How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system

G'day ppls, 

So,, Ive been thinking about the Corruption system that Steven has mentioned. As stated many times in Discord and on these forums, there are multiple ways for Pk'ers (The corrupted) to game the system such as having their guildies kill them X amount of times until the corruption has been removed. This also safeguards the corruptors gear as guildies can just pick them up and trade them back to the corrupted player. This removes all the risk from the corrupted and will also destroy the Bounty Hunter System that Steven whats to implement and that alot of ppl liked.

So, as i said, Ive been thinking how to get around this, to limit the corrupted from gaming the system and to promote a healthy Bounty Hunter system.

So, I thought why not have the corrupted players have to complete a long chain quest to remove corruption and this chain quest can be called, The Quest of Redemption.  The more corrupted you are, the longer the Quest of Redemption will take to complete.

What this quest will do is force the corrupted player to different points over Verra and complete tasks. Once these tasks are completed the corrupted has thus been cleansed/redeemed.  What this does then, is makes this into a race of the corrupted versus the Bounty Hunters.  The corrupted needs to finish this quest asap, and the Bounty Hunters need to track the corrupted down asap before he/she/it finishes this quest.   This negates any gaming of the corrupted system by having guildies kill u and protect your loot and makes the whole Bounty Hunter system relevant and fun and exciting. It also promotes the thrill of the hunt for the Bounty Hunters and genuine fear for the corrupted as he/she/it might be tracked down anytime during the Quest of Redemption.  To make this fair for the corrupted, the Quest of Redemption should have random points over Verra and random tasks so the Bounty Hunters cant game the system and wait for the corrupted player at known points for this quest.

Give me your thoughts/Ideas/Opinions ppls.
«1

Comments

  • Your example for gaming the the corruption system is a non-argument because it has already been confirmed that guild mates can't flag on each other, so therefore can't kill each other.


    But I do think a long chain quest to get rid of Corruption would be a nice alternative to having to die. Both should be effective means of getting rid of Corruption.
  • This horse has been dead and kicked so many times I'm surprised @nagash hasn't shown up. Also please don't spread misinformation the corruption system is pretty well thought out and guildies/alliance/party/friends list cannot clear your corruption. It may have it's flaws but it should be balanced before release.

    http://www.aocwiki.net/Main_Page is pretty well maintained and has a collection of known information if ya wanna check it out. 
  • This horse has been dead and kicked so many times I'm surprised @nagash hasn't shown up. Also please don't spread misinformation the corruption system is pretty well thought out and guildies/alliance/party/friends list cannot clear your corruption. It may have it's flaws but it should be balanced before release.

    http://www.aocwiki.net/Main_Page is pretty well maintained and has a collection of known information if ya wanna check it out. 
    Oh this is past that point. the pvp has been killed resurrected, killed again then nuked with by a level 10 Archmage. there is nothing left but smoke and dust
  • Quest of redemption sounds like a great idea in the way you describe it, especially the way it plays off against bounty hunters. So far the devs have only confirmed death as a way to rid yourself of corruption, but they have not counted out other mechanics such as this. Keep those ideas coming :)
  • Zastro said:
    Your example for gaming the the corruption system is a non-argument because it has already been confirmed that guild mates can't flag on each other, so therefore can't kill each other.


    But I do think a long chain quest to get rid of Corruption would be a nice alternative to having to die. Both should be effective means of getting rid of Corruption.
    @[email protected] Its not that hard for someone to leave Guild/Alliance, kill the corrupted friend then rejoin Guild/Alliance. Dont think players wont do that, cuz if it means they get to protect their gear that they have spent hours/days/weeks to obtain then im 100% sure they will do this.  The main point of my idea is that the whole {Killing} someone to remove corruption is not a good idea and can be gamed in so many ways.  A better idea imo, is to have ppl work their corruption off, hence The Quest of Redemption idea above. I cant think atm of a way to game this, so I opened this up to other ppl and maybe someone else will either improve on the idea and/or show its flaws.
  • Strykerz said:
    Zastro said:
    Your example for gaming the the corruption system is a non-argument because it has already been confirmed that guild mates can't flag on each other, so therefore can't kill each other.


