Corruption system

Olli1992

Hey, just thought it would be cool if corrupted players could lets say loot the hearts of bountyhunters, combatants and maybe some holy beings (pve), and use these as offerings in sacrificial chambers or places where the corruption is at its highest in the world.Trading it for reputation within an order or for random npc's with abit darker intensions. Maybe get some odd items for it.
I hope there will be some rewarding counterplay for corrupted players winning against a bountyhunter.
What u think

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

neuroguy

Corruption is not a system that is intended to be rewarded or encouraged. It is a consequence. I don't think IS has changed their stance on this, at least not that I'm aware. Outside of griefing, it is actually a bit difficult to become corrupted. The only other common motivation for killing other players, loot, is reduced if the victim fights back so as an adventurer, if you are targeted for the goods you are carrying you either fight back and keep more loot even if you die or you let yourself get killed, lose more loot and the aggressor becomes corrupted. Unless you are wrongly or maliciously being targeted, it's hard for corruption to occur (outside of RP and some other niche scenarios).

Nerror

neuroguy wrote: »

Corruption is not a system that is intended to be rewarded or encouraged.

This very much. It needs to be designed to suck to work as intended.

Boanergese

It's not about serving a dark God or being evil. The system is not like Star Wars where you move to the light side or dark side. The corruption system is to discourage player killing outside of guild wars, node wars, castle sieges, and other designed pvp. That or it's to have consequences that make you ask if you want the corruption penalty. The game may have quests that let you do evil for story purposes. You are free to kill bounty hunters if you have corruption. Winning is not dying as long as you can while being corrupted.

Dolyem

Honestly I see corruption as just a deterrent from excessive griefing. The game itself encourages players to compete and fight eachother, this system just keeps players from being over-griefed by the hardcore open world PvP crowd. It also adds risk to the players PKing other players for "rewards", which is good because otherwise the non-combatants would be an endangered species in Verra...and me being a hunter of such creatures, I believe in conservation, so that I don't lose that which I love to kill.

Gankez

nm i didnt read op

maouw

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

daveywavey

maouw wrote: »

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

Do we know where all the attention is coming from? Has some loon posted a new stream lately?

Azherae

maouw wrote: »

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

Some people just like that feeling.

In one of my old games, with a clearly defined elemental system that happened to include Shade/Gravity as an element (combinable with Earth or Water, long explanation, so just gloss over that), I'd get at least one new player every few days who:

1. Wanted to perceive Shade as 'Darkness', and would usually give deep explanations about how important 'Darkness' was as an element
2. Insisted that they wanted to combine it with Fire (which wasn't allowed for SEVERAL reasons)
3. Gave lots of reasons why their character being edgy and anti-hero and gritty was super important but without wanting to accept any of the consequences of that in the game's society ("I hide my true darkness from the masses")
4. When offered the option to just be Fire and a full explanation of how the 'element system' is about forces and names like Shade and Water are just to help understanding and Shade has little to do with Darkness, would explicitly choose Shade anyway and then not choose any Gravity based attacks because they really wanted to 'embody the Darkness'.

I had to do away with 'Shade' and change it entirely to 'Compression' just to get this to slow down. It didn't stop. I'd just get 'But where's Darkness? Darkness is an element, I want to use that. Oh, and Fire.'

unknownsystemerror

daveywavey wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

Do we know where all the attention is coming from? Has some loon posted a new stream lately?

It is a universal constant. If there is not an active thread about corruption on the forums, the game shuts down. Though a rant about dps meters not being allowed will stave off entropy till a new one is started once the old one is closed for salt mining.

Karthos

As per one of the central themes that Steven always talks about in Ashes of Creation, Corruption should be viewed as an underlying system of the theme of "Risk vs Reward". You can balance a game by moving this system to skew one way or another, based what actions you want to encourage, and which you want to dissuade.

You RISK yourself and your own items to potentially steal gatherabled from other players when you kill them. Your REWARD being "free" gatherable items. The RISK comes in that now you're marked as someone who stepped out of the natural order by committing murder for your own benefit. Gathering is it's own RISK, as you go out into the wilderness to be potentially killed for your time, but the REWARD being the gatherable you get. This is something the game wishes to promote, so they lower the RISK and elevate the REWARD for this action.

You can attack back as the gatherer, which has it's own Risk vs Reward, in that you RISK more items being taken without consequence, with the REWARD that if you win, you keep them all. The hope being, that just attacking a player who is not willing to fight back will be less appealing than attacking someone who will fight back. Why would I just gank a player 10 levels below me for 2 pieces of stone and RISK my gear dropping through corruption, when I can find a person my level who will likely fight back, but allow me to potentially get their items because if he fights back, AND as I can remain uncorrupted.

Your reward for winning against a bounty hunter is you get to be alive. You decided to take the RISK of committing Murder and Theft, for your personal gain (whether monetary or entertainment). Again, it's designed to dissuade you from ganking and engaging in non-consensual PVP by skewing the balance of Risk vs Reward more towards RISK, so then why would it REWARD you? Regardless of your personal feelings about the system or about ganking/pvp in general, that would go 180 degrees from the original intent behind the system, which I think Intrepid would probably not do.

