Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

A solution to the non-combatant vs corrupted flagging issue.

GraspGrasp Member
edited March 2021 in General Discussion
DISCLAIMER: Apologies for the very long post, the reason it’s so long is because you might have a lot of counter-arguments for why it’s not necessary to implement what I’m proposing. I’m trying to get those out of the way first so you can fully understand my reasoning. I’d really appreciate it if you took the time to read and understand my position if you are going to respond.


I have read a decent amount of discussion regarding the design flaws related to combat between non-combatants and corrupted players. Specifically, that:

Non-combatants can attack corrupted players without being flagged as combatants. Meaning that if the corrupted player chooses to fight back and kill the non-combatant, he will gain corruption. This is regardless of who chose to start the fight.

This leads to a problematic choice for corrupted players. They can either:

[1] Fight back and try to kill the non-combatant, gaining corruption in the process, or
[2] Flee from the fight.


Intuitively, it doesn’t make much sense that a “non-combatant” can enter combat against another player and remain a non-combatant. When you consider that the other player is corrupted, however - who in terms of lore is deemed to be little more than an NPC monster in the world - it seems to make more sense. But as with any monster in the world, when they are attacked it is assumed that they would fight back. Unfortunately, at present the choice to fight back is wildly unfavourable for a corrupted player.

Imagine a scenario where someone became corrupted, and wanted to “work off” their corruption by grinding mobs. They are not interested in gaining more corruption. They might come across a mob spot, and find that there are non-combatants already there. Knowing that they can remain as non-combatants and assuming that the corrupted player is there to decrease their corruption, what is to stop the non-combatants from attacking the corrupted player - fully aware that they will not fight back - and chasing them off? Nothing. There is no reason not to. After all, the corrupted player also has the chance to drop their gear; all the more reason for the non-combatants to attack them. While the world of AoC is very large, this situation in principle is very exploitable. If the corrupted player decided in the heat of the moment to fight back and kill them, freeing the mob grinding spot, they would have gained more corruption. Perhaps they grind there long enough to undo the corruption they gained from killing the non-combatants (or perhaps not, I don’t know how slow it would be to decrease corruption.) Eventually another non-combatant would come back and likely attack them. It would be unwise to fight back, because that would be completely antithetical to why you travelled there in the first place. What option does this leave the corrupted player with? Well, other than getting lucky and finding an empty mob spot that remains empty for hours, it leaves them with the only other option they have to get rid of corruption: Dying on purpose. I think we can all agree that in principle, a mechanic’s design should not have players choosing to die on purpose.

You might say “well they’re corrupted, why shouldn’t I be able to attack them freely?” And I agree with you. You should be able to attack them freely. But in doing so, they should not be forced to gain corruption if they choose to fight back and kill you. They did not choose to commit the act of non-consensual PvP with you. They should be given the opportunity to redeem themselves. Of course, if they did attack you first, then by all means, they should be able to gain corruption if they kill you.


What’s the solution then? A common suggestion I have read is to simply make the non-combatant flag as a combatant if they decide to fight a corrupted player, regardless of who started the fight. At first glance this may seem to be a working alternative, since it means that corrupted players can still gain corruption from a non-combatant who does not flag as a combatant, but also because a non-combatant can flag for PvP and fight back, and the corrupted player won’t gain corruption if they win the fight. However, there are some significant negative implications behind this.

Imagine that you are a non-combatant far off from your node collecting basic resources, and a corrupted player attacks you. Your choices are:

[1] Remain as a non-combatant, choose to stand there not fighting back, risking death with 100% death penalties, as well as having to respawn and travel back to your location if you die. However, threatening the corrupted player with gained corruption if they kill you.
[2] Flag as a combatant, risking only 50% death penalties, but also being able to fight back, potentially killing the corrupted player (with the chance to get some of their equipment), lowering the chance that you’ll have to travel back in death.

The only benefit you really gain from the first option is that the corrupted player would gain corruption if they killed you. But that’s not even a benefit for you, that’s just a disadvantage for them. You’d still be losing 100% of the XP and durability penalties. The second option has multiple benefits for you. Obviously both have a chance of death, but the second option allows you to at least try to lower that chance, and gives you the opportunity to get their loot in death. And even if you die, the detriment to your XP and durability is half that of death as a non-combatant.

If you care so little about your stats and whatever items you’ve got and have such a hatred for players who are corrupted, then sure, you might choose the first option. But I think it’s relatively clear that there is an obvious better choice for your benefit. I think personally I’d choose the second option almost every time. What you’re basically choosing between is dying helplessly with a 100% death penalty, or fighting back and either winning and reaping those benefits, or dying with a 50% death penalty. Since you’re much more likely to choose the latter over the former, then a large majority of the time, the corrupted player isn’t risking gaining corruption. This doesn’t sound like the kind of punishment you’d expect from the corruption system. This merely sounds like it’s punishing me for wanting to defend myself and not just die helplessly against a corrupted player.

