Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Yet Another Anti-Griefing Thread: Actual Restitution
Azherae
Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Just to get this out of my system.
The problem I have with PK count, Corruption, or whatever, is that it has no cost if you manage to not die until Green again. Sure you can be stopped, but there's no cost.
In Elite Dangerous you rack up a huge Bounty, you finally get shot down, that money comes out of YOUR pocket. You can end up back at 'the equivalent of level 1' ship-wise if you do this (nearly no one would).
This is the only way I know of to separate 'griefers' from 'Node protector gankers' in Ashes. If you have to PAY MONEY when you kill someone who doesn't fight back, the incentive structure changes. If you have to pay more because they are low level, same deal. You could just 'not pay it' and even manage to get back to green, but you owe SOMEONE money. Don't have enough? Go into debt, sell off your gear, sit in game jail for however long, get put on probation, who knows.
If the killed player can go get restitution for you killing them because they are a member of the Node, or someone/something authorizes this, then good. As for 'known bots', no one has to auth their restitution, alternately, policies.
Anyways pick it apart if you care, figured I might as well throw it into the storm brewin' so it also disappears whenever that does.
The problem I have with PK count, Corruption, or whatever, is that it has no cost if you manage to not die until Green again. Sure you can be stopped, but there's no cost.
In Elite Dangerous you rack up a huge Bounty, you finally get shot down, that money comes out of YOUR pocket. You can end up back at 'the equivalent of level 1' ship-wise if you do this (nearly no one would).
This is the only way I know of to separate 'griefers' from 'Node protector gankers' in Ashes. If you have to PAY MONEY when you kill someone who doesn't fight back, the incentive structure changes. If you have to pay more because they are low level, same deal. You could just 'not pay it' and even manage to get back to green, but you owe SOMEONE money. Don't have enough? Go into debt, sell off your gear, sit in game jail for however long, get put on probation, who knows.
If the killed player can go get restitution for you killing them because they are a member of the Node, or someone/something authorizes this, then good. As for 'known bots', no one has to auth their restitution, alternately, policies.
Anyways pick it apart if you care, figured I might as well throw it into the storm brewin' so it also disappears whenever that does.
♪ One Gummy Fish, two Gummy Fish, Red Gummy Fish, Blue Gummy Fish ♪
2
Comments
I would add this was posted to youtube and tiktok and received a lot of support and the PKers were UPSET about the idea.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/368386/#Comment_368386
Either because they reveal people's Alts, or because they don't work. Either way is bad to ME personally.
all these threads remind me of those people who are unhappy with their looks or personality, and instead of working on themselves, they demand everybody else to change and like or pick them.
why do you want to remove all the rewards and player interactions? so 0% risk 100% rewards for gatherers but 0% rewards and 100% risk for pvpers. how is that fair?
also, the idea is shit because you can simply make a 2nd account. hell, you can even split the cost with some friends or guildies and take turns leveling characters just to kill gatherers and bypass the blacklist.
also, at some point someone from your guild or alliance will attack someone else, and now your entire guild / ally is blacklisted. is that fair? we gonna end up with nobody being able to buy anything. great idea
To be clear, you don't necessarily HAVE to pay the gold if you don't die while within the Territory of the Node, I guess.
But yeah, I'd say that's valid too. I can see the complaint. That's not quite 'picking it apart' though. If we are concerned that 'ganking needs more deterrent' then this is the one I think makes the most sense for what Ashes is trying to be.
If you don't agree that additional penalties are required, then obviously I wouldn't ask you to agree with this.
also, losig your gear = losing gold and materials. thats penalty enough
Aren't we all sinners?
Right, but I was addressing 2 points.
1. If you get away with it, you don't lose gear.
2. The person you killed does not get anything back at all. If anything, if you manage to become Green again by the next time they see you, the burden is on them now.
This is all an extension of 'the general reason why games become gankboxes' which has a LOT more to do with player characters being unstoppable forces of nature that just respawn endlessly and any cost they pay for doing this can just eventually be overcome with time.
While the people they are 'hurting' never really get the BENEFIT of that cost being paid. This imbalances the situation. As long as I am willing to pay the COST of hurting another player, they can be crushed because they will never get anything back.
Very low risk of exposing alts unless crafted items have the name of the crafter visibly known to all.
I meant the other way, actually. I prefer that EVEN if someone's Alt ganks me, that I don't have a way to know their main. I don't even want the ability to blacklist at the account level in Ashes, and I would figure Intrepid won't be granting that ability.
So if I DID get ganked by NoobSlayer42069 and wanted to never sell them any cheese, I don't want a system that prevents NoobChef69420 from buying the cheese and therefore lets me know that the two are related.
