Non combatant attacks corrupted ( Flaw in the System)

King FoolKing Fool Member
edited July 30 in General Discussion
As it stands now if a non combatant attacks a corrupted they don't flag.
Resulting in a situations where the corrupted cannot defend himself without getting more corruption.

I personally don't get the reasoning, nor do I think this is the correct approach.
Corrupted already have massive death penalty, statdampening(which also is arguable but NOT the point of the post), and potential gear loss. I think that's enough alrdy.

Don't come at me with "you shouldn't have killed someone in the first place as reasoning" just imagine I killed a bot. And now ran into a random green that attacks me and I have to pray he doesn't attack me, or if he does I have to pray I'm faster than him?

I don't see how this aspect makes sense. Pls enlighten me!
pvp_flagging_diagram.png
«134567

Comments

  • WMC51WMC51 Member
    I thought if they fight back you don't get more corrupt.
  • You do, if green attacks red they don't become purple. They stay green while fighting.
  • What are you talking about?
    When a green fights back, you don't gain more corruption. Corruption isn't accrued from killing, it's from killing someone who doesn't fight back. It's not that complicated.
  • King FoolKing Fool Member
    edited July 30
    @Beekeeper added proof to post
    Also read the post
  • AardvarkAardvark Member
    Sounds oerfect don’t go red and not an issue
  • Beekeeper wrote: »
    What are you talking about?
    When a green fights back, you don't gain more corruption. Corruption isn't accrued from killing, it's from killing someone who doesn't fight back. It's not that complicated.

    Not if you're already Red. Look at the graphs. In his example. He kills a bot and becomes corrupted and now any greenie can fight you without flagging by the graphs. As he will already be red. And they will be unflagged (green) and if a green attacks a red, they don't flag. So maybe is it a flaw (or just annoying that you can't) when you bring in killing a bot example. But otherwise, I think it's working as intended. Killing someone who doesn't fight back is what it is. So personally I don't think it's a flaw.
    Aspiring Author, Streamer, and Game Developer.

    Twitch
    Twitter
  • King Fool wrote: »
    As it stands now if a non combatant attacks a corrupted they don't flag.
    Resulting in a situations where the corrupted cannot defend himself without getting more corruption.

    I personally don't get the reasoning, nor do I think this is the correct approach.
    Corrupted already have massive death penalty, statdampening(which also is arguable but NOT the point of the post), and potential gear loss. I think that's enough alrdy.

    Don't come at me with "you shouldn't have killed someone in the first place as reasoning" just imagine I killed a bot. And now ran into a random green that attacks me and I have to pray he doesn't attack me, or if he does I have to pray I'm faster than him?

    I don't see how this aspect makes sense. Pls enlighten me!
    pvp_flagging_diagram.png

    Yeah I agree here. If a green actively makes the decision to engage in PvP with a corrupted, they should flag as a combatant while they are fighting the corrupted.

    Corruption should only be gained from killing a player that refuses to engage in PvP.

    At the very least, even if a non-combatant stays green, the corrupt player should not suffer penalties for killing them.
  • BeekeeperBeekeeper Member
    edited July 30
    You're right, I did some digging too because I wasn't all that sure anymore. The system makes sense though. If you find a bot, don't kill it, report it. If you kill someone innocent, work off the xp penality to stop the corruption. Unless the person was way below your level, the penalty will be tiny.

    And if you DO kill some noob who just annoyed you, and you're now on the run because you killed someone, just embrace the life of a criminal for a bit. Hide from civilians, work off your debt, rehabilitate.
    virilikus wrote: »
    Yeah I agree here. If a green actively makes the decision to engage in PvP with a corrupted, they should flag as a combatant while they are fighting the corrupted.

    Corruption should only be gained from killing a player that refuses to engage in PvP.

    At the very least, even if a non-combatant stays green, the corrupt player should not suffer penalties for killing them.

    It's a system where greens can scare away a corrupted, even if they can't actually hope to defeat them. That also means that groups of corrupted can't bait innocents into flagging themselves as combatants.
  • Beekeeper wrote: »
    It's a system where greens can scare away a corrupted, even if they can't actually hope to defeat them. That also means that groups of corrupted can't bait innocents into flagging themselves as combatants.

