@NTBRO Well if you knew what she was doing, why did you react so viscerally? She showed you saying that people want to defend themselves, as well as people trying to run away. It's a fair assumption that they were meant to contrast, but the point is moot because people behave differently and it is irrational to think you would only see one outcome or another.
Idk, I'm just some random dude on the internet, so I guess you don't exactly have to care what I say, but you should try not to be so confrontational to people. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I feel like it must be something you do often, especially considering your name is NTBRO. Not trying to throw shots here, just stating my thoughts. Feel free to refute or ignore.
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
I have no doubt that the only reason corruption is in AoC is as a regulator.
That is the actual point of the system. If a system is needed for rergulation purposes (and a system like corruption *is* needed), I find it difficult to call out the fact of it being there to regulate as a negative.
By "It doesn't work as a part of the world itself ", do you mean in terms of the games lore, or that it seems out of place purely from a player perspective?
Still waiting first appropriate open world PvP thread.. Maybe next year?
No kidding this thread is about an idea, none of us have actually played the game with this feature yet so we cant say anything yet. Pointless thread, everyone is restating their same points repeatedly.
Idea? This thread is based of developers facts... This is their system... not like we invented these punishments out of thin air... this is what has been put in by the dev's, and hopefully its early enough to make them change some of these absurd punishments for simply playing their game. Its better to debate these things early then when its too late to do anything about it.
It's an idea, they plan on using it. It can change, not sure what you can not understand here. You have no clue if the system works well, and most players are not actively on the forums to post their opinions if they have any at this point. Maybe wait until NDA is over to discuss things like this is more detail? Or even create a poll with some general common opinions on how the system needs to be changed or not changed, rather than having a thread with 200 comments.
She specifically quoted 2 different posts of mine, picked and chose random things out of them without any context and made it seem like i responded 2 different ways to same topic, even though its 2 different scenarios that i responded in 2 different ways. She knows what she was doing, and she can play the victim game all she wants, she might get pity from some of you, but not from me.
It wasn't two different scenarios.
One was a scenario you made up that included not defending. The other was you saying of course people would defend themselves - with no scenario involved.
The point of that particular post was in an attempt to point out to you that people are paying attention and that you should think about the overall picture of what you are saying before posting and not just post argumentatively for no reason at all.
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
I have no doubt that the only reason corruption is in AoC is as a regulator.
That is the actual point of the system. If a system is needed for rergulation purposes (and a system like corruption *is* needed), I find it difficult to call out the fact of it being there to regulate as a negative.
By "It doesn't work as a part of the world itself ", do you mean in terms of the games lore, or that it seems out of place purely from a player perspective?
Yes, I'll clarify that a bit. What I mean is that this approach creates rules and regulations that can be manipulated and gamed, or worked around. Do this and you become Corrupt, or lose a certain amount of loot. But do it this way, and you are better off, while still accomplishing the same goal. I'll give you an example I wrote about previously: There's a problem with the system where Non-Combatants are also taking a higher risk attacking a Corrupted target than they would by attacking a Non-Combatant (who ends up fighting back) or Combatant. This is because Non-Combatants don't become Combatants when they fight Corrupt players. They don't acquire reduced penalties as a result.
But, say if those Non-Combatants want to halve the death penalty, they *can* just run by and attack random non-Corrupt players to acquire a Combatant status before trying to take down a Corrupt player. Hardly makes sense logically, but for the system, it works. This sort of thing destroys immersion. It's not a rule for a world, it's a rule for a game. AoC is supposed to be changing the face of the genre, but different versions of an antiquated Karma system don't align with that.
Say what you will about the system still being under construction and incomplete, but player will always search for ways to game this kind of system, and will usually succeed to some extent. That's why point-based systems are inferior to those where players hold each other accountable in some way or another. Give people the opportunity to decide what's right and wrong for themselves.
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.
Minimal or not.. you are now corrupted and on death suffer a penalty (assumed to be 4x the amount of a non-combatant) during which time if you defend yourself against additional greens it only serves to stack your corruption (because currently they don't flag purple for attacking a corrupted player).
That applies whether you attacked one person or 4 or someone your level or 15 below.
Yeah, but what is the incentive for someone who is Corrupt to defend against greens?
Pride?
Personally I don't want to die and random spawn I'd like to make it back to my freehold to unload resources. Otherwise my defending or attacking of a resource rich area was useless. I don't know about you but I try to die as little as possible. Pride really has nothing to do with it.
The fact that any green can attack and kill me with no repercussion at that point is biased. If they want to attack they should be flagged so IF and when I'm red I'm capable of defending myself without digging a deeper hole.
