A timer seems like an awful idea. Especially considering there is no toggle so we are technically forced to engage someone to "test" their interest in fighting back in the first place.
As far as I can tell, this is all by design.
Only attack a player if the reason you are attacking them is good enough for you to take on corruption. If you are not willing to take on corruption, don't attack the player.
If you want PvP in general, find it in a manner that isn't subject to corruption.
It's all very simple, and very obvious.
The point you're leaving out however is that you would only be subject to said corruption should you strike the killing blow per design, what you suggested with a timer would allow the attackee to initiate that killing blow via NPC/Mob and force corruption on the attacker even if they had no intention of killing the player while green.
If corruption is so bad that people won't just do it willy nilly then these two solo players per the example would likely just try to KS the Mobs from each other instead of killing one another or they may ask their friends to come. Adding additional ways to go corrupt while not actually killing people is very simply and obviously not by design of the system.
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
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But I suspect the feeling will be like that in New World, where you fill your inventory just border of max where your run speed is impacted and run a beeline between cities, avoiding all around through fear of being dropped.
There is no such feeling in New World. If you're a PvE'er in New World, you just turn off PvP and never have to worry about anything. Not to mention that even if you turn on PvP, you still wouldn't be at risk of losing anything upon death.
Correct, the current iteration does not have this mechanic. In earlier iterations, it was near full loot drop on death.
And when playing off-peak on a new character, with teams of high-level camping outside town, after a few large losses of gear in uncontested pvp the game was unplayable. No ability to fight back, a longer grind to get to a basic level to get minimal gear back and no backup to come in to support.
A timer seems like an awful idea. Especially considering there is no toggle so we are technically forced to engage someone to "test" their interest in fighting back in the first place.
As far as I can tell, this is all by design.
Only attack a player if the reason you are attacking them is good enough for you to take on corruption. If you are not willing to take on corruption, don't attack the player.
If you want PvP in general, find it in a manner that isn't subject to corruption.
It's all very simple, and very obvious.
The point you're leaving out however is that you would only be subject to said corruption should you strike the killing blow per design, what you suggested with a timer would allow the attackee to initiate that killing blow via NPC/Mob and force corruption on the attacker even if they had no intention of killing the player while green.
I didnt6 forget that, that is why I said don't attack unless you are willing to take on the corruption, rather than don't kill unless you are willing to take on the corruption.
Because, assuming this system is what Intrepid end up going with, that is exactly what it will mean.
It is also perfectly fair. If you attack a player, you are making a decision that affects them. It is quite likely that they would have preferred to carry on doing what they were doing, rather than having to fight you. Now, you absolutely can say that in Ashes, that is just how it is, when they started their activity, they knew they could be attacked. I'd even agree with you in that.
However, assuming this is the system they go with, the reverse is 100% true as well. When you attack a player, they may run off and get killed by a mob even if you perhaps would have preferred to not get corruption. However, when you attacked that player, you knew it could happen in exactly the same way that when that player started the activity they were doing they had to have known they could be attacked.
You are able to force a thing they don't want on them, they are able to force a thing you don't want on you. You both made decisions with known potential outcomes.
It seems unrealistic to consider every time you attack someone that it's risking corruption. The flagging system is "designed" so that the person who gets attack can make a conscious decision to fight back thus giving the original attacker the power to back off or continue a kill on a green player. You would only be willing to go corrupt on players you intend to kill outright regardless of their reaction to your attack. If your assumption is every player has 1 health point and you're risking corruption by attacking them, that is a very thin view for this discussion.
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
It is not realistic for a green player to assault a purple player if the green player has missing health. It can be debated at what position of health a green player would take the bait, however, the common point would be no balance in 1vs1, hard counters in 1vs1 and imbalance of health 1vs1.
It is most likely that he who starts the fight will end the fight. It is also most likely that he who starts the fight won't choose corruption. It would be debatable if a green player will intentionally suicide to speed up corruption, but, it is also conceivable that the player threatened with a suicide could nuke the NPCs prior to striking the green player.
There are multiple facets of a PvP fight with many parameters that could be stated. All in all the system should be rather fluent and a pleasure to enjoy. It would pay to be more aggressive than some players would want you to be. It is better to obtain a reputation as a good pvper than a reputation as a ganker though.
You will have PvP options outside of the flagging system. If you want to PvP where the flagging system applies then it is totally realistic to expect the threat of corruption. You can't butter the bread in a different way, if you fight where flags apply then all flags must apply in the flaggable area.
