I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups.
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations.
So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned.
My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations.
So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned.
My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
My opinion on this is that it will make open world pvp more meaningful. Having to pick from the people you think would have valuable items on them vs getting corruption. We do not know how long corruption will last but that will be the balance IMO. People would think twice about random ganking as it might not be worth the cost.
I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations.
So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned.
My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
Yeah, a PK with a group deep in a dungeon made sense. Protect the grind spot or loot location.
That makes me wonder how grouping and helping PKers in Ashes will be handled. If you heal/buff/help a corrupt player or a purple and that player kills a green do you suffer corruption for that help.
It also seems that it'll be hard for players to help corrupted players due to greens staying green while attacking a red. And I'm guessing that if red kills the green that attacked him, since he is green, that will stack more corruption. Unless I missed something here?
Kaos & Lace Cartel
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
I spent a good bit of time in Lineage 2. A mix of solo, duo and group play. After the first few weeks I rarely saw players willing to turn red, and that system was relaxed compared to what Ashes sounds like. The majority of the time it was a PK alt that stayed red just to grief and mess with lower level players. Second to that were the enforcers for RMT groups. They would come in and try to force you out of a grind area for their workers. Last were a few people here and there trying to get some solo PvP going, and most of them didn't go red very much. What I did see a lot of was people waiting till I pulled and hit me so the mob would kill me, or training mobs on groups. Luckily I was a Sorc. with Sleep and Sleeping Cloud so I had an out in those situations.
So I'm still just waiting to see how much weight is on the corruption tag. Can't really know until its tested, and fine tuned.
My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
Yeah, a PK with a group deep in a dungeon made sense. Protect the grind spot or loot location.
That makes me wonder how grouping and helping PKers in Ashes will be handled. If you heal/buff/help a corrupt player or a purple and that player kills a green do you suffer corruption for that help.
It also seems that it'll be hard for players to help corrupted players due to greens staying green while attacking a red. And I'm guessing that if red kills the green that attacked him, since he is green, that will stack more corruption. Unless I missed something here?
No, you haven't missed anything.
Only last hit even gets Corruption as of now, so you can assist PK-ers in any way you like without becoming Corrupted but you will become a Combatant so people can now kill you without Corruption.
Also in regards to everyone's arguments about corruption. I believe corruption penalties should scale as it is continued in terms of severeness.
Do I think someone should lose gear after 2 or 3 corruption kills of equal level? No
Do I think continued killing should cause corrupted to drop gear on death? Sure
Do I think killing 1 or 2 significantly lower evel players should cause a corrupted to drop gear on death? Yes
Do I think killing 1 or 2 significantly lower level players with high gathering skills should cause a corrupted player to drop gear on death? No
To me, it's all variables that should be considered in the system.as opposed to 1 set form of corruption.
But no matter what, carebears will want more punishments, griefers will want less punishments. But I believe there should be a middle ground that keeps the focus on PvX. Not too much punishment as to deter PvP, but not too much leniency to promote griefing.
Also there's no such thing as non-consensual PvP in a game where it is built into its system. Consent to the systems is given upon logging into the world.
I agree except with the last sentence. But I cannot disagree with it either.
I would rather say, players should be aware that there is a risk of being involved into PvP even when they expect it the least.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
And aren't interested in playing Lineage 2.
Karma in L2 worked great for gamers who enjoy that amount of PvP combat interaction.
Doesn't mean it's sufficient for people who don't enjoy that amount of PvP combat interaction.
This morning, I was talking to a couple of "kids" (in their early 30s) who run the restaurant in my office building.
I asked them if they had finally finished the story for Diablo IV - they have. They said they don't have time to try any of the options after finishing the story. I said - that's true for me.
They said these days, they are casual players because they don't have the time to invest in hardcore content.
I shared my philosophy that most MMORPG players are some form of casual - mostly due to the time factor.
They said, "Oh! You are just like us!"
We moved on to discussing MMORPGs, in general.
They were too young for UO. The oldest brother began with EQ.
