is a major concern that I have with this system.
The paragraphs before this spoke of the logistics of this system and how it is most likely to impact players. However, they did not mention the most critical shortcoming of this system: It is a system put into the game to regulate a game. A deliberate structuring that players must work around and make the most of. It doesn't work as a part of the world itself, but rather, as a rule in a game that players must follow. For a company that intends to revolutionize the world of MMOs, it's a very basic and old-style approach. Even if it is functional, it takes heavily from the immersion of the game. Although I recognize the effort to combine Bounty Hunting with Corruption levels and agree that that's a step in the right direction, it's not enough to distract from the fact that the system was designed to regulate a game.
We've gotten through most of the major complaints about the system currently set to be implemented. But I would be remiss to point out a flaw in something without attempting to present some sort of solution of my own that I conceive to be better. Thus, if somehow, miraculously, you have made it to this point in my little comment, I would like to explain my ideas for what could be done regarding PKing and griefing in World PvP.
For PKing where the level difference is deemed significant enough where the lower leveled player has virtually no chance of winning, I believe that Corruption should be a punishment as a result. This version of Corruption, however, includes only stat dampening. As you may have realized, this removes the bounty hunting aspect of Corruption. Instead, bounty hunting would use a different stat to mark its prey.
I call this stat Infamy. Players can acquire Infamy through various actions. This stat also increases item drop rate as the number rises. Initializing combat with another player will give the attacking party a certain amount of Infamy. A player who kills another player whom he or she attacked will receive a larger amount of Infamy. If the player/party being attacked kills their assailants, the player/party who was attacked acquires a very small amount of Infamy. At a certain threshold of Infamy, a bounty is issued by the town/system/game. Once a player acquires a Bounty, they are considered to be an Outlaw. This bounty can then be added to by players with sufficient funds in their storage/treasury. If those funds are removed, so too is the bounty. Once a player acquires a bounty, their party can be hunted and killed by bounty hunters. This puts pressure on players to avoid associating themselves with known griefers/PKers. Unlike the current system, killing a bounty hunter increases infamy even further. To prevent people being stuck as outlaws forever, Infamy decays over time. The more Infamy one possesses, the faster it decays. Being killed by a bounty hunter reduces Infamy significantly, and fulfills any player-made bounty requests. Fighting over Caravans does not provide Infamy in any way.
I imagine Infamy to be a stat that almost everyone has a certain amount of, but relatively few approach the threshold for. The decay should be enough that the average player stays well out of range of becoming an Outlaw. That deals with the extreme PKers in the game, but it does little for the everyday combat and interactions players experience competing over resources. For this, I have come up with a system that encourages players to think carefully before attacking another player. This system revolves heavily around guilds and allies and knowing who you are messing with. Thus I introduce Enmity. Enmity is a system where players who have some sort of beef with another player can officially mark that player as a Sworn Enemy. Once the player has become an Enemy of another, neither player's party will gain Corruption or Infamy when attacking or killing each other. Furthermore, the guild members of Sworn Enemies are able to attack and kill the party of their guild-mate's Sworn Enemies without acquiring Corruption or Infamy. However, if opposing guild members try to fight, they will acquire Infamy. Sworn Enemies can be acquired through two ways:
1. Players who are attacked and killed in an environment that is not meant to support PvP (i.e Caravans etc), can mark their killers as Sworn Enemies.
2. Players can express their dislike towards another player and make their personal opposition official. Both players must agree to become Sworn Enemies, in this case.
Sworn Enemies can revoke their opposition by making amends with each other. Both players must agree to end the dispute. Because there can be a great deal of harassment as a result of becoming sworn enemies, declarations of opposition expire a week from their creation.
Enmity also extends to Guilds. I would like to stress the importance of Leadership in Guilds by allowing Guild Leaders and any high-ranking official the Guild Leader permits to declare War in a similar way to how players do. Should a member of a guild be attacked and killed, the Guild Leadership can opt to declare War on the attacker and the guild he/she is associated with. If the attacker is kicked/leaves the Guild he/she was with, his Guild is no longer at War with the Guild that declared it. This declaration lasts a week, or until both parties agree to desist. Guilds can also agree to go to War with each other if both of the Guilds' Leadership consents. When two Guilds are at War, the same thing would happen as would with a player-to-player conflict, just on a larger scale. This would stress the importance of strong, intelligent leadership in guilds. And the inclusion of Enmity in player interactions necessitates players to align themselves with allies so as to prevent themselves from being harassed while playing. Players would also be held accountable for their actions by their own Guild to avoid unnecessary conflict. I believe this would foster a strong, realistic, competitive and cohesive game environment that encourages people to become part of a community. Naturally there are parts that could be added or changed.