    I get that part, but even if a corrupted baits it's a choice to attack. But the reverse is without choice.
  • Beekeeper wrote: »
    You're right, I did some digging too because I wasn't all that sure anymore. The system makes sense though. If you find a bot, don't kill it, report it. If you kill someone innocent, work off the xp penality to stop the corruption. Unless the person was way below your level, the penalty will be tiny.

    And if you DO kill some noob who just annoyed you, and you're now on the run because you killed someone, just embrace the life of a criminal for a bit. Hide from civilians, work off your debt, rehabilitate.
    virilikus wrote: »
    Yeah I agree here. If a green actively makes the decision to engage in PvP with a corrupted, they should flag as a combatant while they are fighting the corrupted.

    Corruption should only be gained from killing a player that refuses to engage in PvP.

    At the very least, even if a non-combatant stays green, the corrupt player should not suffer penalties for killing them.

    It's a system where greens can scare away a corrupted, even if they can't actually hope to defeat them. That also means that groups of corrupted can't bait innocents into flagging themselves as combatants.

    Yeah as a corrupted I think you should be 100% free to try and bait non-combatant's into attacking you if you want.

    Again I feel the only time someone deserves to incur corruption is when they are attacking a player that refuses to engage in PvP. If a non-combatant attacks a corrupted they are making that conscious decision to engage in PvP. Retaliation from the corrupted should not result in them getting MORE corruption.
  • virilikus wrote: »
    Yeah as a corrupted I think you should be 100% free to try and bait non-combatant's into attacking you if you want.

    I meant that as a clear example of someone cheesing game mechanics to kill players with no penalty. It's not even in the fantasy of the setting to use those kinds of tactics.

    Corruption is clearly inspired by a kind of "code of honour" system. Tricking people into accepting unfair odds can't be the conclusion here.
  • hapyhapy Member
    for example:
    If some group comes to your grinding spot and one of them kills you and get corrupted, other players now can kill him without flagging themselves (purple). If the rest of the attacking group wants to defend their corrupted party member, they will get flagged.
    Now those that were trying to kill the corrupted will have to choose to get killed or to defend themselves against flagged players hence becoming flagged too. At that point its normal pvp without corruption.

    It was said that military nodes will have bounty hunters. Corrupted player can defend himself against BH without getting more corruption.

    Steven said he played lineage 2. I used to play it too and I believe this corruption system is heavily inspired by lineage. In lineage it was more hardcore than its planned here and it worked just fine. Most players coming from other games will have to adjust to that probably but don't expect that PK will be much of an issue.

    And rework this system just so you can kill bots without much of repercussion is probably not gonna happen.
    If bots will be problem, people will eventually come up with creative ides how to kill them.
    You can just attack them and get them to low HP, CC them, heal mobs etc. and just get mobs to kill them.
    Or just report them.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    In this scenario, you are corrupt for a reason. You took that risk and got that reward. Now you have to live (or die) from that risk. Why does it have to change?

    It was your choice in the first place to gain corruption.
  • AsuraAsura Member
    This was already discussed with Steven, he is aware of this and it will be monitored in the alpha and beta tests and it might be changed if its a problem.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member
    You can fight back, and since they can’t flag, that means they’re always taking the full death penalty.

    As long as you don’t wear your best gear 24/7 (which would be a bad plan for many reasons) then chancing a loss isn’t that impactful.
  • LinsteadLinstead Member
    How about, if you don't want to punish a green for attacking a red, but still want to give the red a fighting chance without gaining MORE corruption, you flag the green as combatant in combat, but as soon as they leave combat (whether through death, getting the kill, or the corrupted player escaping) they go back to being green?
  • NeurathNeurath Member
    Will we be able to see levels of other players? Or will we just see name plates etc.
  • mcknightridermcknightrider Member
    edited July 30
    What if you see someone, equal level and you engage and they decide, "NOPE!" and jump off a cliff. They die, you're now corrupt because you were engaged in combat and they never attacked back. Sure that's not exactly fair but I can live with that. However; if that same person who corrupted me comes back now has a no risk opportunity to engage me and kill me. They stay non-combatant, and if I fight back and kill them I get more corruption. That's not exactly fair to me?