Keep in mind this is my view point.. If I have attacked you you are either 1) in a pvp area 2) purple already and I love pvp or 3) you've looted resources I just cleared enemies away from or already in a resource area that I wanted... I'm willing to fight for the ability to gather are you?
If you can not handle being corrupted dont PK without them being flagged, is this so hard to understand LOL
It really is though. Since when is it acceptable for a large, popular MMO to say PKing is off-limits? Acquiring any amount of Corruption means a guaranteed death with increased penalties. Meaning that if someone decides to take your farm, or cash in on your mobs, you need to be prepared for the fact that you WILL die as a result of killing them, should they decide to be the amazing people we know all MMO players are and ignore you. By ignoring you, they force you to make this choice: Kill and eventually Die with Corruption, or grin and bear it. This will be the new griefing, and IMO, it is worse than PKing.
It would be a much more viable system if there was another way to get rid of Corruption besides death. Player interactions are complex, and point-based Karma systems often fail to adequately accommodate that complexity.
It would be a much more viable system if there was another way to get rid of Corruption besides death. Player interactions are complex, and point-based Karma systems often fail to adequately accommodate that complexity.
There will definitely have to be ways to work it off besides death, almost every game with this system use killing monsters as a way to work it off, however im sure the devs will think of their own ways. Death will not be the only way im sure of that.
It would be a much more viable system if there was another way to get rid of Corruption besides death. Player interactions are complex, and point-based Karma systems often fail to adequately accommodate that complexity.
There will definitely have to be ways to work it off besides death, almost every game with this system use killing monsters as a way to work it off, however im sure the devs will think of their own ways. Death will not be the only way im sure of that.
You can be as sure as you want... Our concern right now, today, at this exact moment is that it has been stated clearly and directly from Steven that the only way to remove corruption is by pvp death, and on top of that while red any green player attacking you does not flag as a combatant so if you defend against an attack you get additional corruption. You can see how this is extremely one sided.
She specifically quoted 2 different posts of mine, picked and chose random things out of them without any context and made it seem like i responded 2 different ways to same topic, even though its 2 different scenarios that i responded in 2 different ways. She knows what she was doing, and she can play the victim game all she wants, she might get pity from some of you, but not from me.
It wasn't two different scenarios.
One was a scenario you made up that included not defending. The other was you saying of course people would defend themselves - with no scenario involved.
The point of that particular post was in an attempt to point out to you that people are paying attention and that you should think about the overall picture of what you are saying before posting and not just post argumentatively for no reason at all.
Clearly, that went over your head.
Firstly, no need to be rude. That old corny saying "Be the change you want to see"...
Well, I want to see this community and game not be toxic, or at least be less so than my former games.. So stahp. No need for that.
Secondly, you tried to show his statements conflicted when he talked about people not defending and taking advantage of Corruption debuffs to avoid getting killed along with how he said that it's only natural to want to defend oneself from attack. The thing is, they don't conflict because undoubtedly, both situations will arise countless times.
The Corruption debuffs are a pain to deal with. It becomes a case where you have to call whether someone's bluffing or not on whether they'll kill you and accept debuffs, or fight back. Hardly sounds like realistic, meaningful combat to me. I understand that you were trying to make a point, but you pulled things out of context that didn't even necessarily contradict each other without the context. Perhaps he should have been less aggressive in his response, but speaking strictly on the discussion itself, he wasn't incorrect.
It's such an issue nowadays where people ignore the topic and instead focus on poking and prodding each other because it is easier than actually getting something accomplished or agreed upon. Feel free to refute or voice your opinion.
You can be as sure as you want... Our concern right now, today, at this exact moment is that it has been stated clearly and directly from Steven that the only way to remove corruption is by pvp death, and on top of that while red any green player attacking you does not flag as a combatant so if you defend against an attack you get additional corruption. You can see how this is extremely one sided.
Jesus.. sounds like I wouldn't want to get on Steven's bad side LOL
It would be a much more viable system if there was another way to get rid of Corruption besides death. Player interactions are complex, and point-based Karma systems often fail to adequately accommodate that complexity.
There will definitely have to be ways to work it off besides death, almost every game with this system use killing monsters as a way to work it off, however im sure the devs will think of their own ways. Death will not be the only way im sure of that.
You can be as sure as you want... Our concern right now, today, at this exact moment is that it has been stated clearly and directly from Steven that the only way to remove corruption is by pvp death, and on top of that while red any green player attacking you does not flag as a combatant so if you defend against an attack you get additional corruption. You can see how this is extremely one sided.
exactly, but you will still have people who will quote half of your post, and say something like "Im a pve player and i should be able to harvest in safety all i want" Those people just simply ignore the basic fundamentals of unbalanced gameplay which is what this PvP punishment system is. Its pretty unheard of to have such heavy punishments, especially by having to die to get rid of your corruption and then on top others can attack you without fear, pretty crazy.