He enjoyed playing Lineage 1. He thought they would enjoy playing Lineage 2.
He said the PvP interactions occurred too frequently for them to enjoy Lineage 2.
Even though they enjoy PvP sometimes.
Doesn't have to be a gank box to be undesirable.
Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit.
Even if I win the enounter, I'm still going to be pissed off. And there is no reward that can compensate for that.
Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
Obviously, the people who enjoyed playing Lineage 2 (and the frequency of PvP combat in that game), should also enjoy playing Ashes - since Ashes is designed for people who love playing Lineage 2 and EvE Online and ArcheAge. It's not PvEers playing Lineage 2. It's PvPers who enjoy PvP sometimes rather than most of the time. And they are PvP sometimes gamers who enjoy PvP more frequently than some other MMORPG players who enjoy PvP sometimes.
I don't think there is any "concern" about the PvP design for Ashes. And there certainly is not a "problem" with the PvP design. It's just a matter of taste. How much PvP is too much for an individual's liking.
When the design had no permanent auto-flag Purple zones - yeah, I would need to test Corruption to see if it is enough of a deterrent for my comfort.
Once the design adds permanent auto-flag Purple zones - I don't need to test to know that I would rather play some other game.
Which should be OK. Because Steven has always said the game is not designed for everyone.
And... really this is very similar to people who know in advance that they won't enjoy games that are P2W.
You don't have to test P2W games to know if you will enjoy them.
Some dealbreaker features don't have to be tested to know in advance that they are dealbreakers for you.
In 2017, with a release date of 2020, Ashes seemed like it would be the first MMORPG to release with some features that will solve my frustrations with Endgame. And I might have to accept a frequency of PvP a slightly of my comfort zone to have the chance to play an MMORPG in 2020/2021/2022.
But, it's now 2023. Dragonflight completely solved my frustrations with Endgame - I don't really need Ashes to scratch my MMORPG itch. And I can get that itch scratched on a PvE-Only server.
Palia is going into Closed Beta in December - I expect to be playing that before I choose to play Ashes.
I expect Pax Dei to hit Beta before Ashes.
Along with several other MMORPGs where I won't even have to think about always being open for attack by other players when I'm not in the mood for that.
And we can still be happy for -and support- the people who will enjoy playing Steven's vision.
One of the repercussions of "Everything is subject to change" combined with "The game is not designed for everyone" - is that there might be a change that becomes a dealbreaker.
We won't all like the same games. That's life. It's all OK.
3
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I agree except with the last sentence. But I cannot disagree with it either.
I would rather say, players should be aware that there is a risk of being involved into PvP even when they expect it the least.
I would say there is a chance of being involved in PvP.
It's not really about risk in my view.
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit.
Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES.
Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly.
It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP.
Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem.
I agree except with the last sentence. But I cannot disagree with it either.
I would rather say, players should be aware that there is a risk of being involved into PvP even when they expect it the least.
I would say there is a chance of being involved in PvP.
It's not really about risk in my view.
A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech.
If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically.
So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision.
But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too.
Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want.
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit.
Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES.
Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly.
It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP.
Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem.
There has to be a balance. Some people get the most joy from camping low levels all day long regardless of corruption. No doubt he will eventually be killed by someone and he will start to drop gear, weapons, and items. Which they wont care about. They know the risk.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now. My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
If there is a player killing low level players you can now attack the corrupted player without penalty in hopes he drops some stuff you can loot. Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit.
Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES.
Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly.
It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP.
Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem.
There has to be a balance. Some people get the most joy from camping low levels all day long regardless of corruption. No doubt he will eventually be killed by someone and he will start to drop gear, weapons, and items. Which they wont care about. They know the risk.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now. My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
If there is a player killing low level players you can now attack the corrupted player without penalty in hopes he drops some stuff you can loot. Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
If you need ore, you could just go gather it by yourself, or buy it. I don't see why PvP should be the first thing that comes to your mind.
The exception would be if you see me gathering ore for hours, and I just take your farming/gathering spot or whatever, then sure, you'll assume I have a full inventory of valuables, and/or I'm competing for your gathering spot, sure PvP now is a valid option.