It seems unrealistic to consider every time you attack someone that it's risking corruption.
It's not every time, it is only every time outside of arenas, node sieges, castle sieges, guild wars, node wars, caravans and other times the developers opt to not include the corruption system.
As the two of us have discussed in the past, that is because Intrepid want PvP focused players to focus that PvP in to these areas. They don't want to prevent you from attacking any player, any time, they just want you to focus on those other situations.
If your assumption is every player has 1 health point and you're risking corruption by attacking them, that is a very thin view for this discussion.
That isn't an assumption being made.
The assumption being made is that if you force an action on a player by attacking them, they can force an action on you. If it gets to this stage - where you have attacked a player, they refused to fight back so you stopped fighting them in order to prevent corruption, so they decided to suicide in order to force corruption on you - you always then have the option of preventing that from happening by attacking the mobs the player is trying to use to kill themself. Remember, you don't need to prevent them dying, you just need to prevent them dying while this timer that we are assuming will eventually be in the game is running. As soon as that timer runs out, leave the player to die at the hands of all the mobs they pulled in order to try and force corruption on you.
It is all player agency. Without a system like this, you are the only one that has a decision to make - whether or not to attack that player. With this system, you not only have that choice, but you then have the choice of trying to attack them in a location that is absent of mobs that he could suicide with (which will increase the likelihood of him fighting back), so already there is more interesting gameplay dynamics at play - before that first player even understands that you are about to attack them.
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
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
It comes down to tactics and the killer instinct. You can be half-hearted and dance around the issue with a toggle (toggles aren't a thing), or you can go with the adrenaline and hammer all involved.
If you are a PvPer you would know that NPCs get involved in PvP a lot of the times. You can't take a Grind Spot without some NPCs getting involved for a start. Most PvP fights in a grind zone happen when someone nukes someone else's NPCs. The NPCs die, a person doesn't get the loot and BAM PvP Fight ensues.
Even if a toggle existed (It doesn't), you would still find some players would rather die to a NPC than lose to a player. It is debatable if the loot will be obtained by the player, it is debatable if the survivor would become corrupted.
If they take my earlier suggestion and add Timers instead of Last Hit Wonder, then it would mean groups of players will become corrupted too, rather than the last person to hit the green alone.
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
If they take my earlier suggestion and add Timers instead of Last Hit Wonder, then it would mean groups of players will become corrupted too, rather than the last person to hit the green alone.
They could have this happen, or they could make the timer only apply to the last player character to hit.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The PvP system is pretty much a direct copy of the Lineage 2 system,.
Details that are yet to be known
How long one stays in chaotic state for
How much karma first kill gives
How much karma successive kills give
Level of propensity to drop gear and if that scales
How long to burn off karma
How long / difficult the quest will be to reduce your pk count
How visible on the maps a chaotic character will be (not in L2)
Perhaps rather than trying to picture from the previous explanations and the wki, someone put this video together some time ago which pretty much sums up the proposed system
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
There there is healing mobs or raid box so a pve`er or group runs out of steam and dies to the mob or boss and the combatant never have to touch them directly!
There is a mechanic I hope they proclude.
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited January 2021
If someone wants to take the increasing death penalty to karma bomb someone, they can just go ahead and do that
However, I do like the idea of not adding corruption for killing the same player in a short time of perhaps 5-10 minutes. It would probably be a good idea to point this out once testing for corruption starts. Which should be Alpha 2.
If someone wants to take the increasing death penalty to karma bomb someone, they can just go ahead and do that
However, I do like the idea of not adding corruption for killing the same player in a short time of perhaps 5-10 minutes. It would probably be a good idea to point this out once testing for corruption starts. Which should be Alpha 2.
If you can repeaditely kill the same player within 5-10 minutes, then there far too many respawn points available.The valuable hunting grounds should be far away from those respawn points, otherwise the game just turns into a wipefest.
Also @Noaani , i do not like the feature, that you can let someone die to a PvE Mob after hurting them in order to avoid corruption. In L2, this opened up a lot of shenanigans along the lines of repeaditely hitting the enemy to low hp without every actually killing them, which was more cancerous than a simple gank to kill could ever be.
While i do think that there should be something akin to a timer, I also think that there should be a minimum amount of damage the player should have to deal for the timer to start. So either deal at least (let's just say as an example 10-30% of the players hp and they die to a monster) or the last hit will reward you corruption. Maybe even scale the duration of the timer with the amount of damage the player has received. Aka deal 80% of the enemy hp and the timer is 30 seconds, deal 20% of the enemy hp and the timer is 10 seconds).