As a whole, I would like to see a solution of this nature, where the world works so that players behave differently, rather than rules and distracting game systems are put in place to discourage certain behavior.
- Sikuba
http://www.aocwiki.net/Main_Page
Do you even know the corruption system stacks ?
Occasional kill come with minimal to no penalty.
You get punished when you start stacking up the KDR on people that shouldnt, couldnt or wouldnt fight back because they want to do other things
AKA a griefing penalty.
And the ONLY people who will complain about it this is those players whose game play evolves around griefing.
So cry moar.
As stated. You are putting a label on your head as a murder hobo.
And this game, as quoted by steven, is not for that...
http://www.aocwiki.net/MMORPG_Q&A_2017-05-22#.5B42:00.5D_Is_the_game_world_open_PvP.3F
And my type is a PvP player.....and you dont speak for me.
The term 'potent debuffs' is a misnomer. Killing one green player doesn't give the attacking player a 'potent debuff' it just reduces their stats some. The more greens that are killed the larger the 'debuff' and we don't know the original amount of the 'debuff' for one kill. I am under the impression IS won't 'punish' PvP/Red players so drastically by killing one Green they won't ever do it again.
Go on a "green hunt" without taking a dive in PvP and those stat bonuses will increase potentially becoming *potent*.
The incorrect use of terminology is in a lot of cases why forum members chase each other around bushes in this type of thread.
@Sikuba I really liked your post. There are indeed some issues with the system (as much as we know of it, at least). Let me elaborate a bit with some questions:
1. So, as a non-combatant, I am more or less forced to fight if I get attacked, otherwise I lose more resources. Yet, the attacker doesn't get flagged this way, but I still lose (so I'm helping him if I actually attack). This sounds completely off for me.
2. Everyone who gets a surprise attack on someone who is farming, is more likely to get the kill (just like in real life - if you get hit by a sucker punch before you can do anything, it doesn't matter if you're a black belt in Kung Fu). Again, the defender is at a disadvantage because fighting back means the attacker gets no penalty (and you lose some resources too - fewer, yes, but you still lost).
3. What happens if a non-combatant drops an AOE effect to kill some mobs, then some other non-combatant gets into this AOE? Will the first guy get flagged as an attacker? If not, how can you prevent it? By not creating any AOE spells that can be laid on the ground?
4. Same question as above, but for when a non-combatant goes in the middle of your mobs (etc, etc) such that you hit him too when you use an AOE. Should it be ok to be forced to single target stuff because of someone wanting to flag you for PvP without risking any penalty after they kill you? I bet there will be more ways to do this once the game is out.
Now, I do understand the concept of shared resources. If the game/system protects players from being attacked at all, then everyone wanting to gather stuff will simply remove the flag and farm in peace, while others are frowning nearby because they weren't the first to get there. This becomes frustrating fast (no one is going to be the first every time). Putting enough resources in the world is another way, but it's the "standard" way... so maybe this is not something desired.
I think we need some changes in place that prevent repeated kills but also "protect" somehow the people who are defending. Let's be honest, no one is going to attack you unless you are actually focused on gathering, or they know they can win for sure (maybe from level difference, gear, etc). Everyone is (and should) try to have all advantages before starting a fight. That means you mining a resources and him coming from behind and getting your life down by at least 25% before you can do anything
Ideas:
A. Very important - players should have an idea about how strong someone attacking them is. Of course, gear swapping and other stupid "exploits" should not be available. How to do this I am not 100% sure, because I don't know the devs' vision for the game regarding this, but I do have one idea:
Put a little icon, with thick colored borders, next to each player's name, with 6 possibilities: green, yellow, white(or gray), orange, red, black. These colors should change according to the difference in level and gear between you and the other players (i.e. giving you a rough estimate of what chances you have to actually win a fight with someone). They should also take into account penalties from corruption and other things.