Hopefully we have some dev's that can test and re think some of these issues since there is plenty of time to tweak them.
Again, not specifically directed at anyone, but due to a number of complaints about this thread, I have to kindly ask once again for people to focus on the issues and not resort to name calling or personal jabs.
It's okay for people to have different opinions! We are a diverse community and these discussions are an important part of the process of coming to grips with the game and providing feedback to the developers.
I can sense the passion in this discussion and really hope it can continue to unfold in a constructive way
Again, not specifically directed at anyone, but due to a number of complaints about this thread, I have to kindly ask once again for people to focus on the issues and not resort to name calling or personal jabs.
It's okay for people to have different opinions! We are a diverse community and these discussions are an important part of the process of coming to grips with the game and providing feedback to the developers.
I can sense the passion in this discussion and really hope it can continue to unfold in a constructive way
Ouch, a mod had to pop in for a second visit. Only got here around page 5, so I didn't realize this was such a spicy topic. Other than one little spat, it's been pretty relaxed from what I've seen, though. A lot of good discussion happening here, despite it being something so controversial within the player-base.
The best thing about these forums and this community as a whole is that everyone seems to have hope in this game, and genuinely wants for to help make it as good as possible. It's hard to find good vibes like that on the internet, these days.
I may dislike the current Corruption system that has been announced, but as a whole, I love what this game is doing, or trying to do. And I'm sure everyone here feels the same. Keep it up, Intrepid!
Again, not specifically directed at anyone, but due to a number of complaints about this thread, I have to kindly ask once again for people to focus on the issues and not resort to name calling or personal jabs.
It's okay for people to have different opinions! We are a diverse community and these discussions are an important part of the process of coming to grips with the game and providing feedback to the developers.
I can sense the passion in this discussion and really hope it can continue to unfold in a constructive way
That is not gona happen ever. It is always the same thing, even some people can give constructive feedback and have valid ideas, it still ends up like a mess. Open world PvP discussions are open world PvP itself. Open world PvP is a field, which easily heats up the feelings of everybody.
Formula is just always the same. Some open world PvP lover wants to get rid of corruption system or at least get some changes to it so they can more freely kill other players with less penalty to themselfs. After that he decides to start a new thread. That will automatically cause powerful reaction against by PvE/PvX players and after that some other OWPvP players jumps in too and we have a soup in no time. Voila!
I just want to say one more thing. Corruption system is there for a reason and if devs vision of their own product does not please you, then please don't try desperately change it and just move to another game, where has more focus on open world PvP. I am pretty sure that devs does not turn their coats related to this matter, because they will loose more players than what they will get. And i don't think they want to deceive all the backers and supporters who have spend a lot of money because of the concept they have marketed. So it is really hard to see devs bend.
That is not gona happen ever. It is always the same thing, even some people can give constructive feedback and have valid ideas, it still ends up like a mess. Open world PvP discussions are open world PvP itself. Open world PvP is a field, which easily heats up the feelings of everybody.
Formula is just always the same. Some open world PvP lover wants to get rid of corruption system or at least get some changes to it so they can more freely kill other players with less penalty to themselfs. After that he decides to start a new thread. That will automatically cause powerful reaction against by PvE/PvX players and after that some other OWPvP players jumps in too and we have a soup in no time. Voila!
I just want to say one more thing. Corruption system is there for a reason and if devs vision of their own product does not please you, then please don't try desperately change it and just move to another game, where has more focus on open world PvP. I am pretty sure that devs does not turn their coats related to this matter, because they will loose more players than what they will get. And i don't think they want to deceive all the backers and supporters who have spend a lot of money because of the concept they have marketed. So it is really hard to see devs bend.
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of this discussion. I have seen little evidence of people who are actually expressing that they want to eliminate regulation on open-world PvP. Categorizing people as people who are for or against it is neither productive, nor accurate.
I rarely if ever actually engaged in open-world PvP in any MMO that I ever played. I would do arenas or battlegrounds, or whatever other system of PvP the game had in place, but I was never one to go around and just PK people. Despite this, I still believe that there are other solutions that would be much better suited to regulating PKing. If you're interested in what faults I or others find with the system, I would suggest that you go back and browse the previous posts on this discussion. I can assure you there are many insightful opinions and evaluations there. Or if you would like to read some of them all together, you can just browse through my comment history and find a discussion that interests you.
It's not fair to say that this discussion is going nowhere, and if that is your opinion now, I can almost guarantee that after further reviewing some of the posts made on this thread, you will change your mind.