I just don't think players should be subjected to getting killed for just gathering or killing stuff around the world.
That's where the corruption system comes into play. It should discourage the PvP over miniscule things, but if the reward from going corrupt is good enough, then it shouldn't be discouraged and it's up for the player to decide if it's worth it or not.
Can you, Noaani , please enlighten me to your valuable basic knowledge of the corruption system which gives you such a strong and absolute understanding that the system will fail? Specifically?
Specifically, no I cant.
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Why would it? You dont get corruption for engaging in PvP with others. You only get corruption if you kill them without then fighting back.
As such, corruption likely will alter the outcome of PvP a number of times.
When you see someone you want to attack (for example, they are harvesting some resources you want to harvest), you have zero reason to not attack them. Corruption is simply not a factor at all in that decision.
Once you attack them though, if they do not fight back, corruption becomes a factor in whether or not you kill them.
Is that specific enough for you? It isnt my fault you are specifically asking the wrong question.
4
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech.
If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically.
So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision.
But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too.
Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want.
Yeah - both can often be used interchangeably.
I’m quibbling over the distinctions in this thread because risk includes a high possibility of loss - as if the primary concern is losing (xp, gear, the battle).
Whereas for me it’s weighing the %chance that I will be forced into gameplay I don’t particularly like much - when I’m absolutely not in the mood for that gameplay.
I think it doesn’t matter to me whether people are out to get me specifically.
Without item drop, becoming red would barely be a problem at L50
* I can go red while carrying no unfinished items
* There is no XP loss, just XP debt. I'm L50, why would I care about XP debt?
* Durability loss still happens at 4x
If items didn't drop on the lowest level of redness, the only downside for a L50 would be higher durability loss *IF* you died before clearing corruption via XP
Now, don't get me wrong, *BEING* red for a while is going to have it's stat downsides and other annoyances. But that's clearable with death and then repairing your items at a later time.
A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech.
If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically.
So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision.
But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too.
Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want.
Yeah - both can often be used interchangeably.
I’m quibbling over the distinctions in this thread because risk includes a high possibility of loss - as if the primary concern is losing (xp, gear, the battle).
Whereas for me it’s weighing the %chance that I will be forced into gameplay I don’t particularly like much - when I’m absolutely not in the mood for that gameplay.
I think it doesn’t matter to me whether people are out to get me specifically.
I understand your stance, especially after that example with eating fish eye.
Luckily I am somewhat more resilient. Not to fish eye but to AoC, including future unforeseen changes.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now.
Dunno why you assume you will be the winner of that encounter.
I would say that the vast majority of the time, PvP isn’t fun. I vastly enjoy cooperative play over competitive play.
I have 0 interest in competing against other players when I play MMORPGs.
Sometimes, I enjoy the RP of defending towns against enemies - which could include other player.
But, I find the concept of players being content for other players to be repulsive.
Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
Also, not enough incentive to play the game for people who have little interest in PvP.
Oops, I should reframe back to the OP:
How many of you will still be engaging in in world pvp/ ganking reguardless of corruption?
Something I plan to try out during Alpha 2 is creating Zombie Alts.
Have an Alt who is turned into a Zombie that becomes as Corrupt as possible from ganking others - until it basically just falls to pieces.
For people who enjoy PvP - high Corruption can be a lot of fun for Alts.
Being Corrupt is not necessarily a risk - if your goal is for that character to be riddled with Corruption.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now.
When using one of my Zombie alts, ganking and being ganked would be part of the fun. If I don't consider myself to be griefing other players. (Or I don't care if I'm griefing other players.)
My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
I mean... for my Zombie alt my goal is to go Corrupt. It's not a risk. Also...eventually having worthless stats and low survivabilty chance is also a goal; not a risk. Returning home safely would not necessarily be a goal for my Zombie Alts and even when it is a goal, there would be no risk.
With Zombie alts, it's always a win/win scenario. Everything is part of the fun of RPing a Zombie. (If I don't care about griefing other players).
