Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

Corruption system

1235710

Comments

  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    ah, the forums old nemesis.

    Corruption
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    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
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    If you want the grab all the people playing WoW then you need to make a WoW clone. Include fast travel, dungeon finder, game-wide auction houses, extremely limited PvP.

    This game isn’t being made for people who play WoW. This game is being made for people who want something else.

    Don’t worry about the playerbase being driven away from this game because it’s too different from the MMOs out there. People will be driven to this game from those other MMOs. That’s the whole point here.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Maybe they could put a system in where you can go see a person that is regularly found in towns who can give you a temporary companion(maybe it changes based on your race) who doesn’t attack, but prevents enemy players from attacking you. This can come with a catch though where that companion sucks up some of your XP gained. XP could even be considered the payment so it can be free.

    You wouldn’t find these people out in the wilderness so you would need to make this choice before you head out on your adventure so you cant abuse it like a consumable or toggle, and only use it when you see another player. It would be temporary so it still adds a bit of that stress of a dangerous world because if you don’t make it back in time you could be attacked.

    I love OWPvP, but I can at least see the side that sometimes getting ganked repeatedly just makes the time you planned to spend playing less fun if you had a very specific plan in place that didn’t involve PvP. Maybe you had a bad day and just want to mindlessly gather, orrrr idk that’s really the only good one I can think of, I would much rather have the possibility of pvp in almost all situations, but still I can see the other side.
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Maybe they could put a system in where you can go see a person that is regularly found in towns who can give you a temporary companion(maybe it changes based on your race) who doesn’t attack, but prevents enemy players from attacking you. This can come with a catch though where that companion sucks up some of your XP gained. XP could even be considered the payment so it can be free.
    I’m not a big PvP person but even I wouldn’t like this. I think if this was an option it would quickly become the default, and people would always run around with these, fundamentally changing the way the game works.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • From the first time I lear for the whole pvp mechanism of Ashes , I thought that the solution was grouping when you go gathering, or went you arrive on a gathering area , you just socialize with the others gatherer who are there and organis you to all come back to the city together.

    A other thing was the possibly that some pvpers are the exact opposite of gankers and will propose to escorts you on your way out for a payment.

    I could see in game or on a website where you could find and update a white and black list of gankers and defenders ( but this one have week point but it could help)

    But i don't think a mechanic in game to prevent gank is needed, the community will help each others and there will be way to gathering with a good safety.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Gimlog wrote: »
    From the first time I lear for the whole pvp mechanism of Ashes , I thought that the solution was grouping when you go gathering, or went you arrive on a gathering area , you just socialize with the others gatherer who are there and organis you to all come back to the city together.

    A other thing was the possibly that some pvpers are the exact opposite of gankers and will propose to escorts you on your way out for a payment.

    I could see in game or on a website where you could find and update a white and black list of gankers and defenders ( but this one have week point but it could help)

    But i don't think a mechanic in game to prevent gank is needed, the community will help each others and there will be way to gathering with a good safety.

    I'm sure there will be quite a few "mercenary" players who will offer to escort caravans and gatherers in exchange for gold. Of course, those same mercenaries might well get paid to attack the caravans and gatherers instead. I wouldn't be surprised if there were quests offered to sabotage competing nodes by interrupting trade routes, etc.

    It will be interesting to see just how much conflict is instigated by the game rather than the players.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • HumblePuffinHumblePuffin Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Atama wrote: »
    I’m not a big PvP person but even I wouldn’t like this. I think if this was an option it would quickly become the default, and people would always run around with these, fundamentally changing the way the game works.

    I absolutely agree, I see no point to an anti PvP mechanic outside of what is already in planned to be place. I’m just trying to find some kind of compromise because having separate PvE/PvP servers, or toggle, or PvP specific PvP areas changes the way the game is played far more(thankfully I don’t see any of this happening).

    Personally I don’t think the option I suggest would become the norm tho because in most games effectively leveling is usually pretty important, and an XP sink that doesn’t speed up your questing/leveling since it doesn’t attack like a friendly player is a pretty big downside. Could even turn it off at open world dungeons borders so guilds can’t abuse it to clear open world dungeons.