B. Make corruption dependent on the level difference, gear difference and how even the fight is (e.g. it's not like someone has any chance in a 3v1), even when killing one guy AND even when you fight back.
Sure, you get his resources, but if he can't really fight back, it becomes a risk for you to get those resources back without getting killed by others. Being a predator should not be without consequences. Just as an example, considering point A from above (i.e. when you get attacked by someone with this color and you run away or attack back, he gets corruption):
Yes, this means that corruption should happen every time to the attacker. Otherwise, no one is going to be able to farm anything unless they fight back and win. But then others will be nearby and kill you immediately. This is forced PvP and I don't think it's right.
C. The quantity of resources dropped by the defender should be reversed. The fewest should be when you run away. While I can understand why the reversed is implemented, tell me how many of you are NOT going to attack someone that wants to kill you when you know you have a chance???!!! The people running should be only those that know don't have a chance or simply don't care about it. Why penalize them the most?!
D. When you are targeting mobs with your abilities, they should not flag you for PVP if you hit another player. That should happen only when you target the player (not PVE objects). Sure, he can attack you when you're fighting mobs, but won't be able to abuse your AOEs to make you an attacker and not risk a penalty.
E. With all the penalties in place (especially the ones for the defender), I think there should be a mitigation factor to the fact that someone attacks you by surprise. It can literally be anything... immunity for 2 seconds, a shield of extra hit points equal to twice the hits you received until you attacked back (that lasts for 10-15 seconds), getting a warning that someone is targeting you, implementing a huge difference between damage done by abilities and players' hit points (i.e. fights lasting a long time), etc.
Seriously, the first-attack bonus should be mitigated or minimized somehow. It's huge.
Secondly, when someone is waiting to attack you after you fought another player is going to become an issue... like everyone's gonna wait for people to be low on life and then attack them (because, remember, they remain flagged if they attack back).
This turns into a binary system - people on low life will always run away; people on full life will fight one guy, then run away
F. Some way to mitigate ganking, i.e. many players versus much fewer players. Why? because some people want/like to play alone. And because crying for help in general chat is NOT fun (especially when no one gives a damn).
In my opinion, guilds are going to be completely overpowered within the current system.
G. What @Sikuba said about sworn enemies, making amends and this extending to guilds.
I do believe the current path of development for the Corruption stat is fine, as long as some more tweaks are done to it (in the lines I wrote above). Also, making something work with the idea of "shared resources" is going to be hard... and hard to keep away from forcing PvP onto everyone.
If you kill someone your own level in flagged PvP, the corruption gained will be minimal. We don't know how minimal, and I doubt Steven does right now either. What we know is that this penalty will be set (and re-balanced many times no doubt) to make sure that people *ARE* gaining corruption.
The notion that it will never be worth attacking a player and gaining corruption is the same thing as saying "I think Intrepid are useless as developers and will willingly ignore entire systems in their game post launch".
If that is the faith you have in Intrepid, regardless of your stance on PvP or PvE content, you probably should - for your own sake - move on to a different developer.
The next thing people seem to forget is that inventory space will be a big factor in many PvP players activities. We know we will not be able to carry much in the way of raw materials on us - allowing us to do so would negate the Caravan system. It couldwell be that after 3 or 4 PvP kills, a PvP'ers inventory is full of raws and they are best served by heading back to their home node. The corruption earned by killing 3 or 4 players of an equal level is probably fairly insignificant still - though if those players were all lower levels, I'd wager that corruption would be almost crippling.
I don't see people spending hours out in the wilderness just hunting and killing people, as multiple systems in the game don't allow for it. I do see PvP'ers hunting people of similar level to themselves though, as the systems will be balanced to where it is viable.