If the corrupted player decided to instigate an attack on a non-combatant, it makes little sense for that non-combatant to be forced to flag as a combatant in order to fight back. If it was instead a combatant attacking the non-combatant, then that is a different scenario. The combatant would be asking for consensual PvP. Maybe they don’t get consent and kill them anyway. Then they’ve chosen evil. They still had the opportunity to stop attacking and walk away, not becoming corrupted. For a corrupted player, it should not be a mutual agreement to fight. The corrupted player already decided to take the plunge into corruption by non-consensually murdering another player. They shouldn’t be given the chance to “test the waters” of consensual PvP anymore. If a non-combatant fights back, they shouldn’t have to consent to PvP on the corrupted person’s terms. Let them fight back as non-combatants against the monsters that the corrupted are.

Some might say “It’s all about being given the choice.” Sure, you technically have a choice between non-combatant and combatant in the earlier scenario, but it’s not a meaningful choice. There isn’t an interesting dilemma that you have to weigh up.

It’s like choosing torture or a papercut. 99% of people will choose the papercut. It’s a no-brainer. If however you were asked to choose between mild carpet burn and a papercut, the choice becomes meaningful. You can actually think about your options, weigh up the pros and cons, and make a meaningful decision. (Yes, torture vs papercut is hyperbolic, but it helps to unambiguously demonstrate the difference between a technical choice and a meaningful choice.)

This is the difference between making non-combatants flag as combatants if they choose to fight against corrupted players, and what I am about to propose.


I am proposing that when a non-combatant attacks a corrupted player, the non-combatant is flagged as the instigator in the fight. They do not automatically become a combatant. This means that if a corrupted player chooses to fight back, they will not gain corruption, as the non-combatant is flagged as the instigator. You might say “well why not make them a combatant if they instigate the fight?” The reason for this has actually been stated by Steven himself. If this were the case and non-combatants became combatants if they were the instigator, then corrupted players could run around as bait, getting non-combatants to attack them, making them combatants. Then, the corrupted player would call in their other combatant friends and have them gank the player. Obviously this would be terrible, and would allow corrupted players to circumvent the punishment system of corruption entirely. It makes perfect sense that Steven would not want this in his game.

To clarify, the difference between that and what I’m suggesting, is that the non-combatant is flagged as a “combatant” to the corrupted player only. There would be no way for corrupted players to bait non-combatants like that.

Now, if the corrupted player was the one to instigate the fight, the non-combatant has two choices. They can either remain as a non-combatant and risk 100% death penalty, but crucially have the opportunity to fight back (potentially getting the corrupted player’s loot) as well as maintaining the threat of corruption gain for the corrupted player. Or they can flag as a combatant, to ensure the 50% death penalty, but sacrifice the corrupted player’s potential for corruption gain. In either case, you can still attack and kill the corrupted player. But you can actually make a meaningful choice between the two options. There are legitimate reasons for you to choose either option.



TL;DR:

Allow corrupted players to defend themselves against non-combatants without risk of gaining corruption. Do this by implementing a simple instigator detection system which flags the instigator, so that if the non-combatant dies, it knows whether or not the corrupted player started the fight, and thus whether or not they gain corruption. This is compatible with the current lore, which is “corrupted players are seen as little more than an NPC monster in the world.” This “monster” can attack you, can be attacked and can fight back, as monsters should. But it does not “force” non-corrupted players to choose combatant simply for wanting to fight back and not just stand there helplessly dying. My proposed rework is less exploitable (if it’s even exploitable at all) than the current system (or the proposed alternatives), more robust, and more beneficial. You aren’t losing any of the positive functionality of the current system, only ridding it of the negative functionality.



I cannot as of now see a downside to this. That is why it’s super important for those who read this to respond and let me know what you think. I’d appreciate it a lot. Thanks!
«134567

Comments

  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Where is the problem?
    The same corruption system worked in Lineage 2.

    The corruption system is there to prevent players from going on a killing spree.

    If there are 5 players around you and you have no friends amongst them, dont act like a tough guy.

    If your PK count is more than 4 players murdered, you will lose gear while you are red.
    There will be activities to redeem yourself and lower the PK count.
    Why can't you keep your killing spree to a minimum?

    Lastly if you gain corruption points and turn red, don't stand around like a badass. Run away from the crime scene and kill some mobs of your lv to burn the corruprion points you got from your murder(s) and return to normal state.

    There is nothing from with the system. It has worked perfectly in other mmorpgs with open world PvP.
    This game isnt Rust or SCUM, nor it has a map with safe/war zones.

    You are free to do whatever you want. Face the concequences.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    There is nothing from with the system. It has worked perfectly in other mmorpgs with open world PvP.
    This game isnt Rust or SCUM, nor it has a map with safe/war zones.
    You are free to do whatever you want. Face the concequences.