So it will not be easy to always have the "lowest level" of corruption if you plan to constantly go red.
Also we will have A2, where many systems will be tested and changed if needed, so if there is a way to do it, be sure it will be patched way before official release.
Lets not forget about this:
"A character's PK value increases with each non-combatant player killed over the lifetime of that character."
So it will not be easy to always have the "lowest level" of corruption if you plan to constantly go red.
Also we will have A2, where many systems will be tested and changed if needed, so if there is a way to do it, be sure it will be patched way before official release.
And I really hope that reducing that count costs A TON. And gonna be giving that feedback as much as I can during A2
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp.
About right?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited July 2023
I think Noaani is saying Corruption is not a deterrent for Greens or Purples to engage in PvP.
At some point, Reds will probably choose to stop PvPing so they can decrease their Corruption Score.
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp.
About right?
No.
In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for.
The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for.
Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP.
Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided.
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp.
About right?
No.
In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for.
The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for.
Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP.
Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided.
Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent.
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Ok, i feel less confused now. You are saying the system will fail in its attempt to stop unwanted pvp, but WILL stop (or at least decrease) unwanted killing in pvp.
About right?
No.
In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for.
The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for.
Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP.
Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided.
Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent.
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
Sometimes I wonder if Noaani is just masterfully trolls half the forum with his semantics discussions I feel like ~70% of long discussions are just Noaani x Someone discussing some random "term" whose definition they can't agree on.
Comments
Yup. Most people that are talking and complaining about AoC corruption system never played L2 and are probably just making shit up or basing their opinions on what other people that also never played L2 say about it.
The reality is - while it wasn't perfect, karma system in L2 worked great and pk was never an issue for the game, game wasn't a gank box, you wouldn't get PKed all the time there were plenty of PvErs in the game and intrepid is working on the system to make even better, so there's nothing to be concern about before people actually see it working in game.
I guess i am. sorry.
My time in Lineage II I spent PK'ing a lot. I was always willing to be red but only because I was with a large group of players willing to fight back and trap ourselves in a tower behind tough mobs. The Risk was if you tried to come collect on a red target you would die to the hoards of mobs we were behind or by the hands of other players. In AoC it seems the penalty for being red will be severe enough for you to actively choose not to be red. A loss of stats, HP, Mana, damage, mobility, etc could be devastating.
Yeah, a PK with a group deep in a dungeon made sense. Protect the grind spot or loot location.
That makes me wonder how grouping and helping PKers in Ashes will be handled. If you heal/buff/help a corrupt player or a purple and that player kills a green do you suffer corruption for that help.
It also seems that it'll be hard for players to help corrupted players due to greens staying green while attacking a red. And I'm guessing that if red kills the green that attacked him, since he is green, that will stack more corruption. Unless I missed something here?
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
No, you haven't missed anything.
Only last hit even gets Corruption as of now, so you can assist PK-ers in any way you like without becoming Corrupted but you will become a Combatant so people can now kill you without Corruption.
I agree except with the last sentence. But I cannot disagree with it either.
I would rather say, players should be aware that there is a risk of being involved into PvP even when they expect it the least.
Karma in L2 worked great for gamers who enjoy that amount of PvP combat interaction.
Doesn't mean it's sufficient for people who don't enjoy that amount of PvP combat interaction.
This morning, I was talking to a couple of "kids" (in their early 30s) who run the restaurant in my office building.
I asked them if they had finally finished the story for Diablo IV - they have. They said they don't have time to try any of the options after finishing the story. I said - that's true for me.
They said these days, they are casual players because they don't have the time to invest in hardcore content.
I shared my philosophy that most MMORPG players are some form of casual - mostly due to the time factor.
They said, "Oh! You are just like us!"
We moved on to discussing MMORPGs, in general.
They were too young for UO. The oldest brother began with EQ.
He enjoyed playing Lineage 1. He thought they would enjoy playing Lineage 2.
He said the PvP interactions occurred too frequently for them to enjoy Lineage 2.
Even though they enjoy PvP sometimes.
