AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2019
I don't think gold should be generated from PvP. At least not PvP that results in corruption. There* shouldn't be a direct financial reward. Get the resources, you earned them, and then craft with them or sell them.
Something that I mentioned before in this thread but didn't expand on much is that I'd love to see a "Corruption Coin/ Trophy" that you get for killing other players while corrupted.
This would incentivize the high risk/ high reward playstyle for the people that enjoy it without taking away anything else from other people.
Rewards for this could be special corrupted armor/ clothes/ weapons and cosmetics, tokens that turn you into a monster, poisons, etc.
I think this would be a good enough incentive for people who like to play this way, and it would help others distinguish who plays this way a lot. The dude with a bunch of corrupted looking gear probably will flag and attack you!
Or alternatively corrupted people could automatically have their gear appear corrupted. Corruption coins/ trophies could be spent to quell the corrupted appearance.
0
Options
T ElfMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
They don't want to incentivize corruption, they want to discourage it; it's suppose to be a punishment.
Formerly T-Elf
7
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You need to read more. Gear drop from corruption occurs after repeated killing of innocents. You have made a choice to get to that point. They have stated repeatedly that chance of gear drop will not come from a single kill. So the "I was just clearing out this guy from MY farming spot! And now I have lost all my gear!" is not valid.
You need to read more. Gear drop from corruption occurs after repeated killing of innocents. You have made a choice to get to that point. They have stated repeatedly that chance of gear drop will not come from a single kill. So the "I was just clearing out this guy from MY farming spot! And now I have lost all my gear!" is not valid.
Not sure why you're deciding to be a c u next Tuesday. I don't follow this game closely and I'm explaining a problem that I see coming.
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Oh how I missed PVP threads
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
Well given you’re not supposed to be encouraged to kill players that don’t fight back, I don’t see any issue with penalizing players that choose to repeatedly PK non-combatants.
It’s not exactly gaming the system when it’s entirely dependent on whether or not someone chooses to attack noncombatants on a regular basis. To be frank, it also seems in poor taste for someone to blame griefing penalties on the players they killed
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
Well given you’re not supposed to be encouraged to kill players that don’t fight back, I don’t see any issue with penalizing players that choose to repeatedly PK non-combatants.
It’s not exactly gaming the system when it’s entirely dependent on whether or not someone chooses to attack noncombatants on a regular basis. To be frank, it also seems in poor taste for someone to blame griefing penalties on the players they killed
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
If someone is going to contest a resource, then they have to attack the person who is there. If that person doesn't fight back, in an intentional effort to make your items vulnerable, then you can either give up the resource or kill the person. If you kill them you are now at risk of losing your gear. If you don't then you've wasted your time and they keep the resource.
I don't know what they're doing about that, but in Albion it didn't work and was heavily abused.
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@creighton Call me a **** if you like. Myself and others have been here since the beginning and have had this discussion going on two years and have seen just about any iteration you can throw out. Your repeated bad information in your OP and follow-up comments show that you decided to have an opinion about something and when told the answer that you didn't like using information that is easily researchable decided to get defensive and take it personal. Before you come out swinging, make sure you aren't talking out your ass. The problems you have decided to point out were brought up long ago, were addressed, and people moved on. You are not the first, or even in the top 50 of people to come here and think they know better and to try and argue with only a partial understanding of how they have put forth their systems and mechanics to work.
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
Well given you’re not supposed to be encouraged to kill players that don’t fight back, I don’t see any issue with penalizing players that choose to repeatedly PK non-combatants.
It’s not exactly gaming the system when it’s entirely dependent on whether or not someone chooses to attack noncombatants on a regular basis. To be frank, it also seems in poor taste for someone to blame griefing penalties on the players they killed
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
If someone is going to contest a resource, then they have to attack the person who is there. If that person doesn't fight back, in an intentional effort to make your items vulnerable, then you can either give up the resource or kill the person. If you kill them you are now at risk of losing your gear. If you don't then you've wasted your time and they keep the resource.