    Sigh. I didn't say that I don't like the corruption system, the whole reason I got excited about ashes of creation was because of the corruption system. I love that it counters "Kill on sight culture." So I don't really know how to respond to you, other than to suggest you re-read my post to try and better understand what I'm referring to.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited March 2021
    Keep your kills to a minimum and redeem your pk count.
    Then you wont lose gear when you are hunted.
    But you will be hunted and you will get more corruption points.

    If a killer kills a cop chasing him it doesnt count as self defence lol...
  • GraspGrasp Member
    edited March 2021
    Keep your kills to a minimum and redeem your pk count.
    Then you wont lose gear when you are hunted.
    But you will be hunted and you will get more corruption points.

    If a killer kills a cop chasing him it doesnt count as self defence lol...

    I don't have a problem with corrupted people losing gear if they die. I wrote a whole thing about why it might be hard for corrupted people to decrease their corruption. I won't re-explain it here, Although I don't even know if you read it or not. I'll assume that you have. Regardless, how boring would it be to have to run from every fight or be forced to die in order to effectively rid of corruption? I'm not making a statement about the corruption system itself. I think there should be no active benefit to corruption, but the agency to choose to murder someone is still important. Yes, face the consequences for it. I don't think that something bordering on an exploit should count as an intended consequence though.

    I don't think that's a fair analogy. This isn't real life with nuance around the morality of self defence, this is a game's design that aims to minimize exploitation.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited March 2021
    It is actually a fair analogy. Corruption is a very evil thing in Verra. It’s what basically destroyed the world and caused everyone to flee. Being corrupt is the equivalent of being a criminal (or worse). All corruption is to be exterminated.

    I’m just pointing out that the analogy is fair.

    Edit: word
  • GraspGrasp Member
    VmanGman wrote: »
    It is actually a fair analogy. Corruption is a very evil thing in Verra. It’s what basically destroyed the world and caused everyone to flee. Being corrupt is the equivalent of being a criminal (or worse). All corruption is to be exterminated.

    I’m just pointing out that the analogy is fair.

    Edit: word

    Well in terms of lore for sure I agree, but when it comes to game design you can't necessarily copy the real world 1:1.

    Let's imagine a hypothetical that would point out an unambiguous scenario for this.

    Imagine that when you become a corrupted, everything that isn't also corrupted attacks you, including players, and if you fight back, no matter what is attacking you, you gain corruption. In this hypothetical, imagine that the only way to decrease your corruption is by killing other corrupted mobs, or dying.

    What happens when those corrupted mobs are already being killed by players, and when you walk through the world there's a bunch of non-corrupted mobs that attack you? You'd be constantly fleeing or killing them, which would increase your corruption exponentially. At that point you'd be like "well shit, I can't be bothered trying to find the rare circumstance where I can actually kill corrupted mobs and not get chased out of the area. I guess I'll just get myself killed a bunch of times to lose my corruption."

    Obviously this isn't reflective of what the game's like, but I'm demonstrating that corruption is SO bad that everything tries to kill you on sight, and despite it being analogous to the cop self defense thing, it wouldn't work for the game's design. Players could exploit that to make it incredibly hard for corrupted players to decrease corruption.

    Now, I'm definitely not saying that players shouldn't make it hard for corrupted players. Of course they should. They should be attacked wherever they go, those absolute scumlords. That's the incentive for them to get rid of corruption. But they should always be able to redeem themselves fairly. However, if the precise thing they have to do to redeem it is obscured by other players constantly chasing them away, and said corrupted can't even defend themselves, making it incredibly difficult to do, then I think there's a pretty big game design problem.
  • RhuricRhuric Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Grasp wrote: »
    Imagine a scenario where someone became corrupted, and wanted to “work off” their corruption by grinding mobs. They are not interested in gaining more corruption. They might come across a mob spot, and find that there are non-combatants already there. Knowing that they can remain as non-combatants and assuming that the corrupted player is there to decrease their corruption, what is to stop the non-combatants from attacking the corrupted player - fully aware that they will not fight back - and chasing them off? Nothing. There is no reason not to. After all, the corrupted player also has the chance to drop their gear; all the more reason for the non-combatants to attack them. While the world of AoC is very large, this situation in principle is very exploitable. If the corrupted player decided in the heat of the moment to fight back and kill them, freeing the mob grinding spot, they would have gained more corruption. Perhaps they grind there long enough to undo the corruption they gained from killing the non-combatants (or perhaps not, I don’t know how slow it would be to decrease corruption.) Eventually another non-combatant would come back and likely attack them. It would be unwise to fight back, because that would be completely antithetical to why you travelled there in the first place. What option does this leave the corrupted player with? Well, other than getting lucky and finding an empty mob spot that remains empty for hours, it leaves them with the only other option they have to get rid of corruption: Dying on purpose. I think we can all agree that in principle, a mechanic’s design should not have players choosing to die on purpose.