    But I do think a long chain quest to get rid of Corruption would be a nice alternative to having to die. Both should be effective means of getting rid of Corruption.
    @[email protected] Its not that hard for someone to leave Guild/Alliance, kill the corrupted friend then rejoin Guild/Alliance. Dont think players wont do that, cuz if it means they get to protect their gear that they have spent hours/days/weeks to obtain then im 100% sure they will do this.  The main point of my idea is that the whole {Killing} someone to remove corruption is not a good idea and can be gamed in so many ways.  A better idea imo, is to have ppl work their corruption off, hence The Quest of Redemption idea above. I cant think atm of a way to game this, so I opened this up to other ppl and maybe someone else will either improve on the idea and/or show its flaws.
    Not to mention asking someone in the forums, discord or any social media to come kill you... In a friendly way.
  • @Strykerz You are not the first to come up with the "I will just leave guild and rejoin" argument. There is a very easy workaround for that. They just add a cooldown to rejoining the guild. Not that hard for them to do, plays into their decisions have consequence mantra, and is something they already have as a mechanic for citizenship. Also guild benefits may build up over time, just like the dreaded WOW does with guild rep. So if there wasn't a guild rejoin cooldown, the person who leaves loses all that shiny built up rep and has to regrind his guild perks. My point is that any workaround that you can come up with has been beat to death in various threads like many others here have pointed out. Ideas are great and more power to ya for thinking outside the box. But the corruption system is going to be what it is going to be and any workaround will be found and squashed during testing.
  • @Strykerz You are not the first to come up with the "I will just leave guild and rejoin" argument. There is a very easy workaround for that. They just add a cooldown to rejoining the guild. Not that hard for them to do, plays into their decisions have consequence mantra, and is something they already have as a mechanic for citizenship. Also guild benefits may build up over time, just like the dreaded WOW does with guild rep. So if there wasn't a guild rejoin cooldown, the person who leaves loses all that shiny built up rep and has to regrind his guild perks. My point is that any workaround that you can come up with has been beat to death in various threads like many others here have pointed out. Ideas are great and more power to ya for thinking outside the box. But the corruption system is going to be what it is going to be and any workaround will be found and squashed during testing.
    Can we really be confident that a testing population will be sufficient to figure out how to stop a Facebook group or Twitter hashtag? We can't think only in terms of in game communication.
  • @Althor As in a special message system for those with corruption to let people know their location so they can come kill them and give them their stuff back? Could work, but would have all the same limitations that in game communication would have. The person would need to be in the same general area since there is no fast travel, would need to make sure that not everyone could access the page since others would use it as a handy tool to just find out where the corrupted were planning on hanging out. The amount of effort and time to try and workaround the system with no guarantee that someone in the meantime isn't actively hunting you down to kill you could work. If we assume that the person who they ganked to gain the corruption in the first place hasn't screamed out in game that there is an active ganker around in that area and the players in that region haven't mobilized to hunt that person down. Lots of different variables.
    As for numbers of the testing population, just from the KS/Summer we know there are around 20,000 people that bought packages of various levels. We don't know how many people have bought packages from the site directly, but lets say another 10k for shits and giggles. That is 30k people with testing access at various phases. Now throw half of those out who aren't planning to test but instead will log on a couple times to see how the game is progressing. Throw half again out for those that JDGAF about the various mechanics/systems. And finally throw another half out who could care less about the corruption mechanic. Still leaves you with around 3-5k conservative estimate of people that will take an active interest in making the games systems as tight as possible.
  • PvP-centric players are literally the worst.

    If there is an exploit to be exploited, they will be the first to exploit it, and they will exploit it harder than anyone else. What makes it worse is that when caught, they will deny that the obvious exploit was even an exploit - because if the game lets then do it, how can it be an exploit...

    Even a questing system will be exploited by PvP players - and I can already think of a half dozen ways the OP's system will be exploited.

    The only reason the system that Intrepid have decided to go with will work is because they have stated that they know players will behave in ways that they didn't intend and do not want, and they will deal with that as and when it comes.