So, I think we all agree that we need SOME kind of system to prevent griefing and useless PKing and other forms of making the life miserable for other players.
At the same time, it is clear that the current corruption system is going to be gamed in some way, or that it's going to drive some aspects of the game in unwanted directions (like attacking someone until he's low on life, but not killing him, just to prevent the gathering action; or attacking someone else first such that you can attack whomever you want without getting penalties; or getting into people's AOEs or between mobs such that you become a combatant and can attack them without penalty etc).
I do think that the current framework is ok for such a system, it just needs different interactions and some more limitations to work.
Suppose we have the following:
- the "player types": non-combatants, combatants, corrupted.
- the "goal": world resources (gatherable, i.e. requiring time to get, during which you can be attacked and interrupted).
- the amount of corruption one can get should scale by the difference in level and gear (also see the PS sectionon how to get an informed decision before committing to your PvP action).
What we lack is a resource flagging system, i.e. "I want to gather that resource, after killing these nearby mobs or whatever". This should, most likely, be a castable ability, with ~45 seconds cooldown and a small circular area of effect, that simply puts a flag over a chosen resource for 60 seconds. That flag will be visible to everyone else.
Now, consider these general rules:
- every time you flag a resource, you become a combatant (if not already and if not corrupted).
- when another player kills one that had flagged a resource, the flag is removed.
- gathering free (non-flagged) resources is the best case scenario - you don't impose on the "gathering rights" of anyone else.
- one resource can only have one flag at a time, but this won't prevent it from being gathered by anyone;
***Notice that, if you reverse the timer values from above, there will be a time during which non-combatants could gather the resource and everyone attacking them will become corrupted (see below). This will most likely deter any form of PvP over resources and I'm not sure this is desired by the devs.
Use cases:
1. Non-combatants: - if you just walk around not gathering anything OR gathering free resources and someone else attacks you, he becomes (more) corrupted; - if you attempt gathering a flagged resource, then that player will be able to attack you without penalty, plus:
- the resource flag duration is extended until the fight is over;
- you will become a combatant when getting attacked while trying to gather a flagged resource;
- the resource becomes free when the combat is over (with any outcome) and will need to be reflagged;
- if you attack someone that is a non-combatant AND he didn't try to gather one of your flagged resources, you become corrupted; - if you attack a combatant or corrupted, you become a combatant; - notice you can attack a combatant without any penalty, meaning that you can help someone that tried to "steal" a resource if that's what you want (yet you will probably have to fight him over it too).
2. Combatants: - you can get attacked by almost anyone and defend without any of you getting any penalties; only corrupted get more corruption if you didn't try to gather a resource resource they flagged; - you can attack anyone without penalties, except non-combatants that didn't try to gather resources you flagged (otherwise become corrupted);
3. Corrupted: - you can get attacked by anyone and defend without any of you having any penalties; - you can attack corrupted without penalties; doing this will lower your corruption level if you win the fight; - you can attack non-combatants and combatants, without penalties, that tried to gather resources you flagged; - if you attack a non-combatant or combatant that didn't try to gather a resource you flagged, you get more corruption; - notice that you can defend against anyone without penalties, but cannot attack non-combatants or combatants that didn't try to steal your resources;
I think this system would work properly, at least in 1v1 situations.
PS:
a) It very late here, so I may very well be wrong. Please find any flaws/exploits in what I wrote and maybe we can get rid of them together.
b) Do you think this will work for group vs group PvP as well? What would you change? Cases like 2v1 or 3v1 are more than likely lost already, but how should a 2v2 or 3v3 or 5v5 work in terms of flagging? Should being in a party/raid matter or not? etc
c) As I said on a post from page 5 of this thread, we will need more information on what types of players we are facing, in order to get an informed decision on what to do next. Maybe we want to attack and get corruption if we can win the fight and the reward is worth it. I'll copy-paste that bit here:
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 or makes mistakes.
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!
It's not a rule for a world, it's a rule for a game.
This seems to be the essence of your issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
AoC first and foremost, is a game. It contains a world, but not until after it is a game. Having rules that make it sometimes feel like a game isn't a fault. Our characters don't die they go too long without food or drink - simply because that doesn't make for the type of game Intrepid want AoC to be, even though it would have to be a thing if AoC was a world before it was a game.
However, I don't expect that answer to be enough - and that's cool.
In order to be immersed in a fantasy world, observers of the world (players, in terms of an MMO) have to have an element of suspension of disbelief. We have to take things that logically don't seem plausible within the world we are observing and basically chose to let them slide.
Intrepid are doing what they can to make this suspension of disbelief easier for us observers of their world. They are trying to make this system fit in with the game, including adding an in game visual representation of corruption on characters. An example being this troll that is displaying corruption on one side.
