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?)

13567

Comments

  • akabearakabear Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    If non-consensual pvp is a large concern for someone there are a variety of options available in game, that do not require game mechanics to prevent, below just a few:
    • Don`t trash talk
    • Be respectful of others pve areas
    • Be aware of where you are in the world and what is going on
    • Make friends
    • Play with friends
    • Play neutral
    • Join a pve clan
    • Join a strong pvx clan
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

    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.

    Dead wrong.
    If a non combatant healer heals a corrupted player then the healer turns purple. That was their comment.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

    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.

    Dead wrong.
    If a non combatant healer heals a corrupted player then the healer turns purple. That was their comment.

    If they heal any combatant they’ll become a combatant. Why wouldn’t they be considered direct accomplices in griefing when they directly assist someone who is griefing?

    As it’s been mentioned, they have to enable direct healing on flagged players, so it’s not something that can be done on accident.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

    Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

    In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

    What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
    I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.
  • SathragoSathrago Member, Alpha Two
    Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

    Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

    In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

    What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
    I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.

    I think the idea here is that a healer could make it so that a corrupt player can bypass the debuffs of being corrupted if they have said pocket healer.
    8vf24h7y7lio.jpg
    Commissioned at https://fiverr.com/ravenjuu
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Sathrago wrote: »
    Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

    Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

    In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

    What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
    I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.

    I think the idea here is that a healer could make it so that a corrupt player can bypass the debuffs of being corrupted if they have said pocket healer.

    And the healer can be killed without penalties.
    No more healer.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.

    I disagree.

    In an MMO, those fringe examples - once known by the majority - have a habbit of becoming the normal way to play the game.

    Policing those fringe exampels is paramaount - while they are still fringe examples.
  • WarthWarth Member, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

    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.

    feel free to link me the source to your statement.

    It might be hard finding something they have never said though, so don't waste too much time on the fruitless search
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Warth wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

    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.

    feel free to link me the source to your statement.

    It might be hard finding something they have never said though, so don't waste too much time on the fruitless search

    Big shrug from me. I don’t have eidetic memory and I don’t actually care to spend hours searching through archived content to confirm one way or the other. Maybe they didn’t say anything outright, but regardless it doesn’t make sense to leave such a blatant loophole in a core system.
  • If you are 2 or more attacking 1 player. I think all should get corruption and get the same amount they would get, if they were 1. Maybe they should even get more as they are more.
  • If you only get corruption by doing the killing blow. People will just attack you while you fight a mob and let the mob kill you. Which i think is a way to exploit the system and troll people. You could keep causing people to die, but nothing would happen to you, if it's only the killing blow that counts
  • I get the idea that George Black just wants to be able to troll/harrash people
  • WarthWarth Member, Alpha Two
    Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.

    I disagree.

    In an MMO, those fringe examples - once known by the majority - have a habbit of becoming the normal way to play the game.

    Policing those fringe exampels is paramaount - while they are still fringe examples.

    Are you just looking for a way to get in on a new thread and go in circles with me? You're suggesting that corruption should be the policing mechanic to all fringe examples of griefing going above it's current intended design? It seems most of you here think PvP events in the open world are going to be random occurrences, none of them will be based on conflicts within the game itself?

    The open world pvp will mostly be driven by political and personal grievances, if a 20v1 occurs it's likely the outcome of a past grievance by a guild or player against the guild or player(s) within those 20 players.

    There would be no justifiable profit for 20v1 in some random "kill the gatherer" example as this entire thread seems to indicate the situation to be. All of this "it's not fair", "police the problem" fails to grasp that these examples will police themselves. It's also unlikely that many people in this game would be without a guild for long periods of time and all of the "make friends" "join a guild" talk seems irrelevant to me as well.

    While of course there will be players who may experience their whole time in AoC as a solo/non guilded character it's again such a fringe example the game has no reason to correct something like this since it boils down to player agency and that person own willingness and abilities to connect with others.

    The game already gives players the tools to police these situations themselves, like I said it's not the games job to protect all of us especially not through the corruption system above and beyond how it's already designed to save these solo, non combatant players in the first place.

    Tyrantor
    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
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Warth wrote: »
    Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".

    I literally just said I didn’t confirm one way or the other. Perhaps address the part about the blatant loophole for pocket-healing corrupted groups with no penalty.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited November 2020
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".

    I literally just said I didn’t confirm one way or the other. Perhaps address the part about the blatant loophole for pocket-healing corrupted groups with no penalty.

    What needs to be addressed here the corruption system isn't supposed to turn the game into a single player campaign mode. If this person goes to EXP/Quest to burn off his corruption and gets healed doing this, should it cause further corruption on others? No it's stupid to think it should.

    In group combat the fight doesn't stop because one person goes corrupted and no one else should get corruption by proxy.
    Tyrantor
    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
  • WarthWarth Member, Alpha Two
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    if a 20v1 occurs it's likely the outcome of a past grievance by a guild or player against the guild or player(s) within those 20 players.
    Unless there is little relative punishment in 20 people attacking 1 player, in which case it will happen every time there is a raid formed that has to move from one location to another.

    Or it will happen because a group of friends realize it's fun to overwhelm people like that, and so go out and do it. Or even make and gear alts to do it.

    The point is, if an edge case - any edge case - is not balanced correctly (this includes situations involving mechanical issues like corruption, it includes classes, builds, gear,combinations of classes, literally everything), then that edge case will become the normal way to do things.