I understand that the stat dampening for players of similar level is minimal. I have gone back and reworded my response to further clarify my point. The "potent debuffs" that I spoke of had more to do with the fact that PKing for any reason results in some amount of Corruption. With the current system of Corruption, as I understand it, possessing any quantity will allow other players to attack you without being punished as a result. As you can see by the diagram below, Non-Combatants that attack Corrupted players are still considered Non-Combatants. This means that anyone is now allowed to attack you without becoming a Combatant or Corrupted. At the same time, as a Corrupted player, you are given incentive to kill Non-Combatants. If you attack a Non-Combatant, and they respond in kind, their status doesn't change. They don't become a Combatant, meaning that they retain the normal drop rate and death penalties as opposed to the half value that comes with being a Combatant. There appear to be a lot of contradictions in this system, many of which I failed to mention in my previous analysis. As I result, I have appended it a bit. This system is a lot more complicated than it appears, and it distracts from the world as a whole. It is workable, but it is going to be a challenging balancing process, the end result of which is still going to be just another system put in place to regulate a game. I'm really hoping to see repercussions that are more integrated with the world, and that is what I tried to give an example of in the second part of my original message.
I'm really interested to know your opinions on this and I appreciate you pointing out the faults in my original post.
- Sikuba
Someone attacks you in the woods, and instead of thinking of your tactical choices (combat wise) to find the tree where you can get LoS, find the high ground, mobs that could help you, etc...
...you instead start calculating if the other guy will proceed with the kill, or will he just walk away in the middle of it to not get corrupted.
Say what you wish but that majorly destroys any immersion.
And the problem is that you want open world PvP in Ashes to be something the developers does not want it to be. In AoC PvP is ment to happen in meaningful conflicts and not in ganking. Open world is designed to have just light danger, where you can be attacked, but just sometimes or rarely and not constantly.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. It becomes something to manipulate and work around and distracts from the meaning of each interaction.
I appreciate these developers and how responsive they have been with the community and in receiving criticism. I also acknowledge that this is not an unreasonable solution. If it is further balanced and developed, I'm sure it could become functional enough to keep the majority of players satisfied.
But as I have said before, this solution approaches the issue as a game rather than as a world in which people live and fight together. It contradicts the ideals that the developers have expressed in creating the game. I don't think that it should be scrapped entirely - rather reworked and integrated in a way that is conducive with a realistic social and competitive environment.
- Sikuba
I really want to believe that if someone is attacking you, he has a very valid reason and has decided that corruption gain is worth it for their specific scenario so they won't just leave halfway through killing someone. But of course there will always be a guy attacking for zero value and walking away to ruin your immersion fun.
I would also like to believe that the defender will almost always fight back unless they have nothing to protect or the resource being farmed has far less value to the defender than the attacker. But theres always gonna be that one guy that will start gathering something even though he doesn't need it just to see if anyone will attack him or not just to make an attacker gain corruption and then find a reason to kill without consequence afterwards. To me this is griefing and not bounty hunting. Hence my proposal that a fight between a bounty hunter and a corrupt player should be fair and without stat deduction
Like i said, theres many ways to exploit the system.
The issue with repressing PKing is that the current system does not consider PKing a necessary part of the game, rather a negative behavior that must be reprimanded. In many cases, PKing is the result of other negative interactions such as infringements on farm or mobs by other players. Take Black Desert Online, for example. At a certain farming zone, Sausan's Garrison, there are established rotations for clearing mobs efficiently. Several exist within the zone, so if the primary rotation is occupied, one can either compete with the occupying party, or decide to take a secondary rotation. For new players, these rotations are unknown. That is, until the new players begin infringing on the rotations of more experienced players. Thus death occurs until the new players figure out what they are doing wrong. BDO still has a Karma system that does not discriminate between rightful and wrongful killing. But the punishments are less immediate, and can be negated without needing to die. Regardless of the quantity, Corruption can only be removed through death, which can be very costly. Players with Corruption are also open to be killed by other enemies without any repercussions on their killers, making the act of simply defending your farm against an enemy who refuses to fight back a death sentence.
I do have faith in these developers, which is why I'm hoping that by responding and voicing my criticisms, I can positively influence this world. I understand that crafting an entire world from scratch is a tall order, and we can't expect everything to be perfect from conception. But if I or my ideas or critique may prove useful and reduce the strain on developers, I am more than happy to contribute my time and thoughts.
- Sikuba
If a green gets attached by a red and defends themselves I'd be ok either way. Staying green or going purple.
If a green sees a red and attacks they should have to go purple
No Corruption for killing a purple or red.
Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.