    All of the issues the OP has outlined in this thread can be eliminated by instituting account wide diminishing returns on corruption removed per kill - with the potential to reach zero.

    Put that in place, and suddenly the possible exploits are cut down exponentially.

    By the time Alpha 1 comes around, my household will have three accounts with alpha access, and a definite plan to explore any and all ways to game the corruption system that we are able to find, and anything we find, we will let Intrepid know.

  • My problem with these "work arounds" is that they aren't as safe and convenient as people like to act. You still have a period of vulnerability and need to spend time doing this. It is still stopping you from continuing to kill and giving you a time sink which is the point of the system.

    That said, i do agree there should be another way to lose corruption besides death to give corrupted players a goal and encourage people to pursue corrupted players so they receive the maximum punishment. If death really is the only way to remove corruption then it seems like you would be encouraged to get yourself killed before your corruption gets too high.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    well you could just as easily have a corruption buddy just go on a chat channel and get someone one to kill you .  It will actuall be necessary who is going to want to wait for a bounty hunter to come kill them to have debuffs go away.  As soon as you get red then it will be necessary to get green no one is going to wait for bounty hunter.  I much rather die at my own convenience then wait for some bouty hunter to kill while I am playing the game.

    Think would be better if you just let people flag themselves for pvp have so it is on a cooldown so they do not unflagg themsleves just to keep from getting hunted and have it so it can only happen in a city or safe area like free hold so it does not get abused.  So if you want to be part of the open world pvp game (no open world pvp game is actaully in place for Ashes of Creation besides bounty hunters) then it is your choice.  

    We have the every one can attack everyone game mechanic but we wont be able to enjoy true world pvp.  One example of world pvp is Battle Star Galactica online.  Though it could use much improvements.  That game is basically all PVP and All world PvP just using BSG online as an example cause do not want to make extra long  post on the Ashes of Creation versions of it.  Sure the devs could some up with that one on their own.  Just want  to point out that open world pvp has to be implemented not just have an every one can kill every one game mechanic.

    For example if there was a pvp mount that only came from killing people in open world pvp by getting some form of currency same thing  could go for titles and gear and special cosmetics items like a sash or tabbard.

    I mean there will be battleground and seiges and caravans but open world pvp will just get hampered by this corruption system.   I recommend to post about it when the game goes live as it is right now we have beating a dead horse for a long time now. 


    But just to put it out there this game looks just plain awesome with monster coins and seiges and it looks like they are leaving out a lot of the stupid things that other mmorpgs do. So corruption system is not a deal breaker.  
  • open world pvp will just get hampered by this corruption system.
    That's what it is there to do - hamper open world PvP.

    You are looking at the situation from the perspective of a player that already has corruption. You need to take it one step further back.

    Assuming Intrepid deal with all situations of corruption removal abuse and exploitation, look at the situation when you are out in the world and you come across another player.

    If you are the kind of player that thinks "I could kill him", then your mind should immediately turn to what will happen after - the corruption you will gain, the fact that this will prevent you from interacting with the civilized parts of the world of Verra and the fact that this will put you in a position where losing the best item you have in your possession right now is a real possibility.

    Now, when you take all of this in to account (assuming Intrepid have dealt with any and all abuses and exploits), if the player you came across is just some random player, the most likely thing for you to do is to leave him to go about his business while you go about your own.

    That is corruption, as a system, at work. That is corruption doing what it is supposed to do.

    The only way you will even consider attacking him are if either of the two following are true - either you are almost certain that this player will fight back, meaning no corruption for you, or you have an actual reason to specifically want to kill this character right now.

    What corruption does is it essentially eliminates *random* open world PvP. It won't stop people killing players if they have a reason to kill them - and different players will look at different things as being valid reasons.