Also, in terms of lore, as the world of Verra itself is corrupted, I'm sure there is a connection between that corruption and the corruption our characters will experience.
It may well be a case that nothing Intrepid do will make this system seem like a natural part of the world to some players - but again that is where suspension of disbelief comes in to play.
If you can not handle being corrupted dont PK without them being flagged, is this so hard to understand LOL
Actually no, instead I will try to provide feedback to developers about what are the failings of the system (as I see it) while game is in pre-alpha, and hope they will fix the system to be more balanced.
If, by the time the game is released, the system is still not to my liking, I will simply not play the game.
And if developers actually want for PvPers to play their game, they will not make the system so much inbalanced in favor of people that just want to avoid PvP.
If you can not handle being corrupted dont PK without them being flagged, is this so hard to understand LOL
Actually no, instead I will try to provide feedback to developers about what are the failings of the system (as I see it) while game is in pre-alpha, and hope they will fix the system to be more balanced.
If, by the time the game is released, the system is still not to my liking, I will simply not play the game.
And if developers actually want for PvPers to play their game, they will not make the system so much inbalanced in favor of people that just want to avoid PvP.
Is your only major issue with the system (taking in to account we don't know the severity of punishment in regards to corruption) the potential issue with greens attacking reds?
Is your only major issue with the system (taking in to account we don't know the severity of punishment in regards to corruption) the potential issue with greens attacking reds?
My issue with the system is that (imho) atm the system is very imbalanced and favors staying green above going red.
Issue of greens attacking reds is just one of the issues I see with the current system.
I have said many times that I wouldn't get rid of the system completely, as I do believe that level 50 killing level 10, 30 times in a row should be heavily deterred.
However, this system, as is stands now, also deters equal level fights as long as one player chooses to stay green. And that does not fit in to a PvX game, where fights about resources must be led.
Player that chooses to not be a part of PvX, but rather stay green and die, should have equally harsh death penalty as player that dies while being red.
@Crusader2010 I like the flagging idea and think that that is a possibility. From my understanding, flagging would be done by players who are confident in their fighting abilities to make sure that their area or farm will not be infringed upon. Players who are weaker would be less likely to use this as it removes the protective shield of a Corruption debuff from them. That's not a problem; rather, it's just the way it would be used.
The one thing I disagree with is that gear level should be taken into account when calculating Corruption. This is for multiple reasons, and it is fine if you disagree with one or all of them. For one, players should not be punished for being geared. They have worked to earn the gear they have, and so they deserve the benefits of having it. Another reason is that players will be able to change and swap gear. Players could then strip their gear to increase the severity of the punishment for an approaching player with a stronger rating. Also, because it is possible to drop gear upon death, it is most likely going to be common to not wear your best gear constantly. Instead, one might wear an inferior set and in so doing would appear to be less of a threat than they really are.
I won't go any deeper into the specifics, but I like the way you are thinking and can appreciate a quality idea.
I also always argument my posts, state reasons why I believe something is more viable than something else and also offer concrete suggestions.
One of such suggestions was, for example, that an action of gathering a resource flags you purple for certain amount of time, so your competition has a chance to compete for that resource that you picked up.
This still leaves corruption in play for all the meaningless ganking and griefing, and in same time it allows people to fight about resources, as PvX game should allow them.
(This does not solve all the problems of current system, but it does solve one part)
There is plenty of time to get lot of issues fixed, and hopefully, we are able to get dev's attention about our concerns before the system can fully be implemented and set in stone.
I think the basis for many complaints are about the system being fair to everyone and making general sense as well having good balance between risk vs reward which currently it does not.
What i would like to see is, having some sort of PvP restrictions on the early game content, so like early game resources lets say for example under lvl 30 should be in some sort of peaceful zone where maybe you can restrict or not have any pvp for the purpose of learning the games basics.
Then having the end game content or higher level content resources having a less or minimal punishing PvP penalties because that is where the risk vs reward should shine, on high tier resources that experienced players ****SHOULD**** have to fight for, but without the fear of being punished for simply playing the game and or helping their guild get as many resources as they can, or even get as much as they can for themselves.
That to me makes sense, risk vs reward, lower tier stuff is easier to get, but also has less risk, higher tier stuff is harder, but with a lot more risk, but also by that level players should have a better understanding of the game and be more prepared for dangers that open world presents.
To me this makes sense, its still an open world concept, it gives newer players a chance to learn the game without as some may call it *griefing or harassment* but also is fair to players who actually immerse themselves into the open world concept and try to protect their own or guilds resources and not let just anyone harvest them for free without a fight.