Without that system, I don't think the blacklist works well. Not to mention that you could just have someone else buy stuff on their behalf since this game allows free trading.
Responses like this, especially with an attempt to start with a personal attack, says all I need to know about it being a 100% effective way to prevent unneeded ganking.
The gatherer's risk is in the transporting of their products and in losing their items in a siege. Two of the most important methods of PvP in Ashes that provide world change. World change does not occur at the individual open world PvP level and open world PvP is not needed for world change.
A second account would not solve anything. The main account still couldn't buy the goods or own them in any way.
The only way an entire guild would be blacklisted at once is if they all PKed the same person at the same time. This is highly unlikely and I doubt the gatherer would want to ban an entire guild from purchasing items. This is directed at individuals, not guilds, and only an option when a noncombat player is PKed.
you haven't tested it yet.........
Whoever told you that interaction with other players will be restrictive, in the manner that if you do something unlawful you will have to pay no matter what?
Dont you understand this mmo is open world pvp and not optional?
The corruption system is there to protect:
Raiding
Exploring
Progressing
Gathering/crafting
Questing
It's a balancing measure, it's not protection for passive players and it most definately isnt a guaranteed punishment for... playing the game.
Nope, sure haven't. But they have told us a lot about the design plans.
I'd argue there's already a huge cost. And that cost is time.
You as a corrupted player now have to be more careful due to bounty hunters and try to evade them, you also have to die. You also have lower stats so things will take longer to kill and you also have to work off your XP debt so that you can have your character back to its optimal fighting state (for either pvp and pve)
All of this takes up precious time.
it wasnt a personal attack. i dont know you, i dont know what you look like and i dont know anything about you. i just said that because it reminds me of those people irl, with all the stuff that is going on in the world right now.
as a response to your other comments, you dont always have to transport goods using the caravan system. the caravan system is meant to give you additional rewards for your effort. one hour of farm suddenly becomes 4 hours of rewards if you use it, but it comes with added risk, which follows the design phylosophy. and guess what? you could always ask your guild or friends or node citizens to protect your caravan. you dont want the added risk? thats fine, u dont get the extra rewards. why should you get the extra rewards without the added risk? also, if you are gathering and you die, you dont lose everything, you only lose a portion of mats (and you dont lose finished items, such as potions). now you are in town and you can deposit or sell whatever you have on you and go back to farming.
open world pvp isnt needed for world change directly..but it affects it indirectly. being able to farm in the best spot and prevent your enemies to do so means you will get better gear faster and be able to defend when they siege you or win when you attack them. so how is open world pvp not important again? you also get to have the loot from the boss, while your enemies cant.
But no I don't agree with the idea, breaking news I'm sure to you haha. The system already appears to be harsh. We have no idea how harsh it is actually. The main mechanisms Intrepid have to determine that is gear loss chance, and how it scales per kill. And stat dampening, and how it scales per kill. We don't know what those numbers are.
For me personally, we are nearing a point of ok if you're going to add new penalties and risks, better thought out ones even, it's time to remove some as you add the new ones. And that can start with giving reds back the ability to defend themselves with their CCs against people who are actively fighting them.
Edit: I forgot. This is more important than any of whatever else I just typed. I fundamentally disagree with you, with what I think you're implying in the OP, that reds should receive guaranteed punishment. That would break the whole system, there'd be no reason to ever go red if severe punishment was guaranteed. It'd be insane. Only insane people would do it.
You will probably not be surprised to know that I wish the system overall was less harsh so that people would be more willing to PvP, to defend their node from bots or invaders, or to just take opportunity when they get them.
But I also wish it was more in line with the core feeling that I think Ashes is going for. If Corruption turns out to be super harsh and not easily circumvented, fine. I won't be as happy because I would prefer if it was less harsh, but at least there will be less Bounty Hunters if there's no one to hunt.
I just realized about red and CC actually that is a pretty big deal lmao.
Right but that wasn't something that got 'taken away', because it was just 'assumed that they would be able to'.
Whereas we have learned from the Lineage players that it was probably never going to be a thing. So if the game the system is based on had a function that was 'part of why it worked', it's not surprising that it is appearing in the current system.
If anything I'd assume that Corruption and the system is balanced around 'not being able to CC Greens' same as L2. If we're picking up the whole thing, then we pick up the whole thing, right?
That's why I only want a change that applies to the one thing that is NOT in L2. Nodes. Because Nodes CREATE a reason to 'keep paying the cost of going red', namely, sabotaging a node at the cost of a character's capacity.
How much will someone pay/sacrifice to make a rival node a miserable place to live? Let's find out in cash.