    If you're red, you should be expected to be hunted down. If your corruption is so high that you need to spend hours grinding it away, that's a consequence of your actions. To suddenly say, "But wait! I have ragrets!" and expect to not have to suffer from those consequences is silly. Being chased by vengeful greens is a consequence. The only way you'd accumulate enough corruption for that to be a problem is if you're actively working at it.

    Go to another spot, go do the quests that lower your corruption. Have a friend kill you to drop your corruption. Running away IS a valid option, you'll be living on the outskirts of society as a pariah until you clear off your corruption.
    "Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, GLORIOUSLY alive, today."
  • GraspGrasp Member
    Rhuric wrote: »
    If you're red, you should be expected to be hunted down. If your corruption is so high that you need to spend hours grinding it away, that's a consequence of your actions. To suddenly say, "But wait! I have ragrets!" and expect to not have to suffer from those consequences is silly. Being chased by vengeful greens is a consequence. The only way you'd accumulate enough corruption for that to be a problem is if you're actively working at it.

    Go to another spot, go do the quests that lower your corruption. Have a friend kill you to drop your corruption. Running away IS a valid option, you'll be living on the outskirts of society as a pariah until you clear off your corruption.

    What I said and what you're saying aren't mutually exclusive. I keep saying this. I agree that you should be hunted down, you're scum of Verra. You should have to grind for hours to decrease your corruption. You should have regrets, you should be shown no mercy. You suffer consequences. You should be chased by vengeful greens.

    As soon as your name is red, the problem begins, even after just 1 kill. There is a difference between consequences and exploit.

    Go to another spot? There's already greens there. Trying to do a quest? Being chased for ages, preventing you from actually doing the quests. At this point you may as well just get your friend to kill you. But wait... Isn't that exploiting? "It's what you'll just have to do, it's your only option." Bingo. You're basically justifying exploitation for no reason other than "you should have to face the consequences." Uh.. Yeah. I've been saying that you should face the consequences. I fully agree. I'm saying that exploiting by getting your friend to kill you is not "facing the consequences," that's just an exploit.

    Living on the outskirts and being to defend yourself if attacked are not mutually exclusive.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    I already said this in my post but if you are corrupted and try to attack someone, of course you should be at risk of gaining more corruption.
  • Must say, I am perfectly fine with them dying to remove their corruption :)
  • GraspGrasp Member
    edited March 2021
    Ostaff wrote: »
    Must say, I am perfectly fine with them dying to remove their corruption :)

    Again, nothing I said is mutually exclusive with this. If they get fucked up by some non-combatant then good, they got fucked up. But that's not the same as them being defenseless.

    I also really don't think it's good game design to incorporate exploiting by getting your friends to kill you. In some ways you're just escaping justice. Sure, you get exp penalties, but you don't have to face the hardship that you'd experience out in the world as a corrupted player.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    In fact, all of you saying that "they deserve harsh consequences" should agree with me here to be honest. If you think they should be defenseless, then they'll just resort to exploiting and being killed by their friend. They're escaping true justice. If you actually think they deserve harsh consequences, then give them the ability to defend themselves, and force them to go out into the world and work off their karma.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Imagine how ez it would be for 3+ players to go red and not worry about anybody stoping them, since they wont get any more corruption.
    They will burn it off in 5-10 minutes PvP included and there is no real risk for gear to drop.

    Man listen to others that have lived with the system for more than a decade.
    You dont have to be right 100% of the time.
  • RhuricRhuric Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Grasp wrote: »
    Rhuric wrote: »
    If you're red, you should be expected to be hunted down. If your corruption is so high that you need to spend hours grinding it away, that's a consequence of your actions. To suddenly say, "But wait! I have ragrets!" and expect to not have to suffer from those consequences is silly. Being chased by vengeful greens is a consequence. The only way you'd accumulate enough corruption for that to be a problem is if you're actively working at it.

    Go to another spot, go do the quests that lower your corruption. Have a friend kill you to drop your corruption. Running away IS a valid option, you'll be living on the outskirts of society as a pariah until you clear off your corruption.

    What I said and what you're saying aren't mutually exclusive. I keep saying this. I agree that you should be hunted down, you're scum of Verra. You should have to grind for hours to decrease your corruption. You should have regrets, you should be shown no mercy. You suffer consequences. You should be chased by vengeful greens.

    As soon as your name is red, the problem begins, even after just 1 kill. There is a difference between consequences and exploit.

    Go to another spot? There's already greens there. Trying to do a quest? Being chased for ages, preventing you from actually doing the quests. At this point you may as well just get your friend to kill you. But wait... Isn't that exploiting? "It's what you'll just have to do, it's your only option." Bingo. You're basically justifying exploitation for no reason other than "you should have to face the consequences." Uh.. Yeah. I've been saying that you should face the consequences. I fully agree. I'm saying that exploiting by getting your friend to kill you is not "facing the consequences," that's just an exploit.

    Living on the outskirts and being to defend yourself if attacked are not mutually exclusive.