I don't know what they're doing about that, but in Albion it didn't work and was heavily abused.
Once again, you are not at risk of losing your gear over one kill.
If you attack someone gathering a resource, it seems safe to assume you will interrupt their gathering process. That leaves three options
1) They don’t fight back, you don’t kill them, neither of you get anything done because they can’t gather while you’re attacking, and presumably neither could you. Their group is called over to kill you.
2) They don’t fight back, you kill them, you’re flagged corrupt with minimal penalties. You get to gather the resource they were after. Their group is called over to kill you.
3) They fight back, both of you are purple, someone dies, the winner gets to gather the resource with no corruption either way. Their group is called over to kill you.
With either 2 or 3, you walk away with some of the resources, unless you’ve been on a killing spree and earned a ton of corruption beforehand in which case you’d be a target anyway.
If you’re allowed to gather at any point, process only broken through being hit, then this is a nonissue, because to defend your resource would require fighting back against someone who pushed you off of it in the first place. That’s how I expect Ashes to work.
I think it would be better for citizens of the same (or allied) nodes to be flagged as friendlies and un-killable. That would make the PvP interactions more organic and far more meaningful.
Meaningful PvP isn't about the loot you can get. It's about PvP that has a reason or purpose beyond just mindlessly killing people. Two nodes competing for resources in an area means skirmishes will happen, that can build to all out wars between guilds of opposing nodes. That kind of PvP would be so much more fun than randos running around looking for fights to pick.
I actually want to see nodes have the opportunity to build into entire empires, with a metropolis reaching out and laying claim to cities, towns, and villages near it, with opposing metropolises nearby opting to wage war over resources, nodes, castles, and territory in general.
I do believe this system is super easy to game and exploit. However that makes the potential exploits fairly obvious which means the DEVs have already considered and are working on resolving them. We'll see how these things play out whenever alpha and beta rolls around.
Mindlessly killing... Let's look at another open world PvP game: EvE Online. They currently have a corruption like system in effect within the high security areas. Does it work? Hell no. The player band together and create massive swarms of low level characters killing everything in their path to ultimately control the market by destroying end game ships and equipment. Once the low level character is used they log into a new character and repeat the process.
The only way the corruption system in Ashes of Creation will effectively work, is to make the corruption account wide. You kill someone for no reason on an alt, then corruption will prevent you from entering the city or doing content for a small time.
If corruption is not account wide then what is the point of it. You simply kill on an alt and fain innocence on your main. This could cause a pvp account to have a max amount of pvp centric characters. Rotating to a fresh alt while the used ones cool down preventing anyone from outright hunting you. RIP bounty system and hunters.
0
Options
T ElfMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
0
Options
AzathothMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I don't think there citizens of the node you are a citizen of should flag as 'friendlies' or non-combatants/kill-able. That would form factions, and then players would have a reason to attack different factions (other node citizens) because they are simply not a citizen of the same node. Ashes is encouraging open markets and exploration. Not saying it's a bad idea or that IS wouldn't do it, just that I think it would cause a faction like mentality.
I would also be against account wide corruption gain along with (from another thread) account names associated with characters. Perhaps players should have characters designed to 'patrol' their nodes resources that collect all the corruption. Not the best solution from either perspective though.
As for the intentional incentive to PvP, that's gathered resources. There doesn't have to be gold gained, you can always sell the loot you earned for gold (theoretically).
My favorite point, an incentive to gain corruption. This should not be implemented imo. Otherwise gaining corruption would not be a punishment and it would be something some players specifically sought out. Meaning some players would be encouraged to kill other characters of players that don;t want to engage.
If you start a fight, and the player doesn't fight back, the risk/reward is obvious. The risk is corruption. The reward is the character's loot and that the player stopped whatever they were doing that you wanted them to stop. The player that chose not to fight back loses more resources and suffers a higher xp deficit.
