Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
The issue with Corruption - How to fix
LowQuey
Member
Hi all,
So I'm new to Ashes of Corruption so forgive me if this is something that has already been pointed out, but the corruption system that has been suggested currently is routinely flawed and I felt it was necessary to point this out.
The idea of the system as I understand it is to prevent griefing, which in of itself is a great idea, however the way the system goes about it is not only flawed but also over-invested in.
Griefing (for example killing players who are non-combatants) makes you corrupt and gives huge negatives with petty much zero rewards. That in of itself makes sense, until you enter in bounty hunting, which gives the impression that being corrupted is more of a life choice than an against the rules type of thing. At that point you're not really saying "don't grief" but actually saying "don't kill people that don't want to be combatants". This is NOT the same thing.
I'll give you some examples that are common in other games I've played in the past. In the current system I could take someone down 90% of their hp and then walk away a combatant. I could then wait for them to heal up and do it again. This is still griefing. I could also just kill everything they try to kill faster thereby stopping or slowing their progression. This is also griefing. And whats the recourse? None really. I can just turn off combatant the second their friends turn up and laugh as they aren't allowed to kill me without being corrupted themselves.
If you think of killing non-combatants as inherently griefing and want to prevent it specifically then why not just make non-combantants unable to be killed by combatants? Why bother with Corrupted and Bounty Hunters at all? I can only assume it to give the CHOICE to be corrupted, but then where are the benefits of that choice? Why would someone choose to go down that route instead of griefing in the myriad of ways that circumvent the corruption system?
The best way to combat this would be to ensure a defined line between corrupted and non-corrupted gameplay and build this into your game. Someone who is corrupted may lose out of a lot of things, but there HAS to be some benefit or players will start finding other ways to do it that are far more toxic than just PK'ing. This will also add more to the fun of the game by people having to choose a criminal lifestyle or one of law and order. So here's what i suggest:
1) Corruption no longer makes you weaker in PvP - the idea that killing players makes you weaker makes little sense and takes away from the hardened criminal option of being corrupted
2) Corruption no longer get reduced drops from monsters. Again this makes no sense.
3) There will be special vendors/stalls that cater to all players regardless of their status - your classic seedy trader who is happy to buy stolen goods for a reduced price
4) A NPC guild that caters to them specifically as a kind of anti-bounty hunter group. They might even have secret ways into the cities where communities or "dens of corruption" (couldn't resist - sorry xD) of other corrupted can grow.
HOWEVER -
1) Corrupted players are always flagged for PvP. They can always be killed free of detriment - even granting benefits like the bounties on their heads, special coins for exclusive loot etc
2) Corrupted players can always be actively hunted whenever they are outside of their "den of corruption" - ranger tracking will show when there has been a corrupted player nearby and which way they went, clerics can sense their presence and direction, bounty hunters get a map update with their position etc
Being corrupted now means that while you might get some ill gotten gains from killing people, you are now a fugitive on the run. Anytime you're farming someone could turn up to claim the bounty on your head. You might be able to buy things from seedy shops in small villages or back alleys but the city proper is forever closed to you.
Working corruption into the game this way will limit corrupted players while still allowing a place in the game for them, and thereby allow a place for bounty hunters as well. Players won't go looking for toxic ways to grief, but will instead resort to good old fashioned bashing of heads and face the consequences of going down the "dodgy path" (Raymond E Fiest quote) later on.
Anyway that's just my two cents. Other than this the game looks pretty solid and I'm pretty interested to see where it goes
--Loki--
P.S. I'd be a bounty hunter not a PK'er for those that were wondering
So I'm new to Ashes of Corruption so forgive me if this is something that has already been pointed out, but the corruption system that has been suggested currently is routinely flawed and I felt it was necessary to point this out.
The idea of the system as I understand it is to prevent griefing, which in of itself is a great idea, however the way the system goes about it is not only flawed but also over-invested in.
Griefing (for example killing players who are non-combatants) makes you corrupt and gives huge negatives with petty much zero rewards. That in of itself makes sense, until you enter in bounty hunting, which gives the impression that being corrupted is more of a life choice than an against the rules type of thing. At that point you're not really saying "don't grief" but actually saying "don't kill people that don't want to be combatants". This is NOT the same thing.
I'll give you some examples that are common in other games I've played in the past. In the current system I could take someone down 90% of their hp and then walk away a combatant. I could then wait for them to heal up and do it again. This is still griefing. I could also just kill everything they try to kill faster thereby stopping or slowing their progression. This is also griefing. And whats the recourse? None really. I can just turn off combatant the second their friends turn up and laugh as they aren't allowed to kill me without being corrupted themselves.