This is just bare bones type of suggestion, but as i said before, there are plenty of ways to achieve good balance between risk vs reward without having to scare players into not wanting to fight anyone for anything for fear of losing xp and gear and being hunted and having to suicide yourself multiple times to get rid of the consequences of just playing the game.
The current system from aoc wiki. The problem with seeing PK as negative behaviour is that without it that way im sure griefers will find a way to grief. They understand that the system is harsh but depending on how easy it is to gain corruption or how much you get per kill, i'm hoping that the system works well for most people. The devs are aware of this issue and if it doesn't work, they will try something else, but there can never be a perfect system.
Comments
Well if you knew what she was doing, why did you react so viscerally? She showed you saying that people want to defend themselves, as well as people trying to run away. It's a fair assumption that they were meant to contrast, but the point is moot because people behave differently and it is irrational to think you would only see one outcome or another.
Idk, I'm just some random dude on the internet, so I guess you don't exactly have to care what I say, but you should try not to be so confrontational to people. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I feel like it must be something you do often, especially considering your name is NTBRO. Not trying to throw shots here, just stating my thoughts. Feel free to refute or ignore.
That is the actual point of the system. If a system is needed for rergulation purposes (and a system like corruption *is* needed), I find it difficult to call out the fact of it being there to regulate as a negative.
By "It doesn't work as a part of the world itself ", do you mean in terms of the games lore, or that it seems out of place purely from a player perspective?
One was a scenario you made up that included not defending. The other was you saying of course people would defend themselves - with no scenario involved.
The point of that particular post was in an attempt to point out to you that people are paying attention and that you should think about the overall picture of what you are saying before posting and not just post argumentatively for no reason at all.
Clearly, that went over your head.
But, say if those Non-Combatants want to halve the death penalty, they *can* just run by and attack random non-Corrupt players to acquire a Combatant status before trying to take down a Corrupt player. Hardly makes sense logically, but for the system, it works. This sort of thing destroys immersion. It's not a rule for a world, it's a rule for a game. AoC is supposed to be changing the face of the genre, but different versions of an antiquated Karma system don't align with that.
Say what you will about the system still being under construction and incomplete, but player will always search for ways to game this kind of system, and will usually succeed to some extent. That's why point-based systems are inferior to those where players hold each other accountable in some way or another. Give people the opportunity to decide what's right and wrong for themselves.
The fact that any green can attack and kill me with no repercussion at that point is biased. If they want to attack they should be flagged so IF and when I'm red I'm capable of defending myself without digging a deeper hole.
Keep in mind this is my view point.. If I have attacked you you are either 1) in a pvp area 2) purple already and I love pvp or 3) you've looted resources I just cleared enemies away from or already in a resource area that I wanted... I'm willing to fight for the ability to gather are you?
- Sikuba
Well, I want to see this community and game not be toxic, or at least be less so than my former games.. So stahp. No need for that.
Secondly, you tried to show his statements conflicted when he talked about people not defending and taking advantage of Corruption debuffs to avoid getting killed along with how he said that it's only natural to want to defend oneself from attack. The thing is, they don't conflict because undoubtedly, both situations will arise countless times.
The Corruption debuffs are a pain to deal with. It becomes a case where you have to call whether someone's bluffing or not on whether they'll kill you and accept debuffs, or fight back. Hardly sounds like realistic, meaningful combat to me. I understand that you were trying to make a point, but you pulled things out of context that didn't even necessarily contradict each other without the context. Perhaps he should have been less aggressive in his response, but speaking strictly on the discussion itself, he wasn't incorrect.
It's such an issue nowadays where people ignore the topic and instead focus on poking and prodding each other because it is easier than actually getting something accomplished or agreed upon. Feel free to refute or voice your opinion.
- Sikuba
Those people just simply ignore the basic fundamentals of unbalanced gameplay which is what this PvP punishment system is. Its pretty unheard of to have such heavy punishments, especially by having to die to get rid of your corruption and then on top others can attack you without fear, pretty crazy.
Hopefully we have some dev's that can test and re think some of these issues since there is plenty of time to tweak them.
It's okay for people to have different opinions! We are a diverse community and these discussions are an important part of the process of coming to grips with the game and providing feedback to the developers.
I can sense the passion in this discussion and really hope it can continue to unfold in a constructive way
The best thing about these forums and this community as a whole is that everyone seems to have hope in this game, and genuinely wants for to help make it as good as possible. It's hard to find good vibes like that on the internet, these days.
I may dislike the current Corruption system that has been announced, but as a whole, I love what this game is doing, or trying to do. And I'm sure everyone here feels the same. Keep it up, Intrepid!