    As such, all edge cases in this regard need to be equally policed via the corruption system, or they will become the normal way for players to do things. It doesn't at all matter what that edge case is - if you need a specific number of players all with specific classes and builds, all equipped with specific items in order to gain some form of perceived advantage, players will do that.

    I'm not really interested in the specifics of what is being talked about here, I just disagree with the notion that not all edge cases need to be policed - they clearly do.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

    The system has been working as intented since 2003
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

    What buffs do the healers get?
    Tyrantor
    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
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »

    I'm not really interested in the specifics of what is being talked about here, I just disagree with the notion that not all edge cases need to be policed - they clearly do.

    This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want. The game will police itself.

    Tyrantor
    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
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want.
    Yeah, and it is that consequence part there that is what the policing thing is all about.

    No one is saying you shouldn't be able to kill people, just that there should be no situation in which a player can work around those consequences, not even in part.

    In order to achieve this, those edge cases need to be policed properly, otherwise they will not be edge cases for long.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

    What buffs do the healers get?

    Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    anyone who bothers to think about it.

    That right there is the issue.

    Some people just look at Ashes and assume the PvP will be Lineage 3. They seem to forget that the goal of the game is different - L2 was all about the PvP, whereas Ashes has the PvP as an agent of change as opposed to the focus of the game (which is most accurately described as the node system).

    Some people simply haven't made the connection that because Ashes has more, the PvP aspect in this game is a support aspect to the main body of the node system in the game, rather than PvP being the main body of the game.

    Since PvP is a support to that main body, the goals and intentions of PvP in Ashes are different to those of L2, even if the base systems are somewhat similar at first glance.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

    What buffs do the healers get?

    Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.

    I was just curious if you had specific knowledge of the buffs offered in game, since the cleric preview showed zero buffs and they would generally be considered a support class. (speaking broadly as you do).

    Are you forgetting that a character that has no negative penalty but gets the benefit(s) of the same buffs would still have a stat/attribute advantage?

    The solo player out numbered and out healed will be at a disadvantage regardless of the buff(s).
    Tyrantor
    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
  • SangramoireSangramoire Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    There was another thread talking about this already, I would suggest looking around before creating new threads that talk about the same thing. It would just help if everything was in one place.

    To answer your question, corruption would be received by anyone that participated in the kill including if someone did not damage the green player being killed but healed those that were killing the green player. The exact details of how the system works is unknown.

    You can expect the corruption system to give more corruption to each individual player than normal when they are fighting in a group vs just 1 player because that means the fight is more unfair. Intrepid has previously said that the amount of corruption gained by someone varies, depending on level difference between the two players meaning that they take into account how fair the fight was.

    You have to also remember why the corruption system is there in the first place. It's precisely to reduce meaningless fights and extremely unfair moments that would make the game miserable for someone that's not interested in participating in those moments.

    Remember that the corruption system will also decrease combat effectiveness meaning that people can't continually do this over and over, it's the whole point of having the system so I'd be very surprised if they come out with a system that can circumvent this.
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Warth wrote: »
    He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

    It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

    It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

    What buffs do the healers get?

    Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.

    I was just curious if you had specific knowledge of the buffs offered in game, since the cleric preview showed zero buffs and they would generally be considered a support class. (speaking broadly as you do).

    Are you forgetting that a character that has no negative penalty but gets the benefit(s) of the same buffs would still have a stat/attribute advantage?

    The solo player out numbered and out healed will be at a disadvantage regardless of the buff(s).

    I simply listed two extremely basic types of buffs that exist in some form in every mmo.
    Obviously using these types of buffs grants an advantage, but there is a difference between using these buffs to give your group an edge in a fight, and using these buffs to enable corrupt players to circumvent their intended penalties.

    By implementing a more sensible system in which directly assisting corrupt players while they’re attacking/killing non-combatant causes corruption, the support and pocket healers would also have reduced effectiveness. It would mean that corruption is now working as intended, with the players griefing and racking up more corruption, properly being weakened by that corruption.

    Being flagged purple isn’t a penalty. If anything it’s a boon to take half penalties on death. A temporary state certainly doesn’t impose on them at all. But if they go corrupt? Then there’s some actual sting behind directly enabling a group to continue griefing.
  • TyrantorTyrantor Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want.
    Yeah, and it is that consequence part there that is what the policing thing is all about.

    No one is saying you shouldn't be able to kill people, just that there should be no situation in which a player can work around those consequences, not even in part.

    In order to achieve this, those edge cases need to be policed properly, otherwise they will not be edge cases for long.

    I haven't heard anything in this thread that sounds like a work around or loophole. Have you? Do you really not believe the players should be the "police" and not the developers? That is ultimately the purpose of player agency it's not so you can choose to wear a green tunic or a blue one.
    Tyrantor
    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
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Tyrantor wrote: »
    I haven't heard anything in this thread that sounds like a work around or loophole. Have you?
    As I said...
    Noaani wrote: »
    I'm not really interested in the specifics of what is being talked about here, I just disagree with the notion that not all edge cases need to be policed - they clearly do.
    What I am taking issue with is the comment that edge cases do not need to be policed.

    I'm not getting in to the details of what those edge cases may be, because that is immaterial.

    I assume you mis-spoke when you said that not all edge cases need to be policed, because I'm sure you know well enough that they absolutely do, as unpoliced edge cases always become the games meta.
Sign In or Register to comment.