Like others have said, corrupted players will need (as of now) a certain level of corruption before losing gear. This could be due to killing a very low level character in comparison, or killing multiple characters. Both of which are the choice of the player attacking.
Seems like only a few members of the forum at least that post, are concerned over being punished for killing targets that don't fight back.
What's going to inevitably happen if they insist on only punishing it instead of giving other incentives for it is that people will intentionally not fight back to cause other players to gain corruption. If the attacker continues that player gains corruption and literally everyone in the area will swarm the corrupted player to take his equipment. I saw this happen a ton in Albion Online. They had an almost exact copy of this system but it was Blues and Reds. I think that design choice will hurt the game for people who enjoy open world PvP.
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
People won't game the system by not fighting back, causing attacking players to gain corruption.
The operative word above is "game".
They won't "game" the system because that is exactly how the system is supposed to function. Literally the only way to gain corruption is by killing someone that doesn't fight back. Since the game has a corruption system, and other systems built around that corruption system, and the only way to gain corruption in order to make those systems function is to have people not fight back in PvP, it is fair to say that Intrepid expect some people to not fight back in PvP.
The idea in Ashes is that you don't kill other players in the open unless you have a *REALLY* good reason to kill them. You *can*, but you really shouldn't. It is in your best interests not to.
People who are all about the PvP life have actual real PvP they can partake in. They can join guilds that are at war with other guild, nodes that are at war with other nodes, pimp themselves out as caravan guards, become a bounty hunter, join random sieges (on either side) and probably also have arena based PvP in some form or another.
2
Options
Wandering MistModerator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@creighton I fully understand your concerns, and yes there WILL be people who abuse the system. But then again, no system is perfect and there will always be people who abuse it. In terms of accidentally gaining corruption, I think a lot of it will depend on how strict the system is. For example, if you attack another player once and then leave, then 30 seconds later that player dies to a monster, will that still count as you having "killed" the player?
@creighton I fully understand your concerns, and yes there WILL be people who abuse the system. But then again, no system is perfect and there will always be people who abuse it. In terms of accidentally gaining corruption, I think a lot of it will depend on how strict the system is. For example, if you attack another player once and then leave, then 30 seconds later that player dies to a monster, will that still count as you having "killed" the player?
No, it's been stated that corruption only accumulates when the final blow is caused by the attacking player. You actually have to be credited with the kill to gain the corruption, which opens up another potential abuse. Players can grief by assisting monsters in defeating players. They might not get any potential reward from the kill, but if the goal is to get rid of a pesky person who's just playing the game and mining resources, it works.
For corruption account wide, easy exploit here is to rack up all the corruption you want on a main, than jump to a low level alt with nothing valuable to lose and let yourself be killed a few times to bleed your account wide corruption off. You maximize your grief fun and minimize the penalty.
Exploiting the current system as stated is also fairly easy. Zerg areas with large numbers, victims can and will die far too quickly to respond whether they want to or not, lose more items and equipment by force, and only one player will ever rack up the corruption from any particular kill.
Frankly, saying the system isn't perfect is an understatement, there are ways to exploit any system you can set in place which is why I feel a more organic method of controlling PvP is necessary, hence making citizens of nodes friendlies. Yes it forms factions, but that's the point. The current list of friendlies only includes players you actively WANT to be friendlies with, guilds/alliances/religions/etc., there's no cooperation with strangers there.
By opening up the potential for factions to form, you offer players a real reason to WANT to engage in PvP, while providing players with a wall to back up against. Knowing you won't be attacked by a very large group of players in an area gives you peace of mind.
