Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
That makes no sense what so ever. So if a player is a combatant and sees another combatant player they can't fight for eachothers resources? Requiring corruption to loot a pk would make the system really really broken.
Honestly the whole corruption system is highly dependent upon the attitude and behavior of the people playing. If only 1% of the players try to use "loop holes" or such to game the system then it will work pretty well. If most of the players using the system exploit it in one way or another than it will need to be adjusted. Until we can get 3k+ players together in the game to test it out it will be very difficult to make the correct adjustments. More rules will make the system less fun and more complicated, best to start out with as few rules as nessisary and adjust up from there. Maybe people will get along well enough that it won't matter. Maybe in the first hour people will have guilds of grief trains where 50 people take turns getting corruption and losing it. We won't know til the community gets together and interacts with eachother in large scale
Fair enough.
What about the loophole I mentioned with the 20 gangers?
Nobody will fall for the group PK. They will let 1 person do the job, unless the victim fights back.
This system wont prevent anything.
No reason to develop it. Hope this topic dont reach 20 pages as well.
Exactly this. A group doesn't need 8 people to attack an enemy that doesn't fight back. They would simply attack you with one person and back that person up if you fight back. If you don't, then they won't bother attacking and giving themselves corruption for no reason.
You either punish anybody in the group with the killer (which is a bad solution for obvious reasons) or you just punish the killer. Punishing everybody that is actively participating simply doesn't work and would be a waste of development effort.
So let's be clear here for a moment as I feel two different situations are being talked about as if they are the same.
If your combatant buddy in your group of 20 players goes and 1v1s someone only for the target to fight back there is no issue here as even if you help out the target is now a combatant and have consented to pvp.
Now the other situation is you have a group of 20 and one of them is corrupted already. They attack a non combatant and the non combatant fights back. The other 19 combatant players in the current system would gain no corruption as long as the corrupted player finishes off the non combatant player. If the corruption system worked as suggested, those combatants that helped cause the death of the green player would gain a portion of the corruption rather than all of it focusing in on the one guy who landed the killing blow.
I dont want the whole group punished for existing in the same area as the first corrupted player. I want players who actively choose to engage a non combatant to all take on the risk of making that choice regardless of who gets the killing blow.
Let me say one more thing then I'll end the wall of text. If you do not give corruption to contributing assailants you will have situations where high level players shred low level non combatants so that their low level friend can get the killing blow, effectively farming low level players at a reduced corruption rate and any risk to the high level player.
If a group of 10-20 players want to kill a solo player that player is going to die in nearly all circumstances regardless if they fight back or not. If this becomes a norm then it seems like the open world pvp will be flush with targets (to my delight) as a roaming group with 1-2 corrupt players in the mix will be free targets and all the group members who want to defend them will create a target rich environment for those of us who are going to be looking for active fights.
The solo player gets the rotten end of it, but at least they set the course of events in action giving the rest of us the ability to come in and clean up or try to at least.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Yes, the karma went to the one that laid the killing blow, but that did not always mean that the one who intended or wanted to do the killing blow was actually the one. Some targets were softer than expected, sometimes there was crit damage and sometimes they were already hurt due to pve.
Sometimes too, tapping was just to provoke pvp and a non-combatant kills was not planned.
And yes, sometimes they were tapped and the killing blow was a mob and there was no karma.
And sometimes, tapping to provoke pvp left you flashing as a combatant only to find that your flagging left you open to being killed by someone or a group unexpectedly.
Whilst karma to the one that does the final blow along many not seem fair, it is fairer than those who did not chose to participate in the party that does kill a non-combatant also taking karma.
Thinks can swing both ways, I recall players using alts with same visual gear, near same name, strategically placed but shocking low hp and no other protective gear just to be the patsy for the ganker. So tables could be reversed.
Besides, with the open world PvP available everywhere in Ashes, if such a large group did start to create havok in an area, I would bet that plenty of people desiring PvP would show up for the fun.
And if there was group shared corruption. Not all 19 player would help the corrupted player kill the green. If they feel like the corrupted will lose, then they'll get a single other player to help him fight the green. Which again, wouldn't result in the entire group getting corruption, hence making the above suggested group-corruption mechanic for players that actively participate in the kill completely useless.
In the end, one person died and one person gained the appropriate amount of corruption for the killing blow is the most straight -forward solution. Trying to add more corruption across everybody in the participating group is just suggested out of spite from players that expected to be ganked by a group. It really comes down to one thing. If there is a group of 20 players in Zone A killing people, then either go somewhere else or get reinforcements to punish them for it. Adding convoluded systems that don't work or barely address the problem at hand isn't a solution.
Note that when a green player attacks a red player they stay green. They don’t turn purple.
Now if you have a group of red players who pounce on a green, who fights back, why should only one get corruption when the green dies? If the green could have fought and beaten one or two, but is facing ten, why should they get off with no penalty? Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?
There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.
This just won't be a problem 99.9% of the time. People who go red constantly are just most likely going to lose all their gear very quickly in Ashes. 10-20 man groups roaming around are almost always looking for equal or larger sized groups to PvP against and not for solo people to gank. A very very small tiny portion of players are actively looking to grief solos who don't want to PvP and go red all the time and it's not feasible to worry about every single tiny chance or random scenario that a player could possibly be killed in a way they don't like.
Corruption is already very punishing and a 10 man group who has 1 of their members go red is already at a disadvantage for any real fight they come across next, there's no reason to punish it even further.