    You can't be exploited after just one kill, your corruption is very unlikely to be so high that you're dropping gear and suffering serious consequences. The only way your argument is valid, in my opinion, is if the red has a high level of corruption. At that point, they're a victim of their own actions and suffering for it. And they should suffer, you're not going to just casually reach that point with the corruption system. Unless there was a drastic level disparity between you and your victim, you won't need to spend hours to reduce your corruption for a single kill.

    I get what you want, you want them be able to fight back without suffering further consequences. Your scenario though is only an extreme case, and unless all you've done up to that point is build up your corruption, you're not going to deal with this 'exploit'. In the end, I see it as a consequence, you see it as an exploit used against them.

    Greens risk more than a Purple when fighting a Red, if you kill one you might gain increased corruption but now they're also suffering xp loss, resources and diminished stats. If you're getting swarmed by greens you made a bad decision in your life choices AND in your choice of locale.
    "Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, GLORIOUSLY alive, today."
  • GraspGrasp Member
    Imagine how ez it would be for 3+ players to go red and not worry about anybody stoping them, since they wont get any more corruption.
    They will burn it off in 5-10 minutes PvP included and there is no real risk for gear to drop.

    Man listen to others that have lived with the system for more than a decade.
    You dont have to be right 100% of the time.

    Man, that's not fair to handwave what I'm saying because I'm "trying to be right 100% of the time." Just because someone has a different understanding to you and tries to rebut your points does not mean they're trying to be right 100% of the time. I literally said in my post that I want people to share their thoughts. Your first comment practically ignored everything I said and assumed that I was against the corruption system. Nothing that I said indicates that I'm some "Rust KOS player who doesn't want limitations on my griefing." How am I supposed to believe you're making constructive, well-thought out arguments when you didn't even read my post properly? Besides, just because I haven't conceded automatically because you think you're correct, doesn't mean that I'm wrong. If you can provide some arguments of substance that point out flaws in my idea, then for sure, I'll admit that. But as long as I can keep thinking of counter-arguments to your points, then I'll do so. And I shouldn't be shamed for doing that. It's kinda how constructive discussion works...?

    Regardless of whether or not they were to implement my system, why would any green try and instigate a fight with a group of 3 reds...? That makes no sense. If the group of 3 reds attack the green and the green dies, then they'll all get corruption. If the green instigates a fight against them, unless he's super powerful, he's gonna die. He'd be stupid to do that. This has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

    Can you clarify what you mean here? How is it relevant?

  • GraspGrasp Member
    Rhuric wrote: »
    You can't be exploited after just one kill, your corruption is very unlikely to be so high that you're dropping gear and suffering serious consequences. The only way your argument is valid, in my opinion, is if the red has a high level of corruption. At that point, they're a victim of their own actions and suffering for it. And they should suffer, you're not going to just casually reach that point with the corruption system. Unless there was a drastic level disparity between you and your victim, you won't need to spend hours to reduce your corruption for a single kill.

    I get what you want, you want them be able to fight back without suffering further consequences. Your scenario though is only an extreme case, and unless all you've done up to that point is build up your corruption, you're not going to deal with this 'exploit'. In the end, I see it as a consequence, you see it as an exploit used against them.

    Greens risk more than a Purple when fighting a Red, if you kill one you might gain increased corruption but now they're also suffering xp loss, resources and diminished stats. If you're getting swarmed by greens you made a bad decision in your life choices AND in your choice of locale.

    Dropping gear doesn't mean you can't be exploited in other ways. I almost want to liken it to getting into a drug ring or a gang. Once you're in it, it might be super hard to get out of. They know who you are, you owe them money, you can't just leave because you'll get shanked. You have to work off the drug debt. But in working it off, chances are you get yourself into something that digs your hole even deeper.

    Similarly, once you're corrupted, everyone attacks you, making it hard to access mob grinding spots for a long enough period of time. Quests become way more difficult than they should be, because you can't defend yourself and get yourself out of that situation. You just have to run and hide, taking to the most convoluted measures to not get attacked. I wanna make it very clear again, I'm not against consequences like being attacked on sight by players, etc for corrupted. Questing should be difficult, mob grinding should be difficult to a point. Like, you shouldn't expect non-combatants to not attack you when you're mob grinding, but you should be able to try to keep them at bay; scare them off or kill them and continue grinding mobs to decrease your corruption. If you can't do that, you're practically being punished for trying to do the "good thing" and redeem yourself.

    Even if in practice it's not that difficult, in principle I don't think it's good game design for people to be "forced" to kill themselves on purpose. Do we agree that if corrupted players can't even get rid of corruption without convoluted methods like getting friends to kill them etc. It's bad game design? Because they'd potentially be stuck with it forever?
  • RhuricRhuric Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Let's say they implement your instigator system.

    As a red, here is what I'd do. I'd attack a green to see if he'll fight back, I'll then run far enough off that combat drops then run straight back at him. Now he attacks me, but as far as the system is concerned he's the instigator. I kill him without consequence and move on to do it again and again.