- Sikuba
Formula is just always the same. Some open world PvP lover wants to get rid of corruption system or at least get some changes to it so they can more freely kill other players with less penalty to themselfs. After that he decides to start a new thread. That will automatically cause powerful reaction against by PvE/PvX players and after that some other OWPvP players jumps in too and we have a soup in no time. Voila!
I just want to say one more thing. Corruption system is there for a reason and if devs vision of their own product does not please you, then please don't try desperately change it and just move to another game, where has more focus on open world PvP. I am pretty sure that devs does not turn their coats related to this matter, because they will loose more players than what they will get. And i don't think they want to deceive all the backers and supporters who have spend a lot of money because of the concept they have marketed. So it is really hard to see devs bend.
I rarely if ever actually engaged in open-world PvP in any MMO that I ever played. I would do arenas or battlegrounds, or whatever other system of PvP the game had in place, but I was never one to go around and just PK people. Despite this, I still believe that there are other solutions that would be much better suited to regulating PKing. If you're interested in what faults I or others find with the system, I would suggest that you go back and browse the previous posts on this discussion. I can assure you there are many insightful opinions and evaluations there. Or if you would like to read some of them all together, you can just browse through my comment history and find a discussion that interests you.
It's not fair to say that this discussion is going nowhere, and if that is your opinion now, I can almost guarantee that after further reviewing some of the posts made on this thread, you will change your mind.
Beware: My posts are long.
- Sikuba
At the same time, it is clear that the current corruption system is going to be gamed in some way, or that it's going to drive some aspects of the game in unwanted directions (like attacking someone until he's low on life, but not killing him, just to prevent the gathering action; or attacking someone else first such that you can attack whomever you want without getting penalties; or getting into people's AOEs or between mobs such that you become a combatant and can attack them without penalty etc).
I do think that the current framework is ok for such a system, it just needs different interactions and some more limitations to work.
Suppose we have the following:
What we lack is a resource flagging system, i.e. "I want to gather that resource, after killing these nearby mobs or whatever". This should, most likely, be a castable ability, with ~45 seconds cooldown and a small circular area of effect, that simply puts a flag over a chosen resource for 60 seconds. That flag will be visible to everyone else.
Now, consider these general rules:
Use cases:
1. Non-combatants:
- if you just walk around not gathering anything OR gathering free resources and someone else attacks you, he becomes (more) corrupted;
- if you attempt gathering a flagged resource, then that player will be able to attack you without penalty, plus:
- - the resource flag duration is extended until the fight is over;
- - you will become a combatant when getting attacked while trying to gather a flagged resource;
- - the resource becomes free when the combat is over (with any outcome) and will need to be reflagged;
- if you attack someone that is a non-combatant AND he didn't try to gather one of your flagged resources, you become corrupted;- if you attack a combatant or corrupted, you become a combatant;
- notice you can attack a combatant without any penalty, meaning that you can help someone that tried to "steal" a resource if that's what you want (yet you will probably have to fight him over it too).
2. Combatants:
- you can get attacked by almost anyone and defend without any of you getting any penalties; only corrupted get more corruption if you didn't try to gather a resource resource they flagged;
- you can attack anyone without penalties, except non-combatants that didn't try to gather resources you flagged (otherwise become corrupted);
3. Corrupted:
- you can get attacked by anyone and defend without any of you having any penalties;
- you can attack corrupted without penalties; doing this will lower your corruption level if you win the fight;
- you can attack non-combatants and combatants, without penalties, that tried to gather resources you flagged;
- if you attack a non-combatant or combatant that didn't try to gather a resource you flagged, you get more corruption;
- notice that you can defend against anyone without penalties, but cannot attack non-combatants or combatants that didn't try to steal your resources;
I think this system would work properly, at least in 1v1 situations.
PS:
a) It very late here, so I may very well be wrong. Please find any flaws/exploits in what I wrote and maybe we can get rid of them together.b) Do you think this will work for group vs group PvP as well? What would you change? Cases like 2v1 or 3v1 are more than likely lost already, but how should a 2v2 or 3v3 or 5v5 work in terms of flagging? Should being in a party/raid matter or not? etc
c) As I said on a post from page 5 of this thread, we will need more information on what types of players we are facing, in order to get an informed decision on what to do next. Maybe we want to attack and get corruption if we can win the fight and the reward is worth it. I'll copy-paste that bit here:
Sorry for the long post and good night
AoC first and foremost, is a game. It contains a world, but not until after it is a game. Having rules that make it sometimes feel like a game isn't a fault. Our characters don't die they go too long without food or drink - simply because that doesn't make for the type of game Intrepid want AoC to be, even though it would have to be a thing if AoC was a world before it was a game.
