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.

corruption system(a party ganking 1 possible?)

CaezCaez Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
edited November 2020 in General Discussion
a question just came to my mind about the corruption system, if 2 or more players attack to 1 player alone they corruption will split between they 2 or will they get the same corruption that they would if if there were alone killing to non combatants?(if the corruption get divided wouldn´t if be better for the corrupted)
«134567

Comments

  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    No, corruption goes to whoever gets the killing blow.
  • CaezCaez Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    so can a party of 10 go for 1 non combatant and the corruption will go for who hits the last?
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    yes
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    Yeah, I think they are going to have to change that once it gets tested. I just dont see how letting roving bands of gankers kill whoever they want and only put the blame on the last one to touch the body is going to work out.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • CaezCaez Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Yeah agreed, hopefully they figure it out something
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone.

    If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone.

    If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.

    It means that all those that were involved in killing the non-combatant suffer a punishment for it. They'll all go Corrupted, and if they do it enough, they'll all take penalties for it. And they'll all be on the Bounty Hunter radar.

    Let's say, for example, that it takes 10 kills before a PKer takes a penalty. In a PKer group of 10, that can be spread out so that it takes 50 kills before everyone has that penalty.

    If that's the intention, then fair dos. But it seems like an easy way to game the system.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    daveywavey wrote: »
    it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone.

    If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.

    It means that all those that were involved in killing the non-combatant suffer a punishment for it. They'll all go Corrupted, and if they do it enough, they'll all take penalties for it. And they'll all be on the Bounty Hunter radar.

    Let's say, for example, that it takes 10 kills before a PKer takes a penalty. In a PKer group of 10, that can be spread out so that it takes 50 kills before everyone has that penalty.

    If that's the intention, then fair dos. But it seems like an easy way to game the system.

    The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die.

    To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them.

    As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant.

  • CROW3CROW3 Member, Alpha Two
    If 10 people attack a green melee at range, I wonder if they could 100-0 the green before an attack could get off. If so, yet another case for the toggle.

    I like the idea of corruption being spread across the group, and the mechanics would be fun to solution as long as it’s easy for players to understand.
    AoC+Dwarf+750v3.png
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die.

    To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them.

    As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant.

    The system is there to stop the random killing of multiple non-combatants. Part of the system is that the more you kill, the more you're hit with stats and skill dampening. If you can spread that out over a wide group, you're gaming the system.

    If you've done 99% of the damage to a non-combatant, it shouldn't matter that someone else made the killing blow. You've done your part in it, and you should also take the credit for it.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • mcstackersonmcstackerson Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    daveywavey wrote: »
    The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die.

    To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them.

    As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant.

    The system is there to stop the random killing of multiple non-combatants. Part of the system is that the more you kill, the more you're hit with stats and skill dampening. If you can spread that out over a wide group, you're gaming the system.

    If you've done 99% of the damage to a non-combatant, it shouldn't matter that someone else made the killing blow. You've done your part in it, and you should also take the credit for it.

    The system would would still stop them and does things to deter this.

    I also don't think this is as good for the group as you think. The more corruption you get, the more deaths it will take to get rid of it. In addition to that, the more kills you get, more corruption you get for each kill. So even if they try a kill funnel strat, that person will start to get more and more corruption for each kill which will also mean they are easier to kill. Remember, non-combatants don't become combatants when they attack corrupted so someone can still attack the person. On top off all that, the longer they stick around an area, the more time a group has to form to counter them, that is if they don't happen to come across one that is already formed doing something else.

    This is also one of those frustrating things to argue where it's something that is possible but how likely is it. Technically the whole server could decide they hate one person and never let that person kill any mobs or get any resources. That's an exaggeration but to illustrate a point. You have a scenario where 10 people decide they want to pk and are assuming that they will be able to max out everyones corruption without encountering any resistance. I rarely see gank groups with more then 2 people if even that and you assume 10 people are going to want to run around killing people until they max out corruption and are finally brought down so they can eat that penalty?

    How likely/often do you actually think it is that 10 people will want to do that and then how long would they really be able to do it before they are stopped? This is a hard part to understand but this is part of the system, yes it allows this but with the deterrents in place, how often will it happen.

    And as a side note, keep in mind what you are recommending would make it so that if you attacked someone but backed off because they weren't fighting back, i could then kill that non-combatant to make you corrupted..

    But as it's been said, testing.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    daveywavey wrote: »
    The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die.

    To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them.

    As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant.

    The system is there to stop the random killing of multiple non-combatants. Part of the system is that the more you kill, the more you're hit with stats and skill dampening. If you can spread that out over a wide group, you're gaming the system.

    If you've done 99% of the damage to a non-combatant, it shouldn't matter that someone else made the killing blow. You've done your part in it, and you should also take the credit for it.