    Intrepid will have work to do to keep the system working as intended. Some of that work will involve plugging exploits as they show up (hopefully mostly pre-launch), and some of that work will involve balancing the mechanic in order to maintain a desired player-base action.
  • "If you are the kind of player that thinks "I could kill him", then your mind should immediately turn to what will happen after - the corruption you will gain, the fact that this will prevent you from interacting with the civilized parts of the world of Verra and the fact that this will put you in a position where losing the best item you have in your possession right now is a real possibility."

    The potential gear loss is used as hyperbole by many in the "remove corruption mechanics now!" crowd. While we don't know what level of corruption will start to give a chance at gear drops, it has been stated as high. So that person contemplating their corruption penalty would only be worried about that if they are planning on a green pacifist killing spree, which is what the mechanic is exactly there to prevent.
  • "If you are the kind of player that thinks "I could kill him", then your mind should immediately turn to what will happen after - the corruption you will gain, the fact that this will prevent you from interacting with the civilized parts of the world of Verra and the fact that this will put you in a position where losing the best item you have in your possession right now is a real possibility."

    The potential gear loss is used as hyperbole by many in the "remove corruption mechanics now!" crowd. While we don't know what level of corruption will start to give a chance at gear drops, it has been stated as high. So that person contemplating their corruption penalty would only be worried about that if they are planning on a green pacifist killing spree, which is what the mechanic is exactly there to prevent.
    Yes, my thinking is after killing a green you want to stop killing so you don't gain more corruption and find a way to remove your corruption. Creating a way to remove your corruption besides death doesn't go against the system as it has still stopped you from continuing to kill. You also still spend time vulnerable while working it off. There is still a risk and a time sink. 

  • Yes, my thinking is after killing a green you want to stop killing so you don't gain more corruption and find a way to remove your corruption. Creating a way to remove your corruption besides death doesn't go against the system as it has still stopped you from continuing to kill. You also still spend time vulnerable while working it off. There is still a risk and a time sink. 
    Any other mechanic they come up with needs to have an active component to it. Not just reduction over time. It will remove all deterrent if I know that I can park my corrupted toon inside my house/freehold, leave my computer on, and afk the corruption away while I go to work.

  • Yes, my thinking is after killing a green you want to stop killing so you don't gain more corruption and find a way to remove your corruption. Creating a way to remove your corruption besides death doesn't go against the system as it has still stopped you from continuing to kill. You also still spend time vulnerable while working it off. There is still a risk and a time sink. 
    Any other mechanic they come up with needs to have an active component to it. Not just reduction over time. It will remove all deterrent if I know that I can park my corrupted toon inside my house/freehold, leave my computer on, and afk the corruption away while I go to work.
    I 100% agree. It has to be active and the corrupted player should be vulnerable while doing it. 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018

    The potential gear loss is used as hyperbole by many in the "remove corruption mechanics now!" crowd. While we don't know what level of corruption will start to give a chance at gear drops, it has been stated as high. So that person contemplating their corruption penalty would only be worried about that if they are planning on a green pacifist killing spree, which is what the mechanic is exactly there to prevent.
    While true, it has also been stated that killing someone 40 levels below you may result in ten times the corruption penalty of killing someone the same level as you.

    If killing ten equal level players does not trigger potential gear loss, the corruption system will be ineffective. If killing ten equal level players does trigger gear loss, killing one player of significantly lower level will trigger gear loss.

    The reason I consider this to be valid is because I can see a *lot* of people using low level alts to do basic harvesting with what we know of the system, and the way it is currently.

    If what we know of the system stays as it is, it is what I plan on doing.

    ---

    IMO, adding a secondary system to remove corruption 'could' work, but it would need to put the corrupt player in greater risk of being killed by another player than if they were just running around.

    A simple randomized task would defeat the purpose of corruption in general, as it would allow serious PK'ers to effectively PK at will, and then follow that with said simple task.

    Putting a daily limit on a simple task to remove corruption opens PK'ing up to even more players. People will log in, kill how ever many people they can while keeping within the corruption reduction of the daily task, and then perform said task. Then they would look at what they want to do for the say. The whole thing would function like a daily quest from "other games".