    The system as it's currently planned is fine, in my opinion. Obviously you don't agree, but ANY system will be exploitable, there is no getting around that.
    "Almost dead yesterday, maybe dead tomorrow, but alive, GLORIOUSLY alive, today."
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Grasp wrote: »
    Regardless of whether or not they were to implement my system, why would any green try and instigate a fight with a group of 3 reds...? That makes no sense. If the group of 3 reds attack the green and the green dies, then they'll all get corruption. If the green instigates a fight against them, unless he's super powerful, he's gonna die. He'd be stupid to do that. This has nothing to do with what I'm suggesting.

    Can you clarify what you mean here? How is it relevant?

    Just to be clear a green (non-combatant) is not automatically flagged when he attacks reds (corrupted), but the green can choose to flag purple (combatant).

    The reason a green needs to BE ABLE to (choose to) stay green when he attacks reds is so that reds can’t keep fighting greens without getting any further corruption. If you go red, you have to suffer the repercussions which includes being possibly forced to go even more red. Corruption is evil and is meant to be eradicated. There is nothing soft about making that decision.

    There many other PvP options that don’t include going red.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    Rhuric wrote: »
    Let's say they implement your instigator system.

    As a red, here is what I'd do. I'd attack a green to see if he'll fight back, I'll then run far enough off that combat drops then run straight back at him. Now he attacks me, but as far as the system is concerned he's the instigator. I kill him without consequence and move on to do it again and again.

    The system as it's currently planned is fine, in my opinion. Obviously you don't agree, but ANY system will be exploitable, there is no getting around that.

    My counter to that would be this: Provided everyone in the game is fully aware of my system, this wouldn't happen. Sure, you run off as a red and I don't catch you. I go back to what I was doing. You come back 90 seconds later and do the same thing. Since I'm aware of what you're doing, I could either catch you out with something that prevents you from running away or slows you down (if that even exists in the game) or just leave so you don't know where I am. Sure it's annoying, but it's not actually really an exploit, because no one would fall for it. There are other naturally annoying things people can do in the game as it stands, but you just put up with it. Like someone hogging a mob spot. I could kill them in spite of getting corruption, but to be honest my best option is to just leave.

    The alternative is what happens to corrupted players. They go to a mob spot, get chased out, can't do anything. Struggle hard with quests, can't defend themselves. If we take it as far as you're taking it, here's my example. I'm a green, I make it my duty to chase every single corrupted person I see until I kill them, they kill me and gain corruption, or I am too slow to keep up. The difference between your example and this one is that there is no counter to this. As a corrupted you're well and truly fucked. At least in your example I can just leave because ultimately you're hitting me once and not actually killing me.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    edited March 2021
    VmanGman wrote: »
    Just to be clear a green (non-combatant) is not automatically flagged when he attacks reds (corrupted), but the green can choose to flag purple (combatant).

    The reason a green needs to BE ABLE to (choose to) stay green when he attacks reds is so that reds can’t keep fighting greens without getting any further corruption. If you go red, you have to suffer the repercussions which includes being possibly forced to go even more red. Corruption is evil and is meant to be eradicated. There is nothing soft about making that decision.

    There many other PvP options that don’t include going red.

    Yes I'm aware that he's not automatically flagged. The entire point of my post is to counter both the argument that corrupted shouldn't be able to defend themselves if attacked by a green, and the argument that greens should just automatically go purple if they attack a red. I say this in my original post. I counter both of these things.

    You're replying to me as if I don't already understand what you're saying. I fully get what you're saying. I don't agree with you that a red should gain corruption for killing a green that attacked the red first. I've laid out the implications of that in my post.

    However I agree that the green should always be able to stay as a green and fight back if the red is the first to attack. That threat of the red gaining corruption should always be in the green's hands. If the green wants to become a purple so they lose less, so be it. But if the green wants that red to feel the burn when the green dies, that should absolutely be green's choice.

    Some people think that the current system should be replaced with "greens automatically become purple if they choose to fight back" which is what I also disagree with.
  • Yokai TheaterYokai Theater Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    edited March 2021
    Grasp wrote: »
    You might say “well they’re corrupted, why shouldn’t I be able to attack them freely?” And I agree with you. You should be able to attack them freely. But in doing so, they should not be forced to gain corruption if they choose to fight back and kill you. They did not choose to commit the act of non-consensual PvP with you. They should be given the opportunity to redeem themselves. Of course, if they did attack you first, then by all means, they should be able to gain corruption if they kill you.

    They may not have chosen to PvP in that one fight but it was their chose to become corrupted in the first place. If you are choosing to go corrupted you should be ready to accept the consequences that come with it, both the debuff and the fact that everyone will see as something to kill (some people this may even be their goal so they can get more PvP). You chose to those kill 4-5 players (example number, there are no hard numbers as of right now) for the corruption to get to where this would be a problem.

