Griefing

Some problems I see, so here are my theoretical problems with griefing.

I want to take advantage of other players farming. I plan on killing players farming high tier mats. I will likely become corrupted but what stops a family member from teleporting to me and killing me to reset some of that corruption and eventually all of it.

Or the player killing everyone can simply buy a plot of land in a high value area kill non combatants store loot and armor in house. Let themselves die many times with no gear on/no value lost. Once uncorrupted move gained mats and and move house to new high value location and rinse and repeat. Or even worse, kill a few high value farming players, become too highly corrupted to keep going so drop by the homestead, dump everything, go get urself killed by a friend/ family/ guild member. rinse and repeat not moving house, never worrying about corruption reaping only benefits.

Okay so next what about having a network of guild homesteads in high value locations, rotating corrupted members you use an uncorrupted member to kill those who are corrupted to remove debuff. If IS makes it so fellow guilds camt remove corruption from fellow guild members one could easily use an alliance. Or more likely have a bunch of people pick up the bounty hunter trait in the guild and the bounty hunters "hunt" the corrupted to reset corruption. The network of homesteads allows for the alliance to easily store valuable loot gained from their corrupted players, The bounty hunters feed off the corrupted player. Its a positive feedback loop that would be painfully annoying to deal with. Even if you remove the ability for anyone who is in your guild or your alliance to remove corruption debuffs from you people will just use discord alliances to coordinate removal of corruption with bounty hunters. Again creating money for bounty hunters profit for corrupted players... there is no real downside.

Any way the homestead offers a unique difficulty for corruption. Intrepid good luck

IMPORTANT - This is not asking the question IF the value for the corrupted players or bounty hunters is truly worth it. The game doesn't have enough details or playtime for us to know this, so only respond with further food for thought not "corrupted players wont gain enough from this strategy to make it worthwhile"

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Ludullu

Avoxtrium wrote: »

I think @NiKr what im trying to say, is that this kind of system is easy for people to use, so yes isolated its not a problem, if it was popular it would be a huge problem encouraging any solo player to be killed and thatd kinda suck for any normal player

The more PKers, the more BHs, the less PKers, the less victims. It's all a part of the system and working as intended. I really don't see this as a problem.

Azherae

Dygz wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-qPEbHKdmQ&t=5535s
Mark 1:32:15

FAISAL: What about Corrupted people?
STEVEN: "If they have a Corruption Score, they won't be able to be Summoned. Combat status or Corruption Score or Event flag.
Event flag is, in the backend, what we use essentially to determine, "Hey! This person isa part of an Event", meaning they are either an attacker or a defender on a Caravan or they are an attacker or defender in a Castle or a Node Siege. Or, they're a participant in war. So, if there's a war event occurring or a war status between Nodes or a war status between Guilds, or they're a participant in an active Arena, that's what we call an Event flag. If the Event flag is active on the character, they also cannot be Summoned."

For certain, the idea with Event flags is to not allow Summoning people for Zergs, so seems like it will be the same for when you're Corrupted. If you can't be Family Summoned, you also can't initiate a Family Summon.

Well, that shortens the question, but might still be good to ask it anyways, so now it's just:

"Can a Corrupted Player use the Family Summon system to call their Family?"

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Avoxtrium wrote: »

I think @NiKr what im trying to say, is that this kind of system is easy for people to use, so yes isolated its not a problem, if it was popular it would be a huge problem encouraging any solo player to be killed and thatd kinda suck for any normal player

The more PKers, the more BHs, the less PKers, the less victims. It's all a part of the system and working as intended. I really don't see this as a problem.

@Avoxtrium - as far as I know, that's the intended design of Ashes. You say 'normal player' but in Ashes the 'normal player' is probably expected to either 'be able to hang in PvP' or 'always bring a group who can', while constantly weighing the situation.

I don't think it's particularly unfair since it also isn't really a surprise. If you see a Freehold sitting on or near a good resource spot, you basically know that you will be in danger if you try to get that resource.

Adding on the idea that 'the player who kills you might not suffer much for doing it because of their setup' isn't really a problem, is it? Even on a larger scale, it's just 'players creating a weird sort of PvP mini-dungeon', no different from 'Trying to gather something that is in an area patrolled by a random aggressive elite mob'.

@Nikr - I understand your view, but I never 'trust' developers, even good ones, to have the same perspectives on things that players consider 'common sense', particularly because their intentions may be entirely different. So I wouldn't necessarily 'bet' that one can't place Freeholds near relatively high-value resources.

Similarly, there's something to be said for the very simple fact that a sufficiently large amount of medium-lower value resources is now 'high value' and worth it for me to kill the gatherer for, which I would consider the bigger 'concern' here, but it's all the same.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

@Nikr - I understand your view, but I never 'trust' developers, even good ones, to have the same perspectives on things that players consider 'common sense', particularly because their intentions may be entirely different. So I wouldn't necessarily 'bet' that one can't place Freeholds near relatively high-value resources.

Similarly, there's something to be said for the very simple fact that a sufficiently large amount of medium-lower value resources is now 'high value' and worth it for me to kill the gatherer for, which I would consider the bigger 'concern' here, but it's all the same.

True, those things will have to be proven and tested.

Voxtrium

Honestly glad i am getting everyones perspectives though, overall i think it is a valid thought line.

Goalid

First: get rid of the family summon system. Problem solved!

But in all seriousness, I don't know if you'll be able to kill members of your family, since we know you already can't kill a member of your own guild.

What's to stop a guild from just storing their gear and mats in a local homestead? Basically nothing as the system has been planned. I'd assume guild would do this for their most valuable gathering spot in their node's ZOI, monopolize it, and charge monopoly prices for those mats.