I think something akin to this would leave the least abusability on both ends and punishes people more the higher their participation in the death of non-combatant actually was.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
Suicide timer = fringe case used primarily by solo players wanting to force corruption on someone who attacked them.
Toggle = Used in most group vs group pvp scenarios to avoid corruption and non-combatant death penalties by people participating in pvp (not just looking for).
The difference is your fringe solution for solo players versus a toggle that would give guilds, groups and solo players the option to play the game within the corruption system as they choose without forcing play on other people.
The irony of the entire corruption system as it stands is that it forces the pvpers that will seek out combat with risk to fight more players who may be uninterested in pvp entirely as they would be outside of the objective based pvp more frequently. So the system will create a drag on two portions of the game population by default wearing them both down over time and ultimately (in my opinion) having a negative impact on the player retention.
With the objective play having no death penalties it seems more pressing to add a toggle than ever.
But hey add the timer so people can be incentivized to kill their own characters that's cool too.
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
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
"Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, GLORIOUSLY alive, today."
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
@Rhuric they still drop the loot, even when dying to the monster.
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
@Rhuric they still drop the loot, even when dying to the monster.
Ah, so it would be better for the green to retaliate and go purple then, so they lose less on death.
"Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, GLORIOUSLY alive, today."
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
@Rhuric they still drop the loot, even when dying to the monster.
Ah, so it would be better for the green to retaliate and go purple then, so they lose less on death.
At least from what we know/expect so far, yes.
Obviously, testing might change something, but we'll see
Toggle = Used in most group vs group pvp scenarios to avoid corruption and non-combatant death penalties by people participating in pvp (not just looking for).
Again, group vs group PvP is being encouraged in guild wars, node wars, caravans etc.
Intrepid straight up don't want wars between random groups in the open world. They aren't going to stop it, but they do want to discourage it.
And even with a toggle (that you and I both know what happen), the need for a system like the timer we are discussing is still there - unless you are going to suggest that PvP would only ever happen between players that opt to turn the toggle on (which again goes against the core ideals of Ashes).
Lol I'm not sure if anyone else thinks this sounds dumb.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
As pointed out above, the best way for the player to preserve what they have on them it to die fighting. That is how the game is designed now, and any addition of a timer like this should not change that. I would even be all for it if the death penalty for PvE death was higher than the death for a green PvP death, so the player in question is taking a bigger hit, but is also giving the attacker that corruption hit as a middle finger on their way out.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The PvP system is pretty much a direct copy of the Lineage 2 system,.
Perhaps rather than trying to picture from the previous explanations and the wki, someone put this video together some time ago which pretty much sums up the proposed system
Quoting self here, but perhaps to improve the understanding of Ashes` PvP system for those that are unsure, would it be considered useful if the Dev team go from a written / spoken outline to creating their own explanatory video sometime in the future?
The video need only be brief and somewhat similar to the previously linked L2 one above but also perhaps include:
Group healing impact
And how karma might be burned off
Pk`s can be reduced
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sigh. The more I read and talk about Corruption the less excited I am for the game. I really wish we could get some solid testing and information out sooner.
In lineage 2 the system worked fine for the most part. Yes, it was not perfect. Aside from Darkfall,UO, and EVEs systems, nothing is perfect. The AOC system is a modified version of the L2 system. I expect it to be fine, for AOC. The karma system is lenient enough to allow non-hardcore players a place in the world.
Maybe after a few more alphas they will learn it needs some more tweaking, but I expect the flagging system to be fine. I personally would rather have full loot, but I guess that causes too much "Emotional Distress" to work for a MMO that is trying to have a remotely large audience.
I would say just give it a shot, it is way too soon to tell if a modified version of a proven system is unusable.
I agree darkfalls system was perfect. And I hope that system applies to open water
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Whilst there might be a relative safety from the pk system by participating within caravan fights, I can see that very action escalating conflict to potential fights of recompense be that one on one, clan vs clan or even node vs node.
Whilst there might be a relative safety from the pk system by participating within caravan fights, I can see that very action escalating conflict to potential fights of recompense be that one on one, clan vs clan or even node vs node.
Comments
The point you're leaving out however is that you would only be subject to said corruption should you strike the killing blow per design, what you suggested with a timer would allow the attackee to initiate that killing blow via NPC/Mob and force corruption on the attacker even if they had no intention of killing the player while green.