If you think of killing non-combatants as inherently griefing and want to prevent it specifically then why not just make non-combantants unable to be killed by combatants? Why bother with Corrupted and Bounty Hunters at all? I can only assume it to give the CHOICE to be corrupted, but then where are the benefits of that choice? Why would someone choose to go down that route instead of griefing in the myriad of ways that circumvent the corruption system?
The best way to combat this would be to ensure a defined line between corrupted and non-corrupted gameplay and build this into your game. Someone who is corrupted may lose out of a lot of things, but there HAS to be some benefit or players will start finding other ways to do it that are far more toxic than just PK'ing. This will also add more to the fun of the game by people having to choose a criminal lifestyle or one of law and order. So here's what i suggest:
1) Corruption no longer makes you weaker in PvP - the idea that killing players makes you weaker makes little sense and takes away from the hardened criminal option of being corrupted
2) Corruption no longer get reduced drops from monsters. Again this makes no sense.
3) There will be special vendors/stalls that cater to all players regardless of their status - your classic seedy trader who is happy to buy stolen goods for a reduced price
4) A NPC guild that caters to them specifically as a kind of anti-bounty hunter group. They might even have secret ways into the cities where communities or "dens of corruption" (couldn't resist - sorry xD) of other corrupted can grow.
HOWEVER -
1) Corrupted players are always flagged for PvP. They can always be killed free of detriment - even granting benefits like the bounties on their heads, special coins for exclusive loot etc
2) Corrupted players can always be actively hunted whenever they are outside of their "den of corruption" - ranger tracking will show when there has been a corrupted player nearby and which way they went, clerics can sense their presence and direction, bounty hunters get a map update with their position etc
Being corrupted now means that while you might get some ill gotten gains from killing people, you are now a fugitive on the run. Anytime you're farming someone could turn up to claim the bounty on your head. You might be able to buy things from seedy shops in small villages or back alleys but the city proper is forever closed to you.
Working corruption into the game this way will limit corrupted players while still allowing a place in the game for them, and thereby allow a place for bounty hunters as well. Players won't go looking for toxic ways to grief, but will instead resort to good old fashioned bashing of heads and face the consequences of going down the "dodgy path" (Raymond E Fiest quote) later on.
Anyway that's just my two cents. Other than this the game looks pretty solid and I'm pretty interested to see where it goes
--Loki--
P.S. I'd be a bounty hunter not a PK'er for those that were wondering
4
Comments
First, no. You don't just turn off combatant state. It's something that you have for a period of time until you go without killk g a player (90% sure) before you lose. So that's not correct.
Second, they didn't want to make a danger free game. While it's true everyone can go Yolo and kill everything in sight, the fact is that most of a population will react aggressively to a player killing others that are purely focused on pve. So going corrupted will be a risk vs the thrill of not getting caught thing.
I have noticed elements of the game which *could hypothetically* be exploited for griefing. But I think the pvp foundation that has been set will go far towards making a dangerous game thay will not require pvp from all its players.
Actually killing players and going currupt does have rewards, which I stand against. If the player has gatherables/certificates (think WoW grey items that is just there for gold) They can loot them off the corpse of the player and then try to go incongnito.
Since this is the case, and you lose less when you fight back, it's more likely the player will fight back to protect his goods, which will result that the attacker will not corrupt. This is a major flaw in that system in my opinion, it encourages greifing in fact. I think more rules needs to be applied to prevent this and include in other places where player theft can occur. I beleive the game would be more enjoyable without possible theft of items.
To answer your list;
heck no! Pker's need not be rewarded for ruining another players day!
So you are out.... A few silver?
Agoan there other systems in place that could be potentially worse for griefing. The pvp system isn't that bad. I think it's kind of brilliant.
You can switch between combatant and non-combatant without penalty - so there is really nothing to stop this from happening. You might have to run away for a bit, say a couple of minutes, to turn it back off again but when you're talking about a map that's over 400km in size you could spend an hour or so doing this before anyone turned up to help your victim.
With regards to it not being risk free - the current system allows for griefing, but not for killing. That's like saying sticks and stones mate - griefing doesn't work that way. I played League of Legends for a few years and I can tell you now toxic behaviour isn't limited to killing someone, people will ALWAYS find a way to be toxic. A game creators job is to give direction to that toxic behaviour. Take WoW for example. In the old days alliance and horde were the lines ( I don't know anymore as I haven't played it in YEARS). You couldn't fight your own kind, but the other side were all horrible and deserved to die. You worst nature was directed by the game creators into something that aided you being immersed of the game. It helped create that feeling of two nations at war.