Learn to deal with hostile players by playing the game, not by asking the development of systems to prevent imaginary scenarios.
1 player cannot deal with 20 enemies.
1 player can make 19 friends.
Basically, we have to wait until the actual values for death penalties to come out before we start deconstructing the whole system.
This is an MMO not a single player game, numbers will generally always give some edge in fights. 1v20 is a dumb example to use as a base line anyway. It would be much more probable to see small groups of players 3-5 vs 8 for example. It's not the games job to make open world pvp "fair".
Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Again, if you’re purple and you get jumped by a group then those are the breaks. That will happen, that’s part of open PvP.
So far in this entire thread I don’t see any real argument against the idea of spreading corruption among all attackers except some vague concept of using up development time. So again, I repeat, the objections here are senseless.
Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a party of purples, one guy attacks and kills a green, suddenly everyone gets corrupted. That would be stupid, why punish people who did nothing wrong? I’m not even advocating that if they’re red. Just the people who actively attacked.
It wouldn't be multiplied, it'd be additive. +1 penalty, not 2x the penalty.
Let me ask you this. If a group of 3 players attacks a non-combatant with the hope that he will fight back to defend his precious loot and the non combatant decides he'd rather not, then 2 of the 3 attackers stop attacking because they don't want corruption but 1 of the 3 thinks "I don't care today" and kills the guy anyway. The other two need to be punished? The corruption system should not try to determine intent by means of a blanket punishment system.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Yes you are multiplying it.
One person receiving 100 corruption or 5 people receiving 100 each certainly is a multiplication.
People routinely win 1v2s and 1v3s in plenty of different games so that's not a good example either. If there is even a 1% chance of winning a fight it should be in the players best interest to flag to avoid death penalties associated with dying while green. The entire point of the corruption system is to prevent griefing and camping not PvP altogether.
Flagged state will most likely wear off a very short amount of time after the last attack you did on a player, I'm talking probably 30 seconds. It's highly unlikely you will get jumped while purple unless you are already PvPing somebody because the flagged state will go away very quickly after PvP has happened if it's anything like Lineage.
The argument against spreading corruption to the entire party is that it's a completely unnecessary change. Corruption is already VERY punishing and no matter what group size it is they are at a disadvantage as soon as they bring a red into the equation. Mainly due to the fact that anybody else they come across will focus the red and if they wanna save their buddies gear now they are gonna have to go red as well or spam pickup and hope for the best. It's just not necessary to punish corrupted players even further than stat dampening, gear drops, and showing every bounty hunter in the game where the group is.
I expect them to make it so that 20 killing 1 person gives increase corruption penalty.
It could be that all 20 gain corruption.
It could be that the guy getting the killing blow gets an increased corruption.
I dont think they will leave it as it is.
Personally i think there are enough options for PVP in this game without ganking.
You got caravan raiding, guild wars, node wars, node sieges, castle sieges.
Yes ganking should stay. If only to allow people to raid Mules.
But everyone who participated in it from the guy who does the killing blow to the guy giving out heals and buffs. Everyone should receive corruption and more corruption then in a 1 vs 1 scenario.
In the lore those who kill green are considered monsters. Would be strange if these that help the monsters are still considered "normal" people.
Also Steven said that you get more corruption by killing people below your level, ganking someone 5 vs 1 or ganking someone 10 levels below you is the same thing.
Thats why i believe they will change the corruption system for group encounters.
They most likely still gonna test it out first to find all these perksy exploits people come up with to game the system.
Yep. Risk vs Reward. That's the risk they take when they initiate the attack, hoping for the potential reward of the kill.
They are multiplying the risk while not increasing reward.
The reward isn't changing. It's the same as if one of them attacked and killed the target but if everyone gets corruption, now you have 3 people who could suffer the same increased corrupted death penalty.
Again, I no longer support any change to the current corruption system if they stick to the lineage 2 values and we dont know if that is the case yet so, I wait.
That diludes the severity of corruption, doesnt strengthen it.
If anything I'd go PKing in packs, in order to spread my corruption points and burn it off faster with the others.
No.
PK should affect the player landing the killing blow, awarding all the corruption points, making it slower to burn off abd a good target for bounty hunters.
Those things would ensure that a group of 4 attacking a non-combatant who is self-healing will very likely get corruption on all parties, as they’d have to be dealing more damage than their targets total hp to combat that self-healing.
That's incorrect. You only get corruption through killing a non-combatant. If you want to heal anybody but a non-combatant, you'll have to mark a checkbox. Once you heal them you'll be automatically flagged, but you do not get corruption.
No, they’ve definitely made comments about gaining corruption through directly aiding a corrupt players. I’ll go search for them, but it doesn’t make sense that there would be no system at all for such a thing.
Lineage 2, from memory, had a server population of 2,000-3,000 people max and probably 1200-1500 during peak periods. From 6 years of play, the imbalanced pvp was pretty much limited to 5-10 players during open beta, a couple of key players during the first 6 months, and then 1-2 clans of 10-20 people and a couple of well known rouges there after.
It equated to an average of 2-3 non-consensual encounters per month or so from clans/players that were not at war and prepared to go red.
To put in perspective, I played between 20+hrs a week, with a medium ranked clan that had plenty of allies and enemies on a server that had very active pvp and a non-consensual pvp came along for 5min once every 10-15 days, so about 0.2% of play time.
Is 0.2% of play time interruption is not so much in my books.