    Or how about I'm level 50 and I get a group of level 35 all ganging up on me. I start killing them, they're all combatant's. AOE's flailing around, nukes going off and another lvl. 35 runs up. I see them coming, attack them but they never attack back and in the midst of all of this I end up killing someone who didn't end up attacking. Well shit. I'm now corrupted, but now ALL of that group can come back and I won't be able to fight any of them because if I kill them now then all I get is further corruption. This last example actually happen in EQ2. When they first went PvP servers me and the boys all went HAM against a lvl 19 player when we were all 11-12. The level different in that game made a HUGE difference. you had a kill list of 10 people. Anyone on it you wouldn't get credit for. So we just threw ourselves at him, died but came back and swarmed him. He got no credit for killing us this time, so there was no reward but we gained everything. In AoC corruption exist and not only do you not gain anything from fighting back you have everything to lose.

    I like the corruption system but there's 2 things that stick out to me that I don't like. 1 is lowering stats the further you get corrupted and the other is if a Non-Combatant attacks a corrupted they stay non-combatant and you end up gaining more corruption for just defending yourself. I think if you attack ANYONE you should become a combatant.
  • Undead CanuckUndead Canuck Member, Braver of Worlds
    Again, you are attacking a non-combatant. You risked it, you get 'rewarded'.

    Just uncheck the box that says your attacks affect non-combatants. Then you won't 'accidentally' kill anyone.
  • HealawinHealawin Member
    I am a bit confused on how this works. I'm okay with non-combatant players attacking corrupted players and staying non-combatant but the corrupted player should still be able to defend himself against the non-combatant without incurring more of corruption penalty. Corruption is supposed to be a risk versus reward mechanic and not just some massive penalty that makes it impossible to play the game.
  • Healawin wrote: »
    I am a bit confused on how this works. I'm okay with non-combatant players attacking corrupted players and staying non-combatant but the corrupted player should still be able to defend himself against the non-combatant without incurring more of corruption penalty. Corruption is supposed to be a risk versus reward mechanic and not just some massive penalty that makes it impossible to play the game.

    No. Corruption is there to DETER pking. It's not a mechanic, it's a straight punishment.
    You're not supposed to kill people who don't fight back or people that you're one shotting.


  • edited July 31
    I'm of the opinion that ruining someone else's gaming experience for fun or gain is the thing a horrible person would do anyway.

    I think there will always be the group that the OP is referring to, [and it] is a very very small proportion of PK-ers. Seems like a skewing the system to accommodate to a marginal is a bad idea.

    PK-ers who run into 'green' players (or whatever we're calling them) should run. If one is or plans to be a law breaker, one had be better be prepared to fear and be dealt with [by] those who uphold it (to include hard coded system game systems).

    Edit: grammar
    "Don't be hasty."
  • KhanaKhana Member
    I agree that this system is kinda stupid. Greens attacking a red should either get flagged purple, or get a "semi flagging" that makes them purple to the corrupted player they're attacking only.
    There might be a ton of valid reasons to kill someone who doesn't wanna flag that have nothing to do with griefing or "ruining other people's experience", and getting corrupted shouldn't mean that you should have to forfeit your life to the first green you meet because otherwise you'd ruin your whole character.

    I know a lot of you are pve heroes that will avoid pvp everytime they can, but (almost) no one will take the risk to flag red just to ruin your game experience if you did nothing to annoy them in the first place, the penalties are already significant enough don't worry, and even if someone does, it's gonna be rare enough that it won't affect your game experience much.
  • HealawinHealawin Member
    Khana wrote: »
    I agree that this system is kinda stupid. Greens attacking a red should either get flagged purple, or get a "semi flagging" that makes them purple to the corrupted player they're attacking only.
    There might be a ton of valid reasons to kill someone who doesn't wanna flag that have nothing to do with griefing or "ruining other people's experience", and getting corrupted shouldn't mean that you should have to forfeit your life to the first green you meet because otherwise you'd ruin your whole character.

    I know a lot of you are pve heroes that will avoid pvp everytime they can, but (almost) no one will take the risk to flag red just to ruin your game experience if you did nothing to annoy them in the first place, the penalties are already significant enough don't worry, and even if someone does, it's gonna be rare enough that it won't affect your game experience much.

    Exactly this. One of the biggest reasons is fighting over a resource. The way the system is set up now. If you see a resource you want and someone sees it as well the best thing to do would be to just start mining the node, let the guys kill you and get corrupted, then come back and kill the guy when he cant fight back for fear of getting further corrupted. Since being corrupted increases the likelyhood of dropping materials, he will probably just drop the ore that you were fighting over in the first place. The whole point of the system is to encourage consensual pvp while discouraging griefing. This system just discourages all forms of open world pvp and would effectively be the same as having no world pvp at all.
  • edited July 31
    No, I think if they become corrupted, they should beware. They have done a (albeit in-game) crime with malice aforethought! They (or are we really talking about you?) have intentionally attempted to ruin someone's experience - and may have been successful at doing so. There should be no free ride to safety. They're a criminal on the lamb. If it's a real issue, and they're not at fault: call a GM and plead for justice and fairness! Otherwise, it's justice via another modality. I am 100% for Personal accountability.