    Also the game dose vary much suggest that the "main" way you get rid of corruption would be to be killed in PvP as suggested by the fact that we have the Bounty hunters system (which kind of acts like what you are suggesting) and that non-combatant don't get flagged when PvPing a corrupted player.

    I'm not saying I'm ageist the idea of adding a "instigator" flag to the system, I just don't think/convinced it's 100% necessary
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Grasp wrote: »
    VmanGman wrote: »
    Just to be clear a green (non-combatant) is not automatically flagged when he attacks reds (corrupted), but the green can choose to flag purple (combatant).

    The reason a green needs to BE ABLE to (choose to) stay green when he attacks reds is so that reds can’t keep fighting greens without getting any further corruption. If you go red, you have to suffer the repercussions which includes being possibly forced to go even more red. Corruption is evil and is meant to be eradicated. There is nothing soft about making that decision.

    There many other PvP options that don’t include going red.

    Yes I'm aware that he's not automatically flagged. The entire point of my post is to counter both the argument that corrupted shouldn't be able to defend themselves it attacked by a green, and the argument that greens should just automatically go purple if they attack a red. I say this in my original post. I counter both of these things.

    You're replying to me as if I don't already understand what you're saying. I fully get what you're saying. I don't agree with you that a red should gain corruption for killing a green that attacked the red first. I've laid out the implications of that in my post.

    However I agree that the green should always be able to stay as a green and fight back if the red is the first to attack. That threat of the red gaining corruption should always be in the green's hands. If the green wants to become a purple so they lose less, so be it. But if the green wants that red to feel the burn when the green dies, that should absolutely be green's choice.

    Some people think that the current system should be replaced with "greens automatically become purple if they choose to fight back" which is what I also disagree with.

    So then what you’re suggesting is that once someone goes corrupt (red), they can’t get anymore corrupt unless they choose to. That’s not a very big punishment for the red... they could just make that one kill and then farm it off ASAP. The point of the corruption system is to severely disincentivize griefing and ganking.

    Like I said, there are many other ways to engage someone in PvP without the corruption affecting you. That’s the goal of the system... to give the option of going red, but to make it undesirable to do so and to instead make people engage in other forms of PvP.

    I’m an avid PvPer and ganker, but I know that the little sheep need some protection from the wolves or they’ll quit the game (and we need to keep some sheep and the wolves to have this game be successful). I think that AoC will have plenty of options for us to engage in PvP.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    They may not have chosen to PvP in that one fight but it was their chose to become corrupted in the first place. If you are choosing to go corrupted you should be ready to accept the consequences that come with it, both the debuff and the fact that everyone will see as something to kill (some people this may even be their goal so they can get more PvP). And it's not like you instantly become "corrupted" after killing 1 player you chose to kill 4-5 (example number, there are no hard numbers as of right now).

    Also the game dose vary much suggest that the "main" way you get rid of corruption would be to be killed in PvP as suggested by the fact that we have the Bounty hunters system (which kind of acts like what you are suggesting) and that non-combatant don't get flagged when PvPing a corrupted player.

    I'm not saying I'm ageist the idea of adding a "instigator" flag to the system, I just don't think/convinced it's 100% necessary

    I'm pretty sure you do actually become corrupted just after one kill though? I'm not sure how it would work that you'd stay as a green in the world despite having murdered someone? Anyways even if you're right, it doesn't really apply because you wouldn't actually be a corrupted and therefore wouldn't need to worry about anything.

    I agree with practically everything you said except for the idea that being defenseless should be a consequence. I've mentioned a few times in my other comments/my post why being defenseless could lead you down a slippery slope where you get exploited by every green in sight.

    I think there are so many negative consequences for being a corrupted already. It's not like by being able to defend themselves suddenly they're free of consequence. There are so many things that still hinder them and incentivize them to get rid of their corruption.

    I think it's pretty simply the case that it makes sense to be able to defend yourself from attacks from a game design perspective.
  • Yokai TheaterYokai Theater Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Grasp wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you do actually become corrupted just after one kill though? I'm not sure how it would work that you'd stay as a green in the world despite having murdered someone? Anyways even if you're right, it doesn't really apply because you wouldn't actually be a corrupted and therefore wouldn't need to worry about anything.
    I misspoke on that part I have fixed my first post, my bad.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    VmanGman wrote: »
    So then what you’re suggesting is that once someone goes corrupt (red), they can’t get anymore corrupt unless they choose to. That’s not a very big punishment for the red... they could just make that one kill and then farm it off ASAP. The point of the corruption system is to severely disincentivize griefing and ganking.

    Like I said, there are many other ways to engage someone in PvP without the corruption affecting you. That’s the goal of the system... to give the option of going red, but to make it undesirable to do so and to instead make people engage in other forms of PvP.

    I’m an avid PvPer and ganker, but I know that the little sheep need some protection from the wolves or they’ll quit the game (and we need to keep some sheep and the wolves to have this game be successful). I think that AoC will have plenty of options for us to engage in PvP.