    While I do believe there could be a system other than death that could be a viable way to remove corruption, I've yet to think of something that I consider workable, nor have I read a suggestion anyone else has offered.
  • Noaani said:

    The potential gear loss is used as hyperbole by many in the "remove corruption mechanics now!" crowd. While we don't know what level of corruption will start to give a chance at gear drops, it has been stated as high. So that person contemplating their corruption penalty would only be worried about that if they are planning on a green pacifist killing spree, which is what the mechanic is exactly there to prevent.
    While true, it has also been stated that killing someone 40 levels below you may result in ten times the corruption penalty of killing someone the same level as you.

    If killing ten equal level players does not trigger potential gear loss, the corruption system will be ineffective. If killing ten equal level players does trigger gear loss, killing one player of significantly lower level will trigger gear loss.

    The reason I consider this to be valid is because I can see a *lot* of people using low level alts to do basic harvesting with what we know of the system, and the way it is currently.

    If what we know of the system stays as it is, it is what I plan on doing.

    ---

    IMO, adding a secondary system to remove corruption 'could' work, but it would need to put the corrupt player in greater risk of being killed by another player than if they were just running around.

    A simple randomized task would defeat the purpose of corruption in general, as it would allow serious PK'ers to effectively PK at will, and then follow that with said simple task.

    Putting a daily limit on a simple task to remove corruption opens PK'ing up to even more players. People will log in, kill how ever many people they can while keeping within the corruption reduction of the daily task, and then perform said task. Then they would look at what they want to do for the say. The whole thing would function like a daily quest from "other games".

    While I do believe there could be a system other than death that could be a viable way to remove corruption, I've yet to think of something that I consider workable, nor have I read a suggestion anyone else has offered.
    Yea, it can't be a simple task. It should be a time investment and that investment should increase in proportion to the amount of corruption you have. Whether it be a quest that makes you travel around or kill mobs, it will still take time.

    Remember while trying to do this you are being hunted by bounty hunters and any player who attacks you will remain green in the current system. If you defend yourself, you will gain more corruption and have to spend more time working it off. Even with this added to the system, gaining a corruption from one kill could turn into a huge ordeal as you try to work it off. Adding a second way to work off corruption gives the corrupted player a reason to try to defend them self because there is another way to work of corruption else you might as die to the first person who attacks you so your penalty doesn't increase.


  • Remember while trying to do this you are being hunted by bounty hunters
    This is the main reason I have trouble finding a way to make it work.

    If there is a single task that needs to be performed, and if that task takes all corrupt players to that specific location, it will mean all Bounty Hunters will head there as well. This means fewer Bounty Hunters in the rest of the world, which I would consider to be a negative thing.

    With Bounty Hunter being an actual progression path in and of itself, it is likely they will respond to reports of corrupt characters that are nearby. If the best way for them to progress is to be in one specific location, that means they aren't nearby to respond.

    The hardest part of this is that if this task is in the form of a quest (talk to NPC - perform action - talk to NPC), the NPC in question becomes a location that all corrupt players wishing to perform this task must travel to, making it the best location for Bounty Hunters.

    Since mob populations change based on node influence, a system where specific mobs need to be killed would have to be dynamically generated, otherwise there is a strong risk of the task asking you to kill mobs that don't currently exist on your server. This isn't necessarily something to prevent it's use, it is merely a consideration. 


  • Noaani said:

    Remember while trying to do this you are being hunted by bounty hunters
    This is the main reason I have trouble finding a way to make it work.

    If there is a single task that needs to be performed, and if that task takes all corrupt players to that specific location, it will mean all Bounty Hunters will head there as well. This means fewer Bounty Hunters in the rest of the world, which I would consider to be a negative thing.

    With Bounty Hunter being an actual progression path in and of itself, it is likely they will respond to reports of corrupt characters that are nearby. If the best way for them to progress is to be in one specific location, that means they aren't nearby to respond.

    The hardest part of this is that if this task is in the form of a quest (talk to NPC - perform action - talk to NPC), the NPC in question becomes a location that all corrupt players wishing to perform this task must travel to, making it the best location for Bounty Hunters.