I also want the corruption gain to be lower so that people have a chance to remove it before they get caught (at least at low PK counter), but I wanted the BHs to have a buffer time where they can kill the ex-PKer for free (and the ex-PKer can't flag against the BH). This would be coupled with "marked" loot that the PKer might've gotten from their victim. And the BH would then receive additional points for returning the loot to the victim (could be done through the game's system rather than through hand-to-hand trade).
Imo that would bring more positive feedback into the system, the victims would get their stuff back, the BHs would have more point in their existence even if the corruption "timer" is on the shorter side.
And as for the PK counter removal quest, I just wanted the PKers to be sent to the nodes of the people they've killed and do node-related quests there. Or the removal quest itself gives them tasks that would help out those nodes.
But we haven't heard any info on either of these particular systems yet (at least in detail) so I got no clue if my suggestions fit what Intrepid has in mind.
Well, I'm glad to learn what you mean by this because your OWN tests when you reported back moreso indicated that it's not very much different, and there was some specifics about scaling that was practically an oversight in L2.
Basically, it very much sounded like they just fixed the L2 method so it scaled properly and was less janky about 'which XP counted for removing the Corruption'.
Maybe I misunderstood the part you and James were explaining about it though. 300xp to remove one point, but didn't scale as you got to higher levels and could get more exp. That's where I was at, as of your last explanations.
It MIGHT be 'oh we went way harsher', but it might also be 'we fixed it'.
Slipped an edit in my reply while you were replying to me. I get the spirit of your idea. I think Intrepid is kind of already using a form of it in a way with the enemy of the state designation. Though I believe that can only be applied to one person or something, not sure.
But yeah I think we agree kind of conceptually on some things. I'd like to see the system less harsh in some ways, and add in comparable harshness in other ways.
For instance gear drop chance, which we now know starts with the first kill. I disagree with this about as much as anything can be disagreed with. I just think it's dogass. It's going to be some low percentage chance, that randomly just fucks some people who are.just.playing.the.game.as.intended. Not trying to trigger anyone by saying murder hoboing is intended. Not what I'm talking about. But contesting is.
This is something that is going to happen, statistically. Some guy, or girl, who's been pked several times over the course of a number months by the same people, is finally going to get their chance for revenge. And they're gonna freakin go for it. Whatever the situation is, their revenge target is low on health, or they've come across him, and he's alone but you have friends with you. Revenge time.
Two minutes later, a random group heading to a dungeon comes by, sees the red who never pked in his or her life, but just did for revenge. Bad rng, guy loses a piece of gear.
So no I don't agree with every little thing. Ideas are worth discussing, always the chance of a new good idea coming forth from it. Even though all these threads are getting tiresome.
But in my estimation, just with what we know right now, the system is going to work and do what it's intended to do.
Well I would definitely replace that, with this. Nothing screams 'let's feed our good gear to RMT' like 'them having a chance to get gear off you after you kill their bot by logging in with their army of main accounts'.
"Fun".
And I'd be completely fine with both of those changes if only the corruption timer wasn't "significantly longer". Now, Steven would definitely need to explain in what way it is longer, because, yeah, L2's scaling was definitely trash but it also worked well with its respawn/TP system. You got just a few minutes to remove your corruption and your victim has just a few minutes to return to the same location to maybe catch you. A game of cat&mouse that becomes easier for the victim the higher the PK counter on the killer.
But in Ashes we have 2 changes that help out any and all greens to obliterate the PKer, while also a long corruption timer to justify the existence of BHs. To me that sounds a bit too rough. And depending on some details maybe even way too rough.
Ok, so, to be completely clear, because this brings me all the way back to the damn beginning and I don't feel like bumping the other thread.
1. Lucky Ghost outlines a way to grief people with CC.
2. Steven says this can't be done.
3. George says 'see? that's how L2 works, this should have been obvious'
4. Therefore Lucky Ghost was wrong.
If Damage based CCs go through, it means that Lucky Ghost was right, and Steven made a change to address the part that Lucky Ghost's video was right about?
Because I was convinced by NOW that LG at LEAST had only played L2 before they changed it to 'no CCs' and therefore concluded based on old data.
Even AFTER L2's updates, Damage+CC still works, therefore making it possible to achieve the scenario presented, or not?
Exactly. Took me a couple times of reading that before I understood what you were even saying. But exactly. I dunno, it's not a huge deal, just think it's dumb. But some people are going to get fucked by it that don't deserve it. And some of the biggest assholes may never lose a piece of gear over many multiple deaths while having 1 kill's worth of corruption. Just the way RNG works.
Ultimately I guess it doesn't matter. The gear drop chance has to start somewhere. And it will fuck people randomly lol. It does it's job of deterring as it scales up based on individual risk tolerance.