Like it or not, the Corruption system is designed to keep open world PVP in the game, but also allow more casual or less PVP focused people still have some leeway to play the game. Like or hate the Corruption System, it's intent is to retain as many players playing the game as possible.

neuroguy

Karthos wrote: »

You can attack back as the gatherer, which has it's own Risk vs Reward, in that you RISK more items being taken without consequence, with the REWARD that if you win, you keep them all.

This is incorrect. If you fight back (flag for PvP) instead of allowing the aggressor to kill you unharmed, you will lose less gathered resources. "A combatant who dies suffers [the] same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant." So if you fight back and die (you are a combatant and the aggressor does not gain corruption) you keep more items than if you don't fight back and die (you remain a non-combatant and the aggressor gains corruption).

Karthos wrote: »

Why would I just gank a player 10 levels below me for 2 pieces of stone and RISK my gear dropping through corruption, when I can find a person my level who will likely fight back, but allow me to potentially get their items because if he fights back, AND as I can remain uncorrupted.

Also to clarify "get their items" is referring to their gathered resources not equipped gear.

Atama

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

Do we know where all the attention is coming from? Has some loon posted a new stream lately?

It is a universal constant. If there is not an active thread about corruption on the forums, the game shuts down. Though a rant about dps meters not being allowed will stave off entropy till a new one is started once the old one is closed for salt mining.

How about a thread insisting that the cosmetic shop will destroy the game?

Jahlon

Olli1992 wrote: »

Hey, just thought it would be cool if corrupted players could lets say loot the hearts of bountyhunters, combatants and maybe some holy beings (pve), and use these as offerings in sacrificial chambers or places where the corruption is at its highest in the world.Trading it for reputation within an order or for random npc's with abit darker intensions. Maybe get some odd items for it.
I hope there will be some rewarding counterplay for corrupted players winning against a bountyhunter.
What u think

There is never going to be a reward for being corrupted. Ever. Otherwise it becomes a reward instead of a punishment.

neuroguy

Atama wrote: »

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

maouw wrote: »

Is there a way to make it clearer that Corruption is bad karma?
It's been attracting a lot of edgy attention.
Is it the name?

Do we know where all the attention is coming from? Has some loon posted a new stream lately?

It is a universal constant. If there is not an active thread about corruption on the forums, the game shuts down. Though a rant about dps meters not being allowed will stave off entropy till a new one is started once the old one is closed for salt mining.

How about a thread insisting that the cosmetic shop will destroy the game?

You guys forgot the biggest one: the instancing PvE threads. I just worry the void of people asking about UE5 will never be filled :'( we had such a short time (relatively) to appreciate that...

Olli1992

This "rewardsystem" was ment for a corrupted player vs another corrupted player/combatant player or bountyhunter this as a more "fun" way of breaking the cycle that started the fight. Maybe once you get marked as a corrupted player you get a quest chain to send you off to another area, that would maybe not be a reward but a more organic way of stopping a player repeat killing someone.
THAT SAID, i did not concider looting a dead player. (that itself is more than a reward)
I guess the conclusion is it can never be rewarding in a system like this. It makes sense.
I wouldnt mind something like it tho. But im not an expert.

Jahlon

Olli1992 wrote: »

This "rewardsystem" was ment for a corrupted player vs another corrupted player/combatant player or bountyhunter this as a more "fun" way of breaking the cycle that started the fight. Maybe once you get marked as a corrupted player you get a quest chain to send you off to another area, that would maybe not be a reward but a more organic way of stopping a player repeat killing someone.
THAT SAID, i did not concider looting a dead player. (that itself is more than a reward)
I guess the conclusion is it can never be rewarding in a system like this. It makes sense.
I wouldnt mind something like it tho. But im not an expert.

The problem is if you make a system that rewards Corrupted players in any way, shape, or form it requires there to be Corrupted players.

The only way to have Corrupted Players is to have griefers.

If you reward Corruption, you get more griefers, and thus you defeat the entire purpose of the system.

Karthos

neuroguy wrote: »

Karthos wrote: »

You can attack back as the gatherer, which has it's own Risk vs Reward, in that you RISK more items being taken without consequence, with the REWARD that if you win, you keep them all.

This is incorrect. If you fight back (flag for PvP) instead of allowing the aggressor to kill you unharmed, you will lose less gathered resources. "A combatant who dies suffers [the] same penalties, but at half the rate of a non-combatant." So if you fight back and die (you are a combatant and the aggressor does not gain corruption) you keep more items than if you don't fight back and die (you remain a non-combatant and the aggressor gains corruption).

Karthos wrote: »

Why would I just gank a player 10 levels below me for 2 pieces of stone and RISK my gear dropping through corruption, when I can find a person my level who will likely fight back, but allow me to potentially get their items because if he fights back, AND as I can remain uncorrupted.

Also to clarify "get their items" is referring to their gathered resources not equipped gear.

Thanks for clarifying, i felt my post was long enough, didn't felt it was relevant to go into the nitty gritty.

Noaani

neuroguy wrote: »

You guys forgot the biggest one: the instancing PvE threads.

I see more threads about people not being fond of the level of polish in relation to specific game assets that Intrepid have said are still being worked on than I do about instances.

Boanergese

I just discovered this game, just created an account, haven't read the wiki or watched any videos, and yet I have an opinion to share.

Noaani

Boanergese wrote: »

I just discovered this game, just created an account, haven't read the wiki or watched any videos, and yet I have an opinion to share.

Flat earthers also have an uninformed opinion to share.

Child Item