    No get out of jail free cards. Perhaps, one might propose: Rewards for green players who kill PK-ers. (Aside from the promised Bounty Hunting Quests, which I don't hear any complaints about).

    Edit: changed from 2nd person to 3rd Pers plur pronouns in order to sound less accusatory.
    "Don't be hasty."
  • noaaninoaani Member
    King Fool wrote: »
    Beekeeper wrote: »
    It's a system where greens can scare away a corrupted, even if they can't actually hope to defeat them. That also means that groups of corrupted can't bait innocents into flagging themselves as combatants.

    I get that part, but even if a corrupted baits it's a choice to attack. But the reverse is without choice.

    The choice comes at the point where you gain your first piece of corruption.

    Everything after that is a consequence of that choice.

    Make that first choice well.
  • hapyhapy Member
    What if you see someone, equal level and you engage and they decide, "NOPE!" and jump off a cliff. They die, you're now corrupt because you were engaged in combat and they never attacked back.
    It's more than likely attacker will have to give finishing blow to get corruption. Just because you flag them and then they die from mob or they kill themself doesn't mean you get corruption.
    Or how about I'm level 50 and I get a group of level 35 all ganging up on me. I start killing them, they're all combatant's. AOE's flailing around, nukes going off and another lvl. 35 runs up.
    In lineage you had to press key (usually ctrl) to be able to attack non-combatants. Or you could make macros [/useforce skill] to always be able to attack others no matter what.
    Not sure how AoC will deal with it but it is quite likely you will have control over it.
    I like the corruption system but there's 2 things that stick out to me that I don't like. 1 is lowering stats the further you get corrupted and the other is if a Non-Combatant attacks a corrupted they stay non-combatant and you end up gaining more corruption
    So you can just go to lower lvl party group and kill them without any significant consequences. Any lower lvl that will try to kill you then will get immediately killed again and again no consequences for you?

    So if organized group want to wipe whole dungeon full of players they can just do that and then camp in front of entrance and making life difficult for random players just because they decided?
    There will be guild wars so you can attack players from enemy guild and kill them without getting corruption.

    This corruption mechanic is product of the risk/reward system that AoC is trying to bring back. Having corruption will have significant consequences and I believe that is exactly what AoC is aiming for.
  • I want to be honest here, you all say it's fair because you attacked a green, but I disagree.
    Even a green has the choice to fight back. But if you are red and get attacked by a green you don't have the choice. In literally every aspect of the corruption system there's a choice involved, but not in this case. You could give me 10x death penalty and I could agree, but being attacked without being able to fight back is stupid. Regardless of the situation.
    ITS NOT ABOUT GRIEFING OR KILLING LOW LEVELS.
  • grisugrisu Member
    It makes perfect sense, you are flagged as a murderer. If a zivilian wants to stop you and you kill him you murdered another one not defended yourself. If you don't want more corruption you should run away like the criminal you already are.
    It makes perfect sense not because of the analogy, but because of why it is the way it is. This way you can't goad someone into attacking you so he flags and you have no downside in killing more people. It's an anti griefing measure whether you like it or not.
    I can be a life fulfilling dream. Grisu
    I can be a life devouring nightmare. Zekece#1819
  • noaaninoaani Member
    edited July 31
    King Fool wrote: »
    I want to be honest here, you all say it's fair because you attacked a green, but I disagree.
    Even a green has the choice to fight back.
    They do, but if you see that they are not fighting back, you have a second choice to stop attacking them before getting corruption.

    This means that they have beaten you, but that is how the system is supposed to work.

    In order to gain corruption, you have to first of all decide to attack someone that is not expecting it (and probably doesn't welcome it), and you then have to decide to carry on with that attack once you realize that the player isn't fighting back.

    That is a whole lot of time to decide that those consequences are not worth it.

    You do not get to start an analogy off by saying "you are a red", because that is not where the story started. The story started when you gained that corruption - so that is where you should start the analogy from.
Sign In or Register to comment.