    Since mob populations change based on node influence, a system where specific mobs need to be killed would have to be dynamically generated, otherwise there is a strong risk of the task asking you to kill mobs that don't currently exist on your server. This isn't necessarily something to prevent it's use, it is merely a consideration. 


    I feel like you are just making up holes and putting no effort into filling them. You are making a lot of assumptions where most of us are trying to keep the concept at a high level.

    It doesn't have to be in a single area or even in static areas. If bounty hunters are rewarded for gathering around these areas then they would be doing their jobs. I don't know why it matters if they kill the corrupted player 5 minutes after being corrupted or 30 minutes after. On top of that, I don't think these areas would have to be so far out of the way that bounty hunters couldn't move to intercept. Lastly, With how the population is spread out, it's hard for me to imagine these places even being that profitable to camp as i don't think there will be a steady stream of corrupted players coming in. It would probably be easier to do your own thing and move towards these areas when you know a corrupted player might be on their way.

    Yes, spawn tables change but i don't think it would be hard for there to always be "corruption-cure" mobs preset. I also don't see an issue if a corrupted player couldn't find his necessary mobs in a node and have to explore somewhere else. 
  • I feel like you are just making up holes and putting no effort into filling them. You are making a lot of assumptions where most of us are trying to keep the concept at a high level.
    I have specifically said I believe it could be doable, just that I have not come up with a way myself.

    Other than that, all I have done is listed a few of the things I would try to avoid if it were me trying to come up with this particular system.

    Verra is supposed to be 30 times the size of the Skyrim map. With 10,000 concurent players per server, that means an average of 333 players per Skyrim-sized portion of Verra.

    That is a lot of room to hide if you have corruption, and a long way to travel if you are a Bounty Hunter trying to catch someone with corruption.

    While some may disagree, I look at the presence of Bounty Hunters in the game as a deterrent to gaining corruption. Players with a PvP mindset that are given tools to help hunt you down - and who actually progress their character by doing so - seem to me to be a good deterrent. That is, of course, unless you can reasonably assume that there are none close by due to them all being at the specific location where all the corrupt players have to gather to accept this corruption removing task.

    So by my thinking, giving Bounty Hunters a specific location to gather to best catch corrupt players is actually weakening a deterrent to gaining corruption - or put differently, reducing a deterrent to people interrupting the play of others for no good reason.

    ---

    If there are many points where a task to remove corruption can be acessed, then players will have no trouble doing this. If players can expect to find the encounters they need to complete this task within one node, then the entire system is ineffective. This is because it won't be hard at all to know the majority of the citizens of a node - especially if that node is a smaller one.

    Living in such a node - where you know the majority of players, where you have access to a task that removes corruption and where you can complete said task -, that basically gives you free range to kill any player at any time, with little consequences past a bit of time needed to perform said task.

    If it were implemented in this manner, it would actually - literally - break the game.

    In order for a task to remove corruption, my expectation would be that it would require the player to traverse at least 20% of Verra - or from one side of a metropolis ZoI to the other - at a minimum. It would have to require the player to venture in to parts of the world where they would not otherwise frequent.
  • I'm hoping there are dark themed quests that require a certain level of corruption to obtain. Something like an npc that doesn't talk very much but starts to open up if you have a corruption score. Aside from whatever reason you may have had to kill a green, Something else that gives incentive to being corrupted and not just a system that discourages remaining corrupted as a whole.
  • "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
  • Noaani said:
    I feel like you are just making up holes and putting no effort into filling them. You are making a lot of assumptions where most of us are trying to keep the concept at a high level.
    I have specifically said I believe it could be doable, just that I have not come up with a way myself.

    Other than that, all I have done is listed a few of the things I would try to avoid if it were me trying to come up with this particular system.

    Verra is supposed to be 30 times the size of the Skyrim map. With 10,000 concurent players per server, that means an average of 333 players per Skyrim-sized portion of Verra.

    That is a lot of room to hide if you have corruption, and a long way to travel if you are a Bounty Hunter trying to catch someone with corruption.