    If you want to put it that way, then sure, they "can choose to not get any more corruption" but that most definitely does not mean that they aren't being punished severely. If I'm sitting on 20k corruption, I have so many detriments that it's painful as fuuuck. And rightfully so. I should be feeling the burn. Those things very much deter me from wanting to be corrupted.

    I can't just go around hitting more players and not get corruption, since I'd be the instigator. Sure, I can defend myself from attacks and not get corruption for doing so, because I'm trying to work off my corruption, (you don't want to alienate a portion of your playerbase by punishing them for simply wanting to redeem themselves) but I still have to deal with being attacked A LOT, I have to deal with the difficulty of moving through towns cause NPC guards will attack me, I have the risk to lose my gear, I have dampened XP or abilities or whatever. This is all very much necessary to deter me.

    I love AoC specifically because of the corruption system. I think it's brilliant, and remedies the shit you get in games like Rust, which is the overwhelming culture of KOS. I think it's so stale and uninteresting, there's no interesting dynamics between players. Corruption is going to be such a wicked system to play within.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    Grasp wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure you do actually become corrupted just after one kill though? I'm not sure how it would work that you'd stay as a green in the world despite having murdered someone? Anyways even if you're right, it doesn't really apply because you wouldn't actually be a corrupted and therefore wouldn't need to worry about anything.
    I misspoke on that part I have fixed my first post, my bad.

    Hey man, all good. Appreciate your comments.
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    Grasp wrote: »
    If you want to put it that way, then sure, they "can choose to not get any more corruption" but that most definitely does not mean that they aren't being punished severely. If I'm sitting on 20k corruption, I have so many detriments that it's painful as fuuuck.

    That’s the thing. If you get to choose when you get more corruption, you will never get those high corruptions levels because you can make a kill and then play it safe until you work it off. If that were to happen, then a lot more people would go corrupt and a lot more little sheep would get ganked and the potential of them quitting would increase. We don’t want that.

    Like said, the game is supposed to heavily disincentivize corruption. It’s an option, but it’s not supposed to be the main form of PvP.

    The sheep need to have some sense of protection or at least to see that the wolves are punished and that they are not as willing to attack the sheep.

    Corruption needs to be a severe system or else it won’t work. If you get to choose when you go more corrupt then the system is not severe enough.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    VmanGman wrote: »
    Grasp wrote: »
    If you want to put it that way, then sure, they "can choose to not get any more corruption" but that most definitely does not mean that they aren't being punished severely. If I'm sitting on 20k corruption, I have so many detriments that it's painful as fuuuck.

    That’s the thing. If you get to choose when you get more corruption, you will never get those high corruptions levels because you can make a kill and then play it safe until you work it off. If that were to happen, then a lot more people would go corrupt and a lot more little sheep would get ganked and the potential of them quitting would increase. We don’t want that.

    Like said, the game is supposed to heavily disincentivize corruption. It’s an option, but it’s not supposed to be the main form of PvP.

    The sheep need to have some sense of protection or at least to see that the wolves are punished and that they are not as willing to attack the sheep.

    Corruption needs to be a severe system or else it won’t work. If you get to choose when you go more corrupt then the system is not severe enough.

    Isn't the whole point to deter getting high corruption? We don't want people to do that, cause that represents lots of murders. You're almost suggesting that we want players to get high corruption. But if we can deter them so much that they only dip their toes into corruption and kill one person, isn't that good?

    The "sheep" as you call them will have protection, there will still be bounty hunters tracking corrupted players down, there'd overall be less corrupted players. You're still being severely punished.

    Even if it were slightly unbalanced where it was a bit too easy to work off corruption and kill again, the devs could easily just make punishment more harsh per kill, therefore one kill can't just "easily be worked off."

    Besides, without implementing what I'm suggesting you'll end up with players exploiting without a counter. Greens excessively chasing reds out of spots where they can lower their corruption without reds being able to defend themselves, causing them to get themselves killed on purpose rather than facing the consequences of corruption (they'd easily escape the consequences that would actually make corruption painful, and what's stopping them from becoming corrupted again like you're suggesting my idea causes? Dying on purpose is technically the same as "playing it safe" in the scenario you just laid out, except it's not intended game design for them to just die on purpose).
  • VmanGmanVmanGman Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    I hear what you’re saying, but I disagree simply because I think that what you’re suggesting makes going corrupt nowhere close to as dangerous as it should.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
  • GraspGrasp Member
    VmanGman wrote: »
    I hear what you’re saying, but I disagree simply because I think that what you’re suggesting makes going corrupt nowhere close to as dangerous as it should.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Fair enough. I guess we'll see what happens with more testing.

    I've been made aware of a somewhat sizeable amount of people who are concerned about this same topic (not necessarily with the same solution I'm presenting though), so I'll be interested in keeping up with the discussion over time and hearing what other reasons people have for why they would/wouldn't want this kind of thing.
Sign In or Register to comment.