    I’ve played a few 0 faction owpvp games(and even Aion at launch where there was almost a 100% chance you would run into a player from the other faction pretty much everywhere you went) and it’s not normally as detrimental an experience as the pure PvE community wants to pretend it is. Having players drop resources changes this a bit by turning other players in to loot piñatas tho.
  • Wandering MistWandering Mist Moderator, Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Atama wrote: »
    I’m not a big PvP person but even I wouldn’t like this. I think if this was an option it would quickly become the default, and people would always run around with these, fundamentally changing the way the game works.

    I absolutely agree, I see no point to an anti PvP mechanic outside of what is already in planned to be place. I’m just trying to find some kind of compromise because having separate PvE/PvP servers, or toggle, or PvP specific PvP areas changes the way the game is played far more(thankfully I don’t see any of this happening).

    Personally I don’t think the option I suggest would become the norm tho because in most games effectively leveling is usually pretty important, and an XP sink that doesn’t speed up your questing/leveling since it doesn’t attack like a friendly player is a pretty big downside. Could even turn it off at open world dungeons borders so guilds can’t abuse it to clear open world dungeons.

    I’ve played a few 0 faction owpvp games(and even Aion at launch where there was almost a 100% chance you would run into a player from the other faction pretty much everywhere you went) and it’s not normally as detrimental an experience as the pure PvE community wants to pretend it is. Having players drop resources changes this a bit by turning other players in to loot piñatas tho.

    In my opinion it's hard to know for sure how well the system will work until we actually experience it for ourselves. Let's wait to see what happens before suggesting improvements that may not even be necessary.
    volunteer_moderator.gif
  • CambiguousCambiguous Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    EminentCautiousDartfrog-size_restricted.gif
    https://gfycat.com/@Cambiguous
    Someone you otter know.
  • DamoklesDamokles Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    edited February 2020
    Cambiguous wrote: »
    EminentCautiousDartfrog-size_restricted.gif
    VOmgCQz.jpg
    a6XEiIf.gif
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Let's wait to see what happens before suggesting improvements that may not even be necessary.

    Indeed.

    I personally think one of the things that will stop most players attacking others and gaining corruption is, umm, corruption.

    If you're a long way from your node, and thus somewhere to put your stuff, you're going to want to avoid getting corruption. I mean, if you have a 30 minute walk back home, and every player that you come across is able to attack you while remaining a non-combatant, you are going to have a bad time.

    If I see a corrupted character by themselves, and I have little in the way ot raw materials on me, I'll attack. Even if I know I won't win (especially true if I am significantly lower level). If I attack you when you are corrupted and you fight back and kill me, you gain even more corruption, making you easier to kill for the next player you cone across, and getting you closer to dropping gear rather than materials.

    If a few people take on this notion of how to deal with corruption, the effect of corruption snowballs, which will put more and more people off of gaining it in the first place.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    3dmjoi.png
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • MeowsedMeowsed Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2020
    After thinking about it for a long while, I reckon the vast majority of open-world PvP will be done by groups not individuals. The best way to gank and do general banditry, and survive the consequences (corruption and bounty hunters), is to have friends to back you up. The risk of Corruption penalties are vastly outweighed by having more people in your bandit group. Likewise, the best way to hunt groups of corrupted players is to organize with other bounty hunters (potentially across several regions) to out-number and surround the Corrupted, before they can get away with their loot.

    Not to mention all the intentional group PvP events, like caravans and guild wars.

    The only time people will probably see 1v1 open world combat is when 2 unlikely conditions are met: They're in a remote area with few players around, and there's a value-able resource to fight over (rare gathering points or mobs). And we have no way to know yet how often those conditions will exist in the world. There could be lots of remote areas, with low player counts per server... or the exact opposite, who know? There could be a ton of high-demand, rare resources in disparate areas, or maybe the most valuable resources are easy-to-find and plentiful (but take time to gather).

    So yeah, I have to mimic everyone else who's saying that there's no point in quibbling about the details until we can actually see how things play out in the Alphas/Betas. The only thing I can say for certain, is that Strength in Numbers will be very important... assuming people are willing to put in the effort to team up and organize. (And again, that applies to all groups: bandits/corrupted players, bounty hunters, and even non-combatants/gatherers who just stick together for defense.)
    Mega troll frmr1cq9w89im2.jpg
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    leonerdo wrote: »
    After thinking about it for a long while, I reckon the vast majority of open-world PvP will be done by groups not individuals. The best way to gank and do general banditry, and survive the consequences (corruption and bounty hunters), is to have friends to back you up. The risk of Corruption penalties are vastly outweighed by having more people in your bandit group. Likewise, the best way to hunt groups of corrupted players is to organize with other bounty hunters (potentially across several regions) to out-number and surround the Corrupted, before they can get away with their loot.
    I totally agree that all of this is somewhat likely.