I think the worst you'll see from corrupted is a few people who every now and again kill someone. It will likely be out of frustration (likely the person doing the griefing) or for the sheer hell of it or because they are going to cancel their account or have hacked an account. The rest of the time the whole idea of Bounty Hunters will be like a worse version of fishing in other games.
Can we talk about body blocking and idiocy in large groups?
Pvp, not so much
Some "grey" items in WoW actually give decent gold, I was just using them as an example.
Choices have consequences which is the entire premise of AoC.
Bounty hunting is the player driven system to stop griefing because lets face it, just getting corruption isnt going to daunt people its just a mechanic they ARE going to work around somehow.
Bounty Hunting is a tool for players given by the devs to alleviate people who figure out obscure ways to get around or who just flat out ignore corruptions consequences to grief.
Hence bounty hunting.
Corruption is NOT MEANT to be a reward system. Its a punishment that has consequences for being a shitty player. Its fine you want to kill someone but once you do and they dont want to fight thats on you for going through with it.
You want a free for all pvp game with no consequences and that is not the intent nor desire or focus of Ashes.
If you want to pvp here then do so but dont think your way of indiscriminate pvp is what the devs or players want. I mean HELL open world PvP alone with no way to turn it off is already a power move by Intrepid.
There will be other ways to be and play as a Bad guy in this game via the other systems but corruption is not it. Its Intrepids in-game mechanic to curb rampant pvpers who dont understand or care about boundries and take their time and gameplay to ruin others.
Seriously, I only play PvP in many of my games and this is just a no brainer. The corruption in Ashes is by far one of the best mechanic designs for open world pvp and bounty hunting as a safeguard and Rp that I've ever seen.
I dont understand why people dont see this lol
So would you prefer a random player coming by and killing you to steal a little of your loot/resources and moving on or a guy sitting there chunking your hp bar repeatedly every time you go heal up or killing monsters that you attack to stop you from farming for half an hour? In a game with this kind of map size and lack of NPC driven travel options this is something that WILL happen. Ask anyone who played Legends of Mir back when MMORPG's were a new thing and systems like this were first attempted. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.
PK'ing has a place in games, especially ones that has a focus on PvP. Griefing is when you deliberately take it upon yourself to consistently ruin the game for someone else for your own enjoyment. This doesn't necessarily mean Pk'ing. There are far worse ways to grief someone than killing them.
First of all, you can't take a player down to 90% - we will not have that much information on player health unless we are grouped up with them. This means that in your effort to take a player down to 90%, there is a damn good chance you may accidently kill them.
Have fun with that.
Additionally, if this kind of thing becomes a problem, all Intrepid need to do is add a timer to the PvP system whereby if a player dies n seconds after being attacked by another, that attacker gains corruption. This means that if you come along and attack me but don't kill me, I could then just run over to the nearest mob, let it kill me and you gain corruption.
Please refrain from saying "player theft": it makes no sense and it sounds dumb.
Have you never heard of or played a game with full loot non-consensual PvP? Ashes won't even have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of gatherables and processed (in some cases) items if you're not corrupted. It feels bad to be killed and lose loot, it's usually not "fair" and there's no denying that, still that's engraved onto the game's PvX core philosophy.
I have a feeling you're treating this game as if it was real life where stealing, looting and killing is obviously unacceptable. I'm happy to tell you Ashes will be a game in which you and your loot will never be safe, but it could be so much worse, you have no idea. If you have never played and if you don't like the older MMORPGs or current survival games, Ashes might not be for you unfortunately. Some people like hardcore (ish) games and some don't, but please stop trying to take that away from those who enjoy it. Almost every single MMORPG out there has safe PvP (no loot on death), aren't you tired of that already?
I'm not saying that Ashes' systems and ideas are flawless, that it won't be possible to abuse them, that they will completely prevent griefing or that PvP will mostly be an enjoyable experience. I'm very hopeful that the Alpha and Beta testing phases will show Intrepid the issues of the current PvP systems in place, which luckily will be fixed.
If you think that this or any "corruption' system is going to deter the underbelly of online gaming from showing up in mass, you are simply naive. These people do not care about any system that attempts to keep them from harvesting your tears. We have all seen the attempts by other developers and they have all failed or been completely ineffective.
They will come, they will kill everyone they find, they will destroy the game, then after all the targets are gone they will move to the next game until we decide that it may be safe to return, then they will come and start again.