However, I don't expect that answer to be enough - and that's cool.
In order to be immersed in a fantasy world, observers of the world (players, in terms of an MMO) have to have an element of suspension of disbelief. We have to take things that logically don't seem plausible within the world we are observing and basically chose to let them slide.
Intrepid are doing what they can to make this suspension of disbelief easier for us observers of their world. They are trying to make this system fit in with the game, including adding an in game visual representation of corruption on characters. An example being this troll that is displaying corruption on one side.
Also, in terms of lore, as the world of Verra itself is corrupted, I'm sure there is a connection between that corruption and the corruption our characters will experience.
It may well be a case that nothing Intrepid do will make this system seem like a natural part of the world to some players - but again that is where suspension of disbelief comes in to play.
Actually no, instead I will try to provide feedback to developers about what are the failings of the system (as I see it) while game is in pre-alpha, and hope they will fix the system to be more balanced.
If, by the time the game is released, the system is still not to my liking, I will simply not play the game.
And if developers actually want for PvPers to play their game, they will not make the system so much inbalanced in favor of people that just want to avoid PvP.
My issue with the system is that (imho) atm the system is very imbalanced and favors staying green above going red.
Issue of greens attacking reds is just one of the issues I see with the current system.
I have said many times that I wouldn't get rid of the system completely, as I do believe that level 50 killing level 10, 30 times in a row should be heavily deterred.
However, this system, as is stands now, also deters equal level fights as long as one player chooses to stay green. And that does not fit in to a PvX game, where fights about resources must be led.
Player that chooses to not be a part of PvX, but rather stay green and die, should have equally harsh death penalty as player that dies while being red.
At the moment, that is not nearly equal.
I like the flagging idea and think that that is a possibility. From my understanding, flagging would be done by players who are confident in their fighting abilities to make sure that their area or farm will not be infringed upon. Players who are weaker would be less likely to use this as it removes the protective shield of a Corruption debuff from them. That's not a problem; rather, it's just the way it would be used.
The one thing I disagree with is that gear level should be taken into account when calculating Corruption. This is for multiple reasons, and it is fine if you disagree with one or all of them. For one, players should not be punished for being geared. They have worked to earn the gear they have, and so they deserve the benefits of having it. Another reason is that players will be able to change and swap gear. Players could then strip their gear to increase the severity of the punishment for an approaching player with a stronger rating. Also, because it is possible to drop gear upon death, it is most likely going to be common to not wear your best gear constantly. Instead, one might wear an inferior set and in so doing would appear to be less of a threat than they really are.
I won't go any deeper into the specifics, but I like the way you are thinking and can appreciate a quality idea.
- Sikuba
One of such suggestions was, for example, that an action of gathering a resource flags you purple for certain amount of time, so your competition has a chance to compete for that resource that you picked up.
This still leaves corruption in play for all the meaningless ganking and griefing, and in same time it allows people to fight about resources, as PvX game should allow them.
(This does not solve all the problems of current system, but it does solve one part)
I think the basis for many complaints are about the system being fair to everyone and making general sense as well having good balance between risk vs reward which currently it does not.
What i would like to see is, having some sort of PvP restrictions on the early game content, so like early game resources lets say for example under lvl 30 should be in some sort of peaceful zone where maybe you can restrict or not have any pvp for the purpose of learning the games basics.
Then having the end game content or higher level content resources having a less or minimal punishing PvP penalties because that is where the risk vs reward should shine, on high tier resources that experienced players ****SHOULD**** have to fight for, but without the fear of being punished for simply playing the game and or helping their guild get as many resources as they can, or even get as much as they can for themselves.
That to me makes sense, risk vs reward, lower tier stuff is easier to get, but also has less risk, higher tier stuff is harder, but with a lot more risk, but also by that level players should have a better understanding of the game and be more prepared for dangers that open world presents.
To me this makes sense, its still an open world concept, it gives newer players a chance to learn the game without as some may call it *griefing or harassment* but also is fair to players who actually immerse themselves into the open world concept and try to protect their own or guilds resources and not let just anyone harvest them for free without a fight.
This is just bare bones type of suggestion, but as i said before, there are plenty of ways to achieve good balance between risk vs reward without having to scare players into not wanting to fight anyone for anything for fear of losing xp and gear and being hunted and having to suicide yourself multiple times to get rid of the consequences of just playing the game.
The current system from aoc wiki.
The problem with seeing PK as negative behaviour is that without it that way im sure griefers will find a way to grief. They understand that the system is harsh but depending on how easy it is to gain corruption or how much you get per kill, i'm hoping that the system works well for most people. The devs are aware of this issue and if it doesn't work, they will try something else, but there can never be a perfect system.