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Many of the above issues have already been addressed and are not able to be exploited. Citizens of the same node can indeed attack each other and are not flag exempt. Corruption alts will not be a thing since the effort to get them to the point that they would be effective in pvp, to have them nerfed into the ground due to stat decreases and an ever-increasing exp debt is not a viable option for a majority of players. Corruption does not "tick down" over time. Only removed through pvp death and questing. They have said they have a fix for the "smack them down to 10% and let pve mechanics finish them" crowd, the same for those that would have their high level friend burn someone down and then let their low level friend take the corruption hit. This is not the first thread to call these issues out, nor will be the last. With the advent of new forums, all the old posts becoming a mess to search for, and just new people coming in and cherry picking what they like from the limited infosource they found on corruption, chicken little ERMAHGERD posts will be the norm. The only thing that can be done is wait for testing, there is a whole group of people who are focused on tightening the corruption system up and will be working on doing just that. Every time someone posts about how smart they are and how they have found the secret way around it, they note it, and it is addressed.
Many of the above issues have already been addressed and are not able to be exploited. Citizens of the same node can indeed attack each other and are not flag exempt. Corruption alts will not be a thing since the effort to get them to the point that they would be effective in pvp, to have them nerfed into the ground due to stat decreases and an ever-increasing exp debt is not a viable option for a majority of players. Corruption does not "tick down" over time. Only removed through pvp death and questing. They have said they have a fix for the "smack them down to 10% and let pve mechanics finish them" crowd, the same for those that would have their high level friend burn someone down and then let their low level friend take the corruption hit. This is not the first thread to call these issues out, nor will be the last. With the advent of new forums, all the old posts becoming a mess to search for, and just new people coming in and cherry picking what they like from the limited infosource they found on corruption, chicken little ERMAHGERD posts will be the norm. The only thing that can be done is wait for testing, there is a whole group of people who are focused on tightening the corruption system up and will be working on doing just that. Every time someone posts about how smart they are and how they have found the secret way around it, they note it, and it is addressed.
That's a whole lot of nothing, yanno? Pretty obvious you aren't paying attention to what you're criticizing.
1) I suggested Citizens of the same node should be friendlies, I never stated they were. R E A D.
2) Corruption alt was a suggestion based on the mechanics of another game. I pointed out that account wide corruption was exploitable in AoC by dropping to a low level worthless alt that you then go get killed a few times on. Your rebuttal here completely misses the point of the exchange. It does not matter how the corruption system affects the player in terms of debuffs and loot drops because the player would be on an alt they don't care about and would bleed off the corruption by getting killed repeatedly. Regardless, this is a hypothetical exploit directed at a hypothetical fix for a hypothetical problem with the corruption system as it stands now.
3) I never specified a % of life, only that a player could conceivably grief by assisting the monsters that their target is engaged in. In many cases, it only takes 30% of a targets health to allow a monster to win easily.
4) Nor did I specify the high level blasting and low level finishing tactic. I stated that the zerg tactic means only 1 member of a zerg would take a corruption hit from each kill, and the more important exploit here is that the zerg would kill far faster than their victims could conceivably react, allowing for greater drop chances.
5) I'm well aware of, and have mentioned, that testing is going to occur on the matter.
6) No one needed you to state the obvious.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Lots of ways to engage in PvP combat besides gaining corruption, so, shouldn't really matter much if most of the time players who get ganked while not in a siege or caravan attack or guild/node war choose not to fight back.
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@wolfwood82 Isn't always about you. These are common misconceptions that have kept popping up through multiple threads. And yes, stating the obvious is needed because people are lazy and only take snippets of information then use them to fit the worldview they are trying to champion. The whole "If I yell loud enough, and repeat it often enough it becomes reality!" crowd loves this tactic. New people come here and then see "The game is broken, I will be getting griefed constantly." and then they leave. And then they tell their friends, "Oh that game, just another full loot gankfest." Anything I have posted is backed by statements and interviews from Intrepid. Whenever I engage in speculation on these forums I learned long ago to <SPECULATION> in huge all caps all over a post so people don't get confused.