Since your gear in your inventory won't drop either, I'd guess a corrupted player would just put on different gear too once they're corrupt, so even if they killed you in their best gear they can just take it off and its safe.

People don't seem to care though, they think experience debt is enough for corruption. Which makes me wonder why gear potentially dropping is even in the system, if everyone's just expecting corrupted players to avoid that risk.

Ludullu

Goalid wrote: »

Since your gear in your inventory won't drop either, I'd guess a corrupted player would just put on different gear too once they're corrupt, so even if they killed you in their best gear they can just take it off and its safe.

I dunno how exactly they'll have it in Ashes, but in L2 it wasn't just what you were wearing, but the gear in your inventory too. So the corrupted players might still lose their good stuff on death.

Goalid

NiKr wrote: »

Goalid wrote: »

Since your gear in your inventory won't drop either, I'd guess a corrupted player would just put on different gear too once they're corrupt, so even if they killed you in their best gear they can just take it off and its safe.

I dunno how exactly they'll have it in Ashes, but in L2 it wasn't just what you were wearing, but the gear in your inventory too. So the corrupted players might still lose their good stuff on death.

Huh, swear I saw something in the wiki say it was only equipped gear. That's good though.

George_Black

Part of the game.
It's open world pvp. If somebody is determined to waste their time settup up and doing all the things you mentioned then good for them. It's not griefing. It wont be often. If anything else it will be a spectacle. But I dount the PK will get away with it most of the time.
Like a bad gambler he will lose way more than he will earn, and I am sure bounty hunters will often visit this "PK homestead area"

As for PK being able to summon family, we dont know that will work for sure.

The whole family summon system hasnt been talked about much, and from what little the devs have shared, the community doesnt care for it to be part of the game with no fast travel.

Voxtrium

@George_Black , i think in my head i have debated how large guilds and alliances could best take over dungeons and other important content and this is the way i imagine it. With a huge guild you could gatekeep people easier especially if you create a system like the one i described. Holding a dungeon entrance so others cant reap its rewards is difficult for a guild but doable. However if you bring in homesteads and allow guilds to setup around dungeons and gatekeep through that you become significantly more effective since your players defending said dungeon have a lot more to gain from doing so.

Ludullu

Goalid wrote: »

Huh, swear I saw something in the wiki say it was only equipped gear. That's good though.

Death penalties page says this
"A corrupt (red player) suffers penalties at four times the rate of a non-combatant, and has a chance to drop any carried/equipped items based on their current corruption score.
This includes: Dropping weapons and gear."

George_Black

Avoxtrium wrote: »

@George_Black , i think in my head i have debated how large guilds and alliances could best take over dungeons and other important content and this is the way i imagine it. With a huge guild you could gatekeep people easier especially if you create a system like the one i described. Holding a dungeon entrance so others cant reap its rewards is difficult for a guild but doable. However if you bring in homesteads and allow guilds to setup around dungeons and gatekeep through that you become significantly more effective since your players defending said dungeon have a lot more to gain from doing so.

Then people should stop feeling victimized, stop labelling everything griefing, socialize, organize, make guilds/alliances, get good in PvP and fight back.

All the issues you bring up as griefing is actually what open world pvp means.

And if you debated in your head that guilds gatekeep, I have played that scenario in L2 mmo. And it was great.

Ludullu

Avoxtrium wrote: »

@George_Black , i think in my head i have debated how large guilds and alliances could best take over dungeons and other important content and this is the way i imagine it. With a huge guild you could gatekeep people easier especially if you create a system like the one i described. Holding a dungeon entrance so others cant reap its rewards is difficult for a guild but doable. However if you bring in homesteads and allow guilds to setup around dungeons and gatekeep through that you become significantly more effective since your players defending said dungeon have a lot more to gain from doing so.

They said we can't put freeholds too close to dungeons/roads, so it won't be as easy. But it's also a normal mechanic. If you want to go into that controlled dungeon - find another guild that wants it too and go kick the controller's ass.

Voxtrium

@NiKr @George_Black I agree with both or your statements, i am merely trying to bring up arguments so that each counter point is at least thought of. I still think the level to which this is effective will be heavily dictated by the proximity requirements of dungeons/roads and the value and cost of being a BH and the cost of setting up freeholds in this way.

Dygz

Steven defines griefing as killing Non-Combatants.

Vaknar

Azherae wrote: »

Karthos wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Are Corrupted still counted as Family?
Steven has said the game basically treats Corrupted like monsters and... you can't Family Summon a monster.
Corrupted cannot be Family Summoned, so it seems highly likely that Corruted cannot Family Summon, either.

This is actually a really good question I didn't consider. Would be worth a confirmation on this.

Well, I've got no specific questions in mind for this month's Q&A segment, so you can leave it to me. What exactly are we asking?

"Can a Corrupted Player use the Family Summon Mechanic, from either side, either summoning Family or being summoned?"

That's a good Q&A question right there!

George_Black

Good.
All in all

Dygz wrote: »

Steven defines griefing as killing Non-Combatants.

Man get the hell out of here...

Dygz

After you.

tautau

Speaking of griefing....will we be able to heal mobs? It was an effective anti-bot tactic in L2.

Ludullu

tautau wrote: »

Speaking of griefing....will we be able to heal mobs? It was an effective anti-bot tactic in L2.

But definitely forbid healing bosses, cause seeing Antharas' hp go back to full from <50% was really painful and all just because one enemy bishop managed to hide in the corner of the cave.

Child Item