If corruption is so bad that people won't just do it willy nilly then these two solo players per the example would likely just try to KS the Mobs from each other instead of killing one another or they may ask their friends to come. Adding additional ways to go corrupt while not actually killing people is very simply and obviously not by design of the 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
Correct, the current iteration does not have this mechanic. In earlier iterations, it was near full loot drop on death.
And when playing off-peak on a new character, with teams of high-level camping outside town, after a few large losses of gear in uncontested pvp the game was unplayable. No ability to fight back, a longer grind to get to a basic level to get minimal gear back and no backup to come in to support.
Because, assuming this system is what Intrepid end up going with, that is exactly what it will mean.
It is also perfectly fair. If you attack a player, you are making a decision that affects them. It is quite likely that they would have preferred to carry on doing what they were doing, rather than having to fight you. Now, you absolutely can say that in Ashes, that is just how it is, when they started their activity, they knew they could be attacked. I'd even agree with you in that.
However, assuming this is the system they go with, the reverse is 100% true as well. When you attack a player, they may run off and get killed by a mob even if you perhaps would have preferred to not get corruption. However, when you attacked that player, you knew it could happen in exactly the same way that when that player started the activity they were doing they had to have known they could be attacked.
You are able to force a thing they don't want on them, they are able to force a thing you don't want on you. You both made decisions with known potential outcomes.
Explain how that isn't fair?
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
It is most likely that he who starts the fight will end the fight. It is also most likely that he who starts the fight won't choose corruption. It would be debatable if a green player will intentionally suicide to speed up corruption, but, it is also conceivable that the player threatened with a suicide could nuke the NPCs prior to striking the green player.
There are multiple facets of a PvP fight with many parameters that could be stated. All in all the system should be rather fluent and a pleasure to enjoy. It would pay to be more aggressive than some players would want you to be. It is better to obtain a reputation as a good pvper than a reputation as a ganker though.
You will have PvP options outside of the flagging system. If you want to PvP where the flagging system applies then it is totally realistic to expect the threat of corruption. You can't butter the bread in a different way, if you fight where flags apply then all flags must apply in the flaggable area.
As the two of us have discussed in the past, that is because Intrepid want PvP focused players to focus that PvP in to these areas. They don't want to prevent you from attacking any player, any time, they just want you to focus on those other situations. That isn't an assumption being made.
The assumption being made is that if you force an action on a player by attacking them, they can force an action on you. If it gets to this stage - where you have attacked a player, they refused to fight back so you stopped fighting them in order to prevent corruption, so they decided to suicide in order to force corruption on you - you always then have the option of preventing that from happening by attacking the mobs the player is trying to use to kill themself. Remember, you don't need to prevent them dying, you just need to prevent them dying while this timer that we are assuming will eventually be in the game is running. As soon as that timer runs out, leave the player to die at the hands of all the mobs they pulled in order to try and force corruption on you.
It is all player agency. Without a system like this, you are the only one that has a decision to make - whether or not to attack that player. With this system, you not only have that choice, but you then have the choice of trying to attack them in a location that is absent of mobs that he could suicide with (which will increase the likelihood of him fighting back), so already there is more interesting gameplay dynamics at play - before that first player even understands that you are about to attack them.
"You can prevent the player from suiciding by doing some PvE"
If someone chooses to kill their own character that's their own stupid decision.
Real player agency would involve a toggle allowing us to mark our characters combatant not some suicide/PvE stopgap.
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
If you are a PvPer you would know that NPCs get involved in PvP a lot of the times. You can't take a Grind Spot without some NPCs getting involved for a start. Most PvP fights in a grind zone happen when someone nukes someone else's NPCs. The NPCs die, a person doesn't get the loot and BAM PvP Fight ensues.
Even if a toggle existed (It doesn't), you would still find some players would rather die to a NPC than lose to a player. It is debatable if the loot will be obtained by the player, it is debatable if the survivor would become corrupted.
If they take my earlier suggestion and add Timers instead of Last Hit Wonder, then it would mean groups of players will become corrupted too, rather than the last person to hit the green alone.
Straight up no.
A toggle is only of use for people looking for PvP for the sake of PvP, which is not the idea of hte corruption system.
Anyone out playing the game as the game is intended (PvP'ing over resources, spots, because you dislike a guild or person, etc) is in the exact same position, with or without a toggle.