'
There are lots of mechanisms in game where players can take resources you've acquired. Through sieges, caravans and PKing. It is an intended game mechanic and you can feel it's wrong but it will happen because it's sanctioned by Intrepid. It creates player driven friction and conflict, and they like it because it's memorable. Not all experiences are positive in the moment but they can be memorable and get you emotionally invested. It is what it is. Just be aware that this game intends for these things to happen.
Your example of getting constantly poked by someone doesn't incur exp loss, and if you poke a victim to a dangerous health level and they die to mobs - I assume you still take responsibility for the death according to the game (?)
Like you said, you can't stop people from having internet fights and this system at least provides a channel for that negative energy to go somewhere - which is a great thing. You fix PKing, then it's player harrassment like you suggested. You make non-combatants invulnerable then it becomes mob stealing. You fix mob stealing, then it becomes something else.
People are allowed to be annoying, and it's normal for those people to not have friends.
Building community naturally creates a buffer for being a dick.
If someone is poking you, you should probably either fight back or leave.
A lot of those games don't offer many rewards for PvP or the limited PvP modes get stale, so people get bored and will do anything to try to bypass the safeguards that protect the carebears.
Meanwhile, AoC has so many different ways to PvP, and they can all be very lucrative and meaningful. With there being so many options, I doubt that many will go through the trouble to engage in much heavily disincentivized PvP unless you hate the person so much that you have to kill them, or the reward for killing them is greater than the corruption penalty (e.g. player has a full mule). This is a much better system in my opinion than banning open world PvP outright.
Correct. Repeatedly killing the same player that does not fight back or killing many such players is discouraged and yields little rewards for the cost & risk as more kills are made against players that do not fight back.
Correct, becoming corrupted is an intended choice that is not against the rules. Also, the corruption system is designed to have a minimal impact on killing one player that does not fight back. The corruption system is intended to deter repeated murders as mentioned above.
You are correct. There are many ways to grief (Here is a pretty comprehensive list of options, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grieferhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer). The corruption is only intended to address the option of repeatedly killing the same player.
If a player has a problem with another player, the problem player can be killed. Anywhere. There is no safety.
Ashes will not be designating enemy players that you are supposed to have a problem with. Steven is fond of pointing out that the players he has most wanted to kill were frequently from his own faction. Steven wants you to be able to kill if you want to. Additionally, see the last section of my responses.
There is a benefit for killing players in the form of what they drop. Crafting materials; and, there was a mention above of certificates being equivalent to grey items in other games. We don't know the value of those certificates; but, we do know that if you travel to another part of the world with them they are worth more. The farther you go, the more they are worth. It seems to be implied that a high value from certificates is possible.
However, there does not have to be a benefit for becoming corrupted. As soon as you start adding benefits to becoming corrupted it becomes a reward system and the result will be that the system will be gamed for profits and increase total killing of players that do not fight back.
Your argument can be summed up as, pay griefers for killing players that do not fight back so that they don't use more malicious methods of griefing. Ashes will not be rewarding griefing, including stopping at just killing players that do not fight back.
The point of reduced stats is, if there is no other way to stop you from killing players that do not fight back (as you are pointing out, people will just do it regardless of consequences) then becoming combat ineffective will stop them. At least until they work off being combat ineffective.
Your mention of being a hardened criminal sounds like a status symbol; or, some target to aim for. Ashes is not encouraging killing players that do not fight back.
If you are killing players that do not fight back for profit, then this is likely to reduce your total profit from your actions. It makes killing players that do not fight back for profit less appealing.
Currently, you can sell them for full price. I doubt removing the current corruption system and replacing it with: the drops from murdered players yield a lower payment for those items, will be considered. It is not even close to as punishing.
Your trying to turn the corruption system into some kind of society to belong to. Your adding recognition and any benefits of the society. Again, killing players that do not fight back will not be rewarded.
I decided to stop. It seems like your looking for a rewards and recognition system for open world PVP that does not have a punishment system for the PVP. I have good news, you can kill whoever you want (if you can do it); and, if your attacking people around your level, you probably won't get corruption.
Players are paid to fight back (combatants only drop 1/2 of their inventory items compared to not fighting back; or, they gain the attackers drops if they win). Consider that Steven has described his intent as, skillful players will be able to win a fight against players up to 15 levels higher (or more, but it will be very difficult). Given this kind of chance to win and being paid to fight, it is likely that attacked players around your level will generally fight back which will result in 0 corruption
Also, corruption for killing one player that does not fight back will most likely have an almost negligible impact. This means that an attacked player that chooses to die without fighting does not have much impact alone. The benefit of not fighting for the attacked player really only benefits players that are far to weak to stand a chance. This is particularly true since corruption will be increased for killing much lower level players.