    That then opens the question, if you have a group of PvP inclined players all together, would you be going after individual harvesters, or would you be going after caravans?

  • MeowsedMeowsed Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2020
    @noaani I'm gonna take the cop out answer and say it depends on the value of certain resources. We know caravans are for transporting very large quantities of materials, which makes it likely for them to be more valuable targets.

    But maybe there are extremely valuable, but scarce (too little to need a caravan to transport), which groups will hunt for and then fight for. I could imagine a world in which rare sapphires (e.g.) can be detected from afar (IIRC scientific nodes have that power) and lots of people show up to gather them. A particularly ambitious group of players might decide they can fight off any would-be gatherers while they mine all the sapphires for themselves.

    I think there's a lot of ways to create scarce resources in the world, specifically to be fought over. It would be nice to see other viable reasons to fight in the open-world, besides caravans. It would be pretty lame if the corruption and bounty hunting systems were pointless, because everyone agrees to stay non-combatant and just farm and gather things like any other PvE game.
    _________

    We can muse all day long about what we'd like to see in the game, but I try to keep some practical voices in my head, too. Like the one that says, if caravans are designed specifically for open-world PvP, why should/would there be any more than that?

    We're at a weird point where there is still a lot of open-ended potential for AoC, but we also have a decent amount of confirmed information; vague ideas, not specifics, but still a lot of information. So if you read between the lines and take only safe-bets about what to expect, you can end up with a pretty solid and mundane vision of AoC's future.

    But I like being optimistic and thinking about different possibilities.
    Mega troll frmr1cq9w89im2.jpg
  • Ravudha wrote: »
    consultant wrote: »
    I want this game to Have the money to do the things that they envision with it and be on par wiht other huge MMO companies.

    A core part of what they envision is a dynamic world where PvP and PvE systems are integrated. So separate PvP and PvE servers can't be a solution to help financially support their vision.

    Maybe the current design will make them enough money to the all things they want, and this won't even be an issue. Who knows.

    Now lets think about this from the game design point of view.

    PvE server. This is a server were player has option to avoid Open world PvP and option to PvP in zones were there is no corruption in place. Notice PvP System and PvE still on same server. PVX

    PvP server Every one is flagged for pvp even in open world. Now notice that pve content did not go any were. So PVX

    So For PvE servers and PvP servers are both PVX servers so systems already integrated. So Ashes of Creation is PvP server that is already PVX cause you can already PVP and PVE at the same time.

    At this point do not even know what PVX means Summoners Rift has a jungle with monsters in it Does that mean it is a PVX game. PVX or intgegration sounds more like a catch all. It just applies to so many games like Battle Star Galactica Online. Had PVE Drones and red adn blue nps and real players Does that make it PVX.

    So the main thing is not the corruption system it is the fact that there are people that just wnat to PVE. And for those poeple Ashes of creation not have anything to offer.

    Think you guys are missing the whole point. So let me clarify why this game is going to attract lots of pvpers.
    It is actuall the purple purple combat. not red or green or bounty hunters. PvPers normally fight back even when 2 or 3 to one.

    But lets say you are low on health or it is 5 to one then fighting back is just ridiculous going to die any ways so corruption system deterrs unfair PvP so Pvpers are going to really like this system Cause onuce again it is an anti CHEAP SHOT MECHANISM great for pvpers doing nothing fro PVers.



  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    leonerdo wrote: »
    But maybe there are extremely valuable, but scarce (too little to need a caravan to transport), which groups will hunt for and then fight for. I could imagine a world in which rare sapphires (e.g.) can be detected from afar (IIRC scientific nodes have that power) and lots of people show up to gather them. A particularly ambitious group of players might decide they can fight off any would-be gatherers while they mine all the sapphires for themselves.
    I find this whole scenario to be very unlikely.

    For a start, it makes harvesters the primary target - the whole idea of the caravan system is that it focuses hours of harvesting effort in to one spot so that the target is taken off the rest of the process. It isn't supposed to be a battle the whole way through.