The whole suicide by mob thing is very much an edge case of an edge case if this timer were bought in. It is in no way the normal way the game would be played. If the timer were in the game, people simply wouldn't attack another player unless they were willing to take on corruption, so if the person doesn't fight back, the attacker would simply carry on killing them.
Details that are yet to be known
Perhaps rather than trying to picture from the previous explanations and the wki, someone put this video together some time ago which pretty much sums up the proposed system
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DeKhbtog_pI
There is a mechanic I hope they proclude.
However, I do like the idea of not adding corruption for killing the same player in a short time of perhaps 5-10 minutes. It would probably be a good idea to point this out once testing for corruption starts. Which should be Alpha 2.
If you can repeaditely kill the same player within 5-10 minutes, then there far too many respawn points available.The valuable hunting grounds should be far away from those respawn points, otherwise the game just turns into a wipefest.
Also @Noaani , i do not like the feature, that you can let someone die to a PvE Mob after hurting them in order to avoid corruption. In L2, this opened up a lot of shenanigans along the lines of repeaditely hitting the enemy to low hp without every actually killing them, which was more cancerous than a simple gank to kill could ever be.
While i do think that there should be something akin to a timer, I also think that there should be a minimum amount of damage the player should have to deal for the timer to start. So either deal at least (let's just say as an example 10-30% of the players hp and they die to a monster) or the last hit will reward you corruption. Maybe even scale the duration of the timer with the amount of damage the player has received. Aka deal 80% of the enemy hp and the timer is 30 seconds, deal 20% of the enemy hp and the timer is 10 seconds).
I think something akin to this would leave the least abusability on both ends and punishes people more the higher their participation in the death of non-combatant actually was.
Suicide timer = fringe case used primarily by solo players wanting to force corruption on someone who attacked them.
Toggle = Used in most group vs group pvp scenarios to avoid corruption and non-combatant death penalties by people participating in pvp (not just looking for).
The difference is your fringe solution for solo players versus a toggle that would give guilds, groups and solo players the option to play the game within the corruption system as they choose without forcing play on other people.
The irony of the entire corruption system as it stands is that it forces the pvpers that will seek out combat with risk to fight more players who may be uninterested in pvp entirely as they would be outside of the objective based pvp more frequently. So the system will create a drag on two portions of the game population by default wearing them both down over time and ultimately (in my opinion) having a negative impact on the player retention.
With the objective play having no death penalties it seems more pressing to add a toggle than ever.
But hey add the timer so people can be incentivized to kill their own characters that's cool too.
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
I've had a dedicated PvPer nerd rage because I landed an ultimate with an uncurable lethal poison on him. He ran to the nearest NPC guards and attacked them so I wouldn't get the credit for the kill before the poison killed him.
The timer idea is great instead of a last hit marks the corrupted. Even if someone runs off to protect their loot the aggressors would still be red.
@Rhuric they still drop the loot, even when dying to the monster.
Ah, so it would be better for the green to retaliate and go purple then, so they lose less on death.
Edit: In my mind a purple killing a green isn't a free kill, but, a green turning purple to kill a purple would be a free kill.
At least from what we know/expect so far, yes.
Obviously, testing might change something, but we'll see
Again, group vs group PvP is being encouraged in guild wars, node wars, caravans etc.
Intrepid straight up don't want wars between random groups in the open world. They aren't going to stop it, but they do want to discourage it.
And even with a toggle (that you and I both know what happen), the need for a system like the timer we are discussing is still there - unless you are going to suggest that PvP would only ever happen between players that opt to turn the toggle on (which again goes against the core ideals of Ashes).
As pointed out above, the best way for the player to preserve what they have on them it to die fighting. That is how the game is designed now, and any addition of a timer like this should not change that. I would even be all for it if the death penalty for PvE death was higher than the death for a green PvP death, so the player in question is taking a bigger hit, but is also giving the attacker that corruption hit as a middle finger on their way out.
Quoting self here, but perhaps to improve the understanding of Ashes` PvP system for those that are unsure, would it be considered useful if the Dev team go from a written / spoken outline to creating their own explanatory video sometime in the future?
The video need only be brief and somewhat similar to the previously linked L2 one above but also perhaps include:
Can you link a citation for that?
@unknownsystemerror
Obviously, everything discussed is based on the current state of informations, which says:
Death penalties do not differ between PvP and PvE, but this is subject to change.[16]
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_death
Might very well change, but currently that's the case.
I know... I know... It's Alpha.
I agree darkfalls system was perfect. And I hope that system applies to open water
As it should, no?