@wolfwood82 Isn't always about you. These are common misconceptions that have kept popping up through multiple threads. And yes, stating the obvious is needed because people are lazy and only take snippets of information then use them to fit the worldview they are trying to champion. The whole "If I yell loud enough, and repeat it often enough it becomes reality!" crowd loves this tactic. New people come here and then see "The game is broken, I will be getting griefed constantly." and then they leave. And then they tell their friends, "Oh that game, just another full loot gankfest." Anything I have posted is backed by statements and interviews from Intrepid. Whenever I engage in speculation on these forums I learned long ago to <SPECULATION> in huge all caps all over a post so people don't get confused.
Stating the obvious really just points out the level of thought you are putting into the conversation. It's never been a sign of intelligence, only a sign that you're thought process is stuck on basics. In short, rather than involve yourself in the conversation at hand, you slap a blanket statement on it and essentially say "ya'll are dumb!", so~ who's being lazy again?
I don't care about the people who judge books by covers. There are some 3 billion people running around the internet, and I don't expect more than a fraction of them to even care about MMOs, let alone AoC specifically. So caring about the randos that run in, check out the forums, and get scared away by rumors isn't concerning. Meanwhile, those who show an interest in the mechanics, and an interest in ensuring the mechanics function as DESIRED and not just as intended, helps assure people that the rumors are not as bad as they seem. Or, at the very least, that there are people taking an active interest in the details that may make or break the game. IE, the very people you mentioned are represented in these discussions that you dismiss without thought.
This is the point of discussion.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2019
Yeah, and these devs are MMORPG veterans. They will all be aware of the tactic of trying to exploit Corruption
by just doing 40% damage and letting mobs the mobs deal the final blow. That is not going to be possible.
0
Options
KarthosMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Another thread where PvPers and Non PvPers get to try and dictate how the other person should be playing the game.
I'm in.
1
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Comments
This would incentivize the high risk/ high reward playstyle for the people that enjoy it without taking away anything else from other people.
Rewards for this could be special corrupted armor/ clothes/ weapons and cosmetics, tokens that turn you into a monster, poisons, etc.
I think this would be a good enough incentive for people who like to play this way, and it would help others distinguish who plays this way a lot. The dude with a bunch of corrupted looking gear probably will flag and attack you!
Or alternatively corrupted people could automatically have their gear appear corrupted. Corruption coins/ trophies could be spent to quell the corrupted appearance.
Formerly T-Elf
The truth, has been spoken
This could translate to AOC like this:
Blue player is mining a rare material, and doesn't have anything of value in inventory. He has friends/ guildies nearby.
Red player wants to contest this material and take it for himself, so he flags and attacks the blue player that's mining.
Blue player knows he has nothing to lose, and his friends are nearby, so he refuses to fight back.
Red kills him and becomes corrupted.
Blue's friends (and literally every non corrupted player on the server) kill red and red loses his equipment.
It's a terrible mechanic that punishes solo and small groups of PvP. It encourages zergs.
Gear loss occurs only when corruption levels are high. If that’s a single instance of them PKing, then they likely won’t be losing any gear.
Also if you read the wiki on corruption, you’d also see that fighting back (combatant state) means less penalty on death, less exp lost, less materials lost upon death.
Besides, if there’s allies nearby when someone PKs a players, they’d be dying afterwards either way, why not flag combatant, lose less stuff, and still get it back when your buddies turn on the guy who nabbed it?
Not sure why you're deciding to be a c u next Tuesday. I don't follow this game closely and I'm explaining a problem that I see coming.
Guess we'll see. If it turns out like Albion did though it's going to be pretty terrible.
The reason why someone will intentionally not fight back is to intentionally give the other player corruption. This system will be gamed hard.
Well given you’re not supposed to be encouraged to kill players that don’t fight back, I don’t see any issue with penalizing players that choose to repeatedly PK non-combatants.
It’s not exactly gaming the system when it’s entirely dependent on whether or not someone chooses to attack noncombatants on a regular basis. To be frank, it also seems in poor taste for someone to blame griefing penalties on the players they killed
You're completely missing what I'm saying.