    If there are rare materials spawn, Intrepid won't just spawn a massive patch of them in one area, at one time. This puts too much of a specific material (that is presumably important - hence it's value) in the hands of too few players. It invites issues in to the game that the game doesn't need.

    It would be far more likely that valuable materials for crafting are dropped from mobs, rather than harvested.

    However, if rare materials are to be harvested, it is far more likely that they will be actual rare harvest while harvesting raw materials.

    For sapphires, this could manifest as follows; a player is mining (quarrying?) for marble or schist (used, perhaps, to build nodes and buildings), and then once every hundred or so harvests, the player gets a corundum (used as a grinding material, or perhaps to make tools). Upon inspecting this corundum, one in one hundred of them turn out to be a sapphire.

    A system like this is far more balanced, spreads the rare materials out more, makes harvesting mundane materials more fun, and has the added bonus of potentially teaching players a little bit about geology (while the numbers or totally out of whack, the rest of the above holds at least a small amount of truth in terms of where we find sapphires).

    Additionally, in a system like this, a caravan may well be carrying a stack of un-inspected corundum along with the marble and/or schist, and so could well be carrying a sapphire or two unknowingly.

    Not only do I think this would be a better system all around, I think it is closer to what we will see when we get in to the game. The idea of the caravan system is that it is supposed to be where the risk in the materials/crafting game is at. If the risk ends up being in actually mining the raw materials in the first place, then Intrepid have failed at their job.
  • RavudhaRavudha Member
    edited February 2020
    consultant wrote: »
    PvE server. This is a server were player has option to avoid Open world PvP and option to PvP in zones were there is no corruption in place. Notice PvP System and PvE still on same server. PVX

    PvP server Every one is flagged for pvp even in open world. Now notice that pve content did not go any were. So PVX

    So For PvE servers and PvP servers are both PVX servers so systems already integrated. So Ashes of Creation is PvP server that is already PVX cause you can already PVP and PVE at the same time.

    Your PvE server example removes the core risk vs reward design principle of the game where PvE involves the risk of PvP. That's the kind of integration they want, so, again, you can have separate PvE and PvP servers, but it won't be supporting the vision of the game.

    Ashes has nothing to offer people who just want to PvE? ...except all of its PvE content.

    You said corruption deters unfair PvP and is an anti cheap shot mechanism, but it does nothing for PvErs...except those things help protect PvErs too.

    I think I get your point about it attracting some PvPers and deterring some PvErs; I just think that's OK because that's the game finding its player base.
  • I'm economic and PvE player and the PvP system in place in AoC make me willing to try it too and make me thing that this system is forcing me in one way to play in group while gathering in group are usually constrained , in AoC a portion of the resources are designed as pool who once empty may not respawn near you for months and without fast travel you may have to fight over.

    What I like in the system is that everything is up to the community once well balanced ( I'm guessing around 20% resource lose for green death , so 10% for purple and 60%(+) for red )

    With this kind of stats you will have player to think twice before dying whitout defend or killing to be red.( you may think purple will be global but it's depend of the players personallys)

    What I mean by up to the community is that the 2 type of player that seek resources ( those who gather and those who kill to take it ) will balance each other depending on how they do to succeed there goal.
    If gatherer group up the other will need it to , and so on. Variety as every will be there.
    Each way to move resources over the world as his risks and advantages.
    And it will make PvPers and PvEers interact in lots of way for the good and the bad.
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    consultant wrote: »
    So the main thing is not the corruption system it is the fact that there are people that just wnat to PVE. And for those poeple Ashes of creation not have anything to offer.
    With that logic, the game has nothing for people who just want to pvp as they need to pve to progress their characters and get gear.

    It also isn't true as there will be plenty of pve content for someone to focus on. It's the people who are intolerant of pvp that might not enjoy ashes as much.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    consultant wrote: »
    So the main thing is not the corruption system it is the fact that there are people that just wnat to PVE. And for those poeple Ashes of creation not have anything to offer.
    With that logic, the game has nothing for people who just want to pvp as they need to pve to progress their characters and get gear.

    It also isn't true as there will be plenty of pve content for someone to focus on. It's the people who are intolerant of pvp that might not enjoy ashes as much.