    While some may disagree, I look at the presence of Bounty Hunters in the game as a deterrent to gaining corruption. Players with a PvP mindset that are given tools to help hunt you down - and who actually progress their character by doing so - seem to me to be a good deterrent. That is, of course, unless you can reasonably assume that there are none close by due to them all being at the specific location where all the corrupt players have to gather to accept this corruption removing task.

    So by my thinking, giving Bounty Hunters a specific location to gather to best catch corrupt players is actually weakening a deterrent to gaining corruption - or put differently, reducing a deterrent to people interrupting the play of others for no good reason.

    ---

    If there are many points where a task to remove corruption can be acessed, then players will have no trouble doing this. If players can expect to find the encounters they need to complete this task within one node, then the entire system is ineffective. This is because it won't be hard at all to know the majority of the citizens of a node - especially if that node is a smaller one.

    Living in such a node - where you know the majority of players, where you have access to a task that removes corruption and where you can complete said task -, that basically gives you free range to kill any player at any time, with little consequences past a bit of time needed to perform said task.

    If it were implemented in this manner, it would actually - literally - break the game.

    In order for a task to remove corruption, my expectation would be that it would require the player to traverse at least 20% of Verra - or from one side of a metropolis ZoI to the other - at a minimum. It would have to require the player to venture in to parts of the world where they would not otherwise frequent.
    If a player kills someone and then has to stop to go clear their corruption then the system is still working. They have stopped killing, are spending time with an enhanced death penalty, and are losing time because of their actions. Just because they aren't experiencing the death penalty doesn't mean they didn't experience a risk because of their actions or were punished. As i said, they are vulnerable while doing these activities and at risk of gaining more corruption if attacked as people stay green when attacking them.

    The bounty hunter title gives you the ability to track down corrupted players. It doesn't matter how spread out or focused the anti-corrupted activity is as the bounty hunter can hunt the corrupted player either way. If you know where your target is you don't need to wait for them where they might show up, you can go straight to them.
  • nagash said:
    "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
    Just implement a system that encourages both parties to flag up (severe punishments on both sides of the scale). Or do something like your a viable pvp target (combatant) when performing tasks in the open world that is a potential conflict (world bosses, gathering resources, bounty hunting, etc) 
  • I'm hoping there are dark themed quests that require a certain level of corruption to obtain. Something like an npc that doesn't talk very much but starts to open up if you have a corruption score. Aside from whatever reason you may have had to kill a green, Something else that gives incentive to being corrupted and not just a system that discourages remaining corrupted as a whole.
    Sorry to remove that hope, but we do have the statement Steven made 10 days ago that there will be "no carrot incentive for pkers."
    https://www.twitch.tv/videos/260403378##
  • nagash said:
    "How to implement a good Pvp Corruption system" first don't talk about PvP and have faith that the devs know more than you and will make a great game.

    That is all 

    Professor Nagash 
    Your line of thought with your comment is to NOT promote discussion and/or new ideas. Yeah, cuz that has worked so well with other mmos previously.(Sarcasm) Hence why the huge disappointment with mmos over the past many years. No, the mmo community doesnt have faith in devs cuz we have been burnt soo many times.

    Secondly, I dont appreciate your condescending comments. I dont care who you are or how many fan boys you have or whatever position you think you have in this forum. Dont come into a forum thread and try and tell other ppl what they can or can not talk about. We all want this game to succeed and do well and bring hope back to mmos. If you have an issue with the IDEA, how about you be constructive and think of ways to improve that idea of the op instead of being an elitist jerk and tell ppl what they can and cant say. 

    That is all
  • Noaani said:
    I feel like you are just making up holes and putting no effort into filling them. You are making a lot of assumptions where most of us are trying to keep the concept at a high level.
    I have specifically said I believe it could be doable, just that I have not come up with a way myself.

    Other than that, all I have done is listed a few of the things I would try to avoid if it were me trying to come up with this particular system.

    Verra is supposed to be 30 times the size of the Skyrim map. With 10,000 concurent players per server, that means an average of 333 players per Skyrim-sized portion of Verra.

    That is a lot of room to hide if you have corruption, and a long way to travel if you are a Bounty Hunter trying to catch someone with corruption.