If someone is going to contest a resource, then they have to attack the person who is there. If that person doesn't fight back, in an intentional effort to make your items vulnerable, then you can either give up the resource or kill the person. If you kill them you are now at risk of losing your gear. If you don't then you've wasted your time and they keep the resource.
I don't know what they're doing about that, but in Albion it didn't work and was heavily abused.
Once again, you are not at risk of losing your gear over one kill.
If you attack someone gathering a resource, it seems safe to assume you will interrupt their gathering process. That leaves three options
1) They don’t fight back, you don’t kill them, neither of you get anything done because they can’t gather while you’re attacking, and presumably neither could you. Their group is called over to kill you.
2) They don’t fight back, you kill them, you’re flagged corrupt with minimal penalties. You get to gather the resource they were after. Their group is called over to kill you.
3) They fight back, both of you are purple, someone dies, the winner gets to gather the resource with no corruption either way. Their group is called over to kill you.
With either 2 or 3, you walk away with some of the resources, unless you’ve been on a killing spree and earned a ton of corruption beforehand in which case you’d be a target anyway.
If you’re allowed to gather at any point, process only broken through being hit, then this is a nonissue, because to defend your resource would require fighting back against someone who pushed you off of it in the first place. That’s how I expect Ashes to work.
Meaningful PvP isn't about the loot you can get. It's about PvP that has a reason or purpose beyond just mindlessly killing people. Two nodes competing for resources in an area means skirmishes will happen, that can build to all out wars between guilds of opposing nodes. That kind of PvP would be so much more fun than randos running around looking for fights to pick.
I actually want to see nodes have the opportunity to build into entire empires, with a metropolis reaching out and laying claim to cities, towns, and villages near it, with opposing metropolises nearby opting to wage war over resources, nodes, castles, and territory in general.
I do believe this system is super easy to game and exploit. However that makes the potential exploits fairly obvious which means the DEVs have already considered and are working on resolving them. We'll see how these things play out whenever alpha and beta rolls around.
The only way the corruption system in Ashes of Creation will effectively work, is to make the corruption account wide. You kill someone for no reason on an alt, then corruption will prevent you from entering the city or doing content for a small time.
If corruption is not account wide then what is the point of it. You simply kill on an alt and fain innocence on your main. This could cause a pvp account to have a max amount of pvp centric characters. Rotating to a fresh alt while the used ones cool down preventing anyone from outright hunting you. RIP bounty system and hunters.
Formerly T-Elf
That seems dark.
oh lets have some fun
I would also be against account wide corruption gain along with (from another thread) account names associated with characters. Perhaps players should have characters designed to 'patrol' their nodes resources that collect all the corruption. Not the best solution from either perspective though.
As for the intentional incentive to PvP, that's gathered resources. There doesn't have to be gold gained, you can always sell the loot you earned for gold (theoretically).
My favorite point, an incentive to gain corruption. This should not be implemented imo. Otherwise gaining corruption would not be a punishment and it would be something some players specifically sought out. Meaning some players would be encouraged to kill other characters of players that don;t want to engage.
If you start a fight, and the player doesn't fight back, the risk/reward is obvious. The risk is corruption. The reward is the character's loot and that the player stopped whatever they were doing that you wanted them to stop. The player that chose not to fight back loses more resources and suffers a higher xp deficit.
Like others have said, corrupted players will need (as of now) a certain level of corruption before losing gear. This could be due to killing a very low level character in comparison, or killing multiple characters. Both of which are the choice of the player attacking.
Seems like only a few members of the forum at least that post, are concerned over being punished for killing targets that don't fight back.
People won't game the system by not fighting back, causing attacking players to gain corruption.
The operative word above is "game".
They won't "game" the system because that is exactly how the system is supposed to function. Literally the only way to gain corruption is by killing someone that doesn't fight back. Since the game has a corruption system, and other systems built around that corruption system, and the only way to gain corruption in order to make those systems function is to have people not fight back in PvP, it is fair to say that Intrepid expect some people to not fight back in PvP.
