Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Non combatant attacks corrupted ( Flaw in the System)
King Fool
Member
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!
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!
4
Comments
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.
Also read the post
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.
Twitch
Twitter
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It was your choice in the first place to gain corruption.
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.
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.
Just uncheck the box that says your attacks affect non-combatants. Then you won't 'accidentally' kill anyone.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 devouring nightmare. - Grisu#1819
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.