    While some may disagree, I look at the presence of Bounty Hunters in the game as a deterrent to gaining corruption. Players with a PvP mindset that are given tools to help hunt you down - and who actually progress their character by doing so - seem to me to be a good deterrent. That is, of course, unless you can reasonably assume that there are none close by due to them all being at the specific location where all the corrupt players have to gather to accept this corruption removing task.

    So by my thinking, giving Bounty Hunters a specific location to gather to best catch corrupt players is actually weakening a deterrent to gaining corruption - or put differently, reducing a deterrent to people interrupting the play of others for no good reason.

    ---

    If there are many points where a task to remove corruption can be acessed, then players will have no trouble doing this. If players can expect to find the encounters they need to complete this task within one node, then the entire system is ineffective. This is because it won't be hard at all to know the majority of the citizens of a node - especially if that node is a smaller one.

    Living in such a node - where you know the majority of players, where you have access to a task that removes corruption and where you can complete said task -, that basically gives you free range to kill any player at any time, with little consequences past a bit of time needed to perform said task.

    If it were implemented in this manner, it would actually - literally - break the game.

    In order for a task to remove corruption, my expectation would be that it would require the player to traverse at least 20% of Verra - or from one side of a metropolis ZoI to the other - at a minimum. It would have to require the player to venture in to parts of the world where they would not otherwise frequent.
    If a player kills someone and then has to stop to go clear their corruption then the system is still working. They have stopped killing, are spending time with an enhanced death penalty, and are losing time because of their actions. Just because they aren't experiencing the death penalty doesn't mean they didn't experience a risk because of their actions or were punished. As i said, they are vulnerable while doing these activities and at risk of gaining more corruption if attacked as people stay green when attacking them.

    The bounty hunter title gives you the ability to track down corrupted players. It doesn't matter how spread out or focused the anti-corrupted activity is as the bounty hunter can hunt the corrupted player either way. If you know where your target is you don't need to wait for them where they might show up, you can go straight to them.
    A working corruption system would be there to make the person think twice about killing that first person, not simply making them perform some arbitrary task before killing a second.

    The idea with corruption is that there is essentially no random PK'ing in Ashes because of it, not that it cuts random PK'ing in half.

    Unless the time spent to remove corruption is significantly - at least twice the time they took off the player they killed - then it isn't a deterrent. If there is a simple action that can be taken to remove corruption, one that can be done in a short amount of time, and without the need to travel far, then players will still look at PK'ing random players as a form of entertainment.

    Players killing random players for entertainment, rather than for specific reasons (access denial, personality clash etc), is a sign of a failed corruption system.

    ---

    Bounty Hunter gives you the ability to see corrupt players on your map, but only if they are in range. As far as I am aware, both range and accuracy of this location are determined by Bounty Hunter level (@UnknownSystemError may be able to help with this).

    What is for sure is that even as a Bounty Hunter, you will not *necessarily* know there is a corrupt player on the other side of the city you are in, let alone having the ability to hunt them down cross country in a world the size of Verra.

    If you are a Bounty Hunter, you will be thankful for any player that is able to point you in the direction of a corrupt character. If you know the general area they are in, then you stand a far greater chance of finding them than a non-Bounty Hunter, but that is it.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited May 2018
    @Noaani The way it has been described working is that there will be bounty boards in taverns that people will appear on as "missions." Just like other skill lines there will be points you can put into things like detection/map radius. None of the skill lines have been released, so that is pretty much the extent of the info so far unless someone else has a reference I missed.

    <Speculation> SWG had a player bounty system for jedi once they gained a certain level of "visibility" that was effective. After accepting the mission you were able to launch a probe droid (falcon?) that told you which planet (node) your target was on, once there you were able to launch a seeker droid (crow?) that gave you the general area and direction, and then the minimap showed the target as you got close. Logging out by the jedi didn't remove the mission, only once the "visibility" had been cleared was the mission removed. Since some of the developers worked on SWG, expect something similar. Once again, this is pure speculation.
Sign In or Register to comment.