The idea in Ashes is that you don't kill other players in the open unless you have a *REALLY* good reason to kill them. You *can*, but you really shouldn't. It is in your best interests not to.
People who are all about the PvP life have actual real PvP they can partake in. They can join guilds that are at war with other guild, nodes that are at war with other nodes, pimp themselves out as caravan guards, become a bounty hunter, join random sieges (on either side) and probably also have arena based PvP in some form or another.
No, it's been stated that corruption only accumulates when the final blow is caused by the attacking player. You actually have to be credited with the kill to gain the corruption, which opens up another potential abuse. Players can grief by assisting monsters in defeating players. They might not get any potential reward from the kill, but if the goal is to get rid of a pesky person who's just playing the game and mining resources, it works.
For corruption account wide, easy exploit here is to rack up all the corruption you want on a main, than jump to a low level alt with nothing valuable to lose and let yourself be killed a few times to bleed your account wide corruption off. You maximize your grief fun and minimize the penalty.
Exploiting the current system as stated is also fairly easy. Zerg areas with large numbers, victims can and will die far too quickly to respond whether they want to or not, lose more items and equipment by force, and only one player will ever rack up the corruption from any particular kill.
Frankly, saying the system isn't perfect is an understatement, there are ways to exploit any system you can set in place which is why I feel a more organic method of controlling PvP is necessary, hence making citizens of nodes friendlies. Yes it forms factions, but that's the point. The current list of friendlies only includes players you actively WANT to be friendlies with, guilds/alliances/religions/etc., there's no cooperation with strangers there.
By opening up the potential for factions to form, you offer players a real reason to WANT to engage in PvP, while providing players with a wall to back up against. Knowing you won't be attacked by a very large group of players in an area gives you peace of mind.
That's a whole lot of nothing, yanno? Pretty obvious you aren't paying attention to what you're criticizing.
1) I suggested Citizens of the same node should be friendlies, I never stated they were. R E A D.
2) Corruption alt was a suggestion based on the mechanics of another game. I pointed out that account wide corruption was exploitable in AoC by dropping to a low level worthless alt that you then go get killed a few times on. Your rebuttal here completely misses the point of the exchange. It does not matter how the corruption system affects the player in terms of debuffs and loot drops because the player would be on an alt they don't care about and would bleed off the corruption by getting killed repeatedly. Regardless, this is a hypothetical exploit directed at a hypothetical fix for a hypothetical problem with the corruption system as it stands now.
3) I never specified a % of life, only that a player could conceivably grief by assisting the monsters that their target is engaged in. In many cases, it only takes 30% of a targets health to allow a monster to win easily.
4) Nor did I specify the high level blasting and low level finishing tactic. I stated that the zerg tactic means only 1 member of a zerg would take a corruption hit from each kill, and the more important exploit here is that the zerg would kill far faster than their victims could conceivably react, allowing for greater drop chances.
5) I'm well aware of, and have mentioned, that testing is going to occur on the matter.
6) No one needed you to state the obvious.
Stating the obvious really just points out the level of thought you are putting into the conversation. It's never been a sign of intelligence, only a sign that you're thought process is stuck on basics. In short, rather than involve yourself in the conversation at hand, you slap a blanket statement on it and essentially say "ya'll are dumb!", so~ who's being lazy again?
I don't care about the people who judge books by covers. There are some 3 billion people running around the internet, and I don't expect more than a fraction of them to even care about MMOs, let alone AoC specifically. So caring about the randos that run in, check out the forums, and get scared away by rumors isn't concerning. Meanwhile, those who show an interest in the mechanics, and an interest in ensuring the mechanics function as DESIRED and not just as intended, helps assure people that the rumors are not as bad as they seem. Or, at the very least, that there are people taking an active interest in the details that may make or break the game. IE, the very people you mentioned are represented in these discussions that you dismiss without thought.
This is the point of discussion.
by just doing 40% damage and letting mobs the mobs deal the final blow. That is not going to be possible.
I'm in.
I'll grab the popcorn