    It isn't often I quote a post to say nothing other than "I agree", without following that up with saying "except for this part".

    But...

    I agree.

  • Fact if you were to take all the People on PVE in WoW and put them on a PVP server with no corruption corruption A lot of people would just quit. Or flagging every one in the game for pvp. Really do not think corruption system as is going to deter that. Now remember there is plenty of pvp content and on both Pve and pvP Servers. That is not the point. Point is Ashes is going to flagge every one for PVP.

    What is not true about Millions of pvpers who are not going to play this game game cause they do not like getting ganked. But more Pvper will be attracted lets say 4 million. Well let think about this one I I could have Four million or Five million ......So making a button that unflags you for pvp will get one million subsriptions.
    And with the Corruption system that is an anti-cheapshot Mechanism will attract more PvPers cause not so many cheapshots. Plus guessing since there are not so many cheapshots more pvpers would make the choice (key wordy there) to flag themselves for pvp (which by the way is not an option in this game)

    I was on a PvE and I for a long time would be purple (flagged for pvp) all the time and enjoyed that type of game play even if I got ganked. But one day unflagged myself from pvp mainly cause well spent most of my time PvPing and only had a very little time alotted to making potions and auctions house. So did not make sense so pvp for 8 hours get my full portion of pvp then go pvp some more. But The corruption system as is does not have that option. Based on actions so if you are looking for world pvp you attack some one hope they attack back if not stop attacking so you woul not kill them and go red.

    As far as how effective the corruptions system will be as in making it tolerable for pvers can be debated soo
    really have nothing more to say on this subject.





  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited February 2020
    consultant wrote: »
    Fact if you were to take all the People on PVE in WoW
    Thing is, these are not the players Intrepid wants to get in to Ashes.

    They seem significantly more interested in ex-Archeage and Lineage (1 and 2) players than current or ex WoW players.

    Their decisions in and around PvP reflect this.

    Any discussion in regards to what an average WoW PvE server player would want from Ashes is pointless, as they are not the players this game will have.
  • So, this came up in the Toxicity dev discussion from @sunfrog
    sunfrog wrote: »
    Doing nothing and letting the community sort it out is not realistic, because people don't behave that way. However, I just sat here thinking about stuff and I can circumvent almost anything you can think up. So can everyone else.
    I think the corruption system along with a mute button will take care of most things but I also think the corruption system won't work and Steven will have to get rid of it eventually. I don't think corruption will make it into the final game and if it does it won't last very long.
    So to answer your question, I think toxicity is an unsolvable problem but you should still try because someday it might lead to a solution.

    And instead of derailing that thread anymore than I have already, I'd like to ask about this. Why do you believe that the corruption system won't work and that Steven will get rid of it eventually?
    From my experience, any system (corruption) depends on the system mechanics put into place by the engineers, + the individual's skill. It is of my personal belief that certain aspects of an MMO can be attributed to things beyond the scope of the computer, depending on how much a person loves the game. Corruption system. If it goes in, it will be a foundation. If not, it won't be a dead-zone, as I'm sure some members of this community can somehow weave it in. Decomposition sword.
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    *eats soul gem* this is so entertaining
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    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
  • LexLex Member, Phoenix Initiative, Avatar of the Phoenix, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Nagash wrote: »
    *eats soul gem* this is so entertaining

    Soul gem popcorn, mmhmm, my favorite :yum:
    fe85sq6n7wyu.png
  • NagashNagash Member, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Lex wrote: »
    Nagash wrote: »
    *eats soul gem* this is so entertaining

    Soul gem popcorn, mmhmm, my favorite :yum:

    the red ones are the best
    nJ0vUSm.gif

    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
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Crunchy outside, gooey inside.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited February 2020
    There are PvP lovers concerned about the Corruption system and there are PvP haters concerned about the Corruption system.
    Vast majority of people interested in Ashes are waiting to see how the system actually works.

    It's easy to fabricate scenarios and speculate how people will hate them... with no evidence whatsoever.
    But, at this point it's like trying to imagine why people will hate self-driving cars.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    Dygz wrote: »
    There are PvP lovers concerned about the Corruption system and there are PvP haters concerned about the Corruption system.
    This is why I personally think it's probably going to be about right.

    You know you're on target when you are getting complaints from both sides.
This discussion has been closed.