Ashes is intended for people to fight all over the world. Fighting over open world dungeons. Over world bosses. Over resources. Perhaps you see someone gather a rare resources before you could get to it and want to take it. You can kill them for the chance that they drop that resource. There are many other reasons to fight and kill around your level. The effect of the corruption system is intended to have minimal impact on any of this.
The players that won't fight back will generally be far lower in level and / or power and you really shouldn't be killing them over and over (BTW, Steven has described this as unlikely due to players respawning in distant (possibly random) areas).
Wait, you don't think a meaningful reward is meaningful pvp as compared to just pvping for the sake of it?
This and I bet most will own more than one account.
Ultima online. I'm sure there is others, but as soon as games that didn't allow player theft (I am gonna keep using it sorry, it's basically what this is) Those games was abandoned and guess what game came on top afterwards?
If someone spent hours trying to get something, it's to them as real as a real life item. You kill them and take the item, how does that feel to the player that you mugged them of? It'd feel more then "not fair".
bolded part here, been seeing this allot, that needs to stop, it's just as bad as "This game sucks! I'mma gonna quit!" lines. And does not add to the conversation except to insult the reader.
Fighting back flags you as a combatant, which if you die to the opponent player will not cause them to corrupt.
I do think there can be meaningful pvp without stealing from another player, espaically in this game,
You kill a player to prevent a node from growing, you help with a nodes attempt at conquest in taking or destroying another node so that a dungeon that would not be available will spawn, or defend the node to keep your favorite place to live in that right spot you where looking for or you like that comunity, Helping a guild take a castle or fortress so they can build special buildings in towns nearby are just a few examples.
They could also reward such as badges that can be turned in for items to encourage pvp in designated areas.
First of all thank you for the first detailed response! Thumbs up for you 😁!
Theres several things you mentioned there that I was not aware of so thank you - as I said at the start of the OP: I'm new to AoC.
My concern is harnessing peoples natural desire to do the wrong thing. Currently the system is very much a "you can make someone's life hell, just dont kill them"
Games have often found ways to harness this which normally works around a "Them vs Us" system: WoW did it with he Horde Alliance war, but there are many other examples of this.
While I appreciate the idea that people fighting back will happen and this is natural world pvp, consider the rogue that can quickly burst a mage; hes not going to be able to do this without being punished. The mage might have happily considered combat and fighting back if given half a chance but a rogue cant exactly walk up, poke him with a dagger, then wait for him to hit him before initiating combat: his entire focus on combat is surprise and burst.
This balancing act is one I've seen in mmorpgs for 20 years and the best solution so far has always been a them vs us system. AoC having no such system to focus a players bad habits means it becomes almost a free for all and is so easily abused.
I'll give another example: I'm a level 50 rogue and my friend is level 20. He needs a resource that other players are gathering so he walks over and hits them. They hit him back and both are now combatants and my level 50 rogue appears and kills them for him.
It's still unfair, it's still going to lead to bad feelings, and its repeatable.
The corruption system just has too many ways to be abused.
The advantage of my suggestion however is unlike in other us vs them styled games, this would allow you to transition from one to another.
It's just my opinion but rather than trying to stop a lorry with no brakes from rolling down a hill by standing out front and pushing, it's often better to just get into the cab and direct it to the place of least harm.
--Loki--
And they can then follow you and keep doing it; thus grieving.
They have said your approximate hp will be shown so knocking someone down to red would be the equivalent of 20% ish hp accomplishing the desire effect pretty easily.
Also even if it doesnt kill you it hinders your farming, increases your downtime, and tbh is frustrating as hell. These are not "what if" situations but are situations that have have been common on other games trying to run similar systems.
Yes you could let the mob kill you, giving them corruption, but then you also lose you stuff, durability etc and walk away feeling annoyed anyway as in a few hours that person can do it again. If anything you've punished yourself rather than them.
hey, just to clear something up. You mentioned that you believe Hunting Certificates to be the random trash you drop in games like WoW. That's incorrect.
Monster in AoC don't drop money/gold. Hunting Certificates is the gold you would drop from monsters in the open world in games like WoW. Here you have to get the certificates, then turn them into at the local Monster Hunter for the money.
So they are much more relevant than just grey loot from WoW.