    The system would would still stop them and does things to deter this.

    I also don't think this is as good for the group as you think. The more corruption you get, the more deaths it will take to get rid of it. In addition to that, the more kills you get, more corruption you get for each kill. So even if they try a kill funnel strat, that person will start to get more and more corruption for each kill which will also mean they are easier to kill. Remember, non-combatants don't become combatants when they attack corrupted so someone can still attack the person. On top off all that, the longer they stick around an area, the more time a group has to form to counter them, that is if they don't happen to come across one that is already formed doing something else.

    This is also one of those frustrating things to argue where it's something that is possible but how likely is it. Technically the whole server could decide they hate one person and never let that person kill any mobs or get any resources. That's an exaggeration but to illustrate a point. You have a scenario where 10 people decide they want to pk and are assuming that they will be able to max out everyones corruption without encountering any resistance. I rarely see gank groups with more then 2 people if even that and you assume 10 people are going to want to run around killing people until they max out corruption and are finally brought down so they can eat that penalty?

    How likely/often do you actually think it is that 10 people will want to do that and then how long would they really be able to do it before they are stopped? This is a hard part to understand but this is part of the system, yes it allows this but with the deterrents in place, how often will it happen.

    And as a side note, keep in mind what you are recommending would make it so that if you attacked someone but backed off because they weren't fighting back, i could then kill that non-combatant to make you corrupted..

    But as it's been said, testing.

    The big issue with this is that the ganking group will most likely be 1 corrupt playerc escorted by many combatants. Meaning any combatants that try to deal with the group can just be openly attacked by the full force of gankers without any penalties, so your only "good" option for getting to that corrupted player is to attack while green or as a bounty hunter and green. (For those that dont know green players do not flag when attacking corrupted players. And bounty hunters are only flagged directly with corrupted players.)

    This means you are not being rewarded for choosing to do consensual pvp like the corruption system was originally designed to do while also promoting said ganking squads that can easily grief.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • AtamaAtama Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I think the corruption should be equally shared between all combatants. That will discourage the 20-on-1 ganking that Intrepid is trying to curb.
     
    Hhak63P.png
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    In addition, what stops me from joining a group of people, killing a bystander outside of that group, spreading my corruption to the group and then my real mates jump out for the free kills and loot?

    This proposition will only lead to abuse.
    If 20 people want you dead, they can easily sit and watch as one of them leaves the group and starts killing you.
    If you fight back they can still jump you.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    If 20 people come and attack you, with one of them landing the last hit and PKing you, do these things:
    Become social
    Become useful
    Make friends
    Find a guild
    Extract revenge instead of advocating for "group pk".

  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    CROW3 wrote: »
    If 10 people attack a green melee at range, I wonder if they could 100-0 the green before an attack could get off. If so, yet another case for the toggle.

    I like the idea of corruption being spread across the group, and the mechanics would be fun to solution as long as it’s easy for players to understand.

    So you want me to toggle as combatant, while 10 people are nuking me from 20 meters away?
    While would I give them a hassle free death?
    Another stupid arguement for the stupid toggle discussion.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

    im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Sathrago wrote: »
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

    im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

    It's not about the "fight back"
    It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

    The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Sathrago wrote: »
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

    im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

    It's not about the "fight back"
    It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

    The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.

    I mean, they all stuck their hands in the cookie jar... Why is the last one the only one punished?
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

    im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

    It's not about the "fight back"
    It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

    The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.

    I mean, they all stuck their hands in the cookie jar... Why is the last one the only one punished?

    Read my following posts about scamming the proposition of group pk.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Sathrago wrote: »
    None of those complaints are valid.
    If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
    If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

    Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

    im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

    It's not about the "fight back"
    It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

    The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.

    I mean, they all stuck their hands in the cookie jar... Why is the last one the only one punished?

    Read my following posts about scamming the proposition of group pk.

    so the solution to roving bands of griefers... is to make roving bands of anti-griefers?

    Idk man, I think the corruption system has a flaw here and wishes to prevent this sort of delinquent gameplay.

    If you help kill a non-combatant player you should gain a percentage of the corruption. Since its a small percentage it would be pretty easy to get rid of but they should still have the risk of gaining it if they are going to be playing in this manner.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Life isnt fair and there is strength in numbers.

    Too many sctructures hurt the game either by leading to abuse of systems or by making the game lame.


    Some people used to call for no trade of gold between players, to address gold sellers. That suggestion would make the game lame.

    The suggestion of this topic will lead to abuse.

    I will say it for the second time, if 20 people want to PK you, all it takes is one person to leave their group and pk you. The other 19 can sit there and wait in case you fight back.

    This is life.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    There cant be a system in place every time somebody feels "this isnt fair to me now"
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    I don't believe I ever said the word "Fairness". This is about a toxic playstyle that advocates griefing. I use Grief in this example because you are using a loophole in the corruption system to instantly kill an enemy non-combatant before they can choose to flag up or run away. Intrepid want to create a pvp system that works around consent and risk vs reward. A group of 20 players attacking 1 player all contributed, all decided to participate in killing a green, so they should all bear the risk and turn red for that action.

    You seem to also be confused on a few parts that I have already explained as well. You cannot become a combatant against a corrupted player as a green player currently.
    My suggestion does not require players to be in the same group for them to gain the corruption from helping to kill a green player.

    Alright, what's the play now?
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Here is the play.
    Let's imagine that if a group of 20 people atks 1 person, they all share the corruption, as suggested, right?

    Play 1.

    The group of 20 people arrive near this one person. One of the group /leaves the group and starts killing the victim. The others DONT atk.
    a)The victim dies, 1 person got corrupted, the other 19 didnt.
    b)The victim fights back the attacker. All 20 people kill the victim, nobody gets corrupted.

    Play 2.

    I am a troll. I join a group of 5 people. Some random player is also there.
    I PK that player. My group gets corrupted.
    My friends show up, kill my group and take the loot.
    I just trolled a group.

    I cant make it any more simple.
    How does the proposed system make the game any better?
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Here is the play.
    Let's imagine that if a group of 20 people atks 1 person, they all share the corruption, as suggested, right?

    Play 1.

    The group of 20 people arrive near this one person. One of the group /leaves the group and starts killing the victim. The others DONT atk.
    a)The victim dies, 1 person got corrupted, the other 19 didnt.
    b)The victim fights back the attacker. All 20 people kill the victim, nobody gets corrupted.
    This allowed the player to make a choice.
    Play 2.

    I am a troll. I join a group of 5 people. Some random player is also there.
    I PK that player. My group gets corrupted.
    My friends show up, kill my group and take the loot.
    I just trolled a group.


    You cant troll the group if they didn't help you. Again, if you didn't help kill them you wouldn't gain corruption.
    I cant make it any more simple.
    How does the proposed system make the game any better?

    If you contribute to a green players death you getting corrupted gives out a proportional risk to each player participating in the system that is built to deter griefing. If you all gain corruption then instead of continuing to farm players you will be incentivized to go do pve for a while. This is how it works on an individual level, and how it should work on a group level.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • SangramoireSangramoire Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    IDK how open world pvp will occur but they might restrict some areas to be single combat instead of multi and during events, the area of the event may become multi. They could also have the corruption instead of being spread out, just have every single person that participated in the kill get the full corruption for killing that one person. Some may argue that each person that participated in the kill should actually get more corruption than someone that fought 1v1 because a 3v1, for example, is more unfair. I think it's likely that they will take how many people attack into account when handing out corruption because they have already confirmed that the corruption gained is also based on level difference meaning that they are looking to give more corruption for unfair fights.
  • SangramoireSangramoire Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Here's how I expect corruption to work according to what Intrepid has disclosed so far:

    Let's assume that corruption goes from 0 to 1,000 and that normal corruption gain for killing someone of the same level is 100.
    Let's also assume all players are green and same level at the start of the scenario.

    Players 1 through 5 are not necessarily in a group together.
    If players 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5 attack player 6.
    Immediately players 1 through 5 become flagged (purple).
    Player 6 doesn't fight back and players 1 through 5 end up killing him with player 4 getting the killing blow.
    Players 1 through 5 all get 100 corruption because they all participated in the kill.

    That's how I expect corruption system to work, and possibly have each of those players get say 150 corruption instead of 100 because even though they are all same level, it was a 1 v 5.

    do note that the corruption system is there to prevent these specific kinds of situations where someone is just unable to play the game at all because it's too unfair. Remember that by having more corruption your character becomes weaker in combat. It's done for a reason so I would be very surprised if Intrepid did not implement a system where more corruption was gained by each individual player than normal if they ganked in groups, whether they were partied up or not. I would also expect there to be a timer to decide if a player would get corruption from another players death. For anyone confused let me give you an example.

    Let's say that from the group above, player 2 had attacked player 6 but stopped attack right away. Player 6 remained alive for more than a minute after player 2 stopped attacking. In that case I'd expect player 2 to receive little to no corruption. If anything instead of getting 100 corruption he might receive only 15 corruption for example, or none at all.

  • Besides the ganking and griefing issue loopholes mentioned above need to be closed before launching.

    The corruption need to correspond with pk looting system, only those flagged corrupted is/are allowed to loot. Risk and reward need to be balanced.
Sign In or Register to comment.