Doesn't have to be a gank box to be undesirable.
Also... the issue isn't really about PKing. Who dies is irrelevant.
When I'm not in the mood for PvP combat, I'm not in the mood for PvP combat.
And, if I'm "forced" to engage in PvP combat when I'm not in the mood, I'm going to rage quit.
Even if I win the enounter, I'm still going to be pissed off. And there is no reward that can compensate for that.
Traditionally, I start MMORPGs on PvP-Optional servers because I like PvP sometimes. But, I end up rage-quitting to PvE-Only servers because people won't let me be when I tell them I'm not in the mood for PvP.
Obviously, the people who enjoyed playing Lineage 2 (and the frequency of PvP combat in that game), should also enjoy playing Ashes - since Ashes is designed for people who love playing Lineage 2 and EvE Online and ArcheAge. It's not PvEers playing Lineage 2. It's PvPers who enjoy PvP sometimes rather than most of the time. And they are PvP sometimes gamers who enjoy PvP more frequently than some other MMORPG players who enjoy PvP sometimes.
I don't think there is any "concern" about the PvP design for Ashes. And there certainly is not a "problem" with the PvP design. It's just a matter of taste. How much PvP is too much for an individual's liking.
When the design had no permanent auto-flag Purple zones - yeah, I would need to test Corruption to see if it is enough of a deterrent for my comfort.
Once the design adds permanent auto-flag Purple zones - I don't need to test to know that I would rather play some other game.
Which should be OK. Because Steven has always said the game is not designed for everyone.
And... really this is very similar to people who know in advance that they won't enjoy games that are P2W.
You don't have to test P2W games to know if you will enjoy them.
Some dealbreaker features don't have to be tested to know in advance that they are dealbreakers for you.
In 2017, with a release date of 2020, Ashes seemed like it would be the first MMORPG to release with some features that will solve my frustrations with Endgame. And I might have to accept a frequency of PvP a slightly of my comfort zone to have the chance to play an MMORPG in 2020/2021/2022.
But, it's now 2023. Dragonflight completely solved my frustrations with Endgame - I don't really need Ashes to scratch my MMORPG itch. And I can get that itch scratched on a PvE-Only server.
Palia is going into Closed Beta in December - I expect to be playing that before I choose to play Ashes.
I expect Pax Dei to hit Beta before Ashes.
Along with several other MMORPGs where I won't even have to think about always being open for attack by other players when I'm not in the mood for that.
And we can still be happy for -and support- the people who will enjoy playing Steven's vision.
One of the repercussions of "Everything is subject to change" combined with "The game is not designed for everyone" - is that there might be a change that becomes a dealbreaker.
We won't all like the same games. That's life. It's all OK.
It's not really about risk in my view.
That's the key thing for me. I don't want to be forced into PvP AT ALL TIMES.
Archeage had safe zones/war cycle, where zones would go from peaceful, where you couldn't really just attack enemy players, to full out war where PvP happens regularly.
It allowed you to pick and choose when and where you would PvP. It allowed you to chill out in peaceful zones if you just wanted to do other stuff. It allowed you to go to full conflict zones if you wanted that risk of PvP.
Ashes, as it stands, won't allow for this kind of choice, sadly. But if the corruption system, and other systems relating to PvP are designed in a good way, I don't think it will be a massive problem.
A risk, a chance... these are expressions used in every day speech.
If you do a trip every day between 2 nodes for 3-4 months, you can quantify the events and then if there are just 2-3 occurrences, it may turn out that they were looking for you specifically.
So it was not even a risk but a non-consensual one sided decision.
But if you say the game will be balanced to always allow PvP everywhere, then yes, I agree with that last sentence too.
Still, use a fast mount, run and live if fighting is not what you want.
There has to be a balance. Some people get the most joy from camping low levels all day long regardless of corruption. No doubt he will eventually be killed by someone and he will start to drop gear, weapons, and items. Which they wont care about. They know the risk.
I understand being ganked isn't fun, but If I need ore and you are mining ore, well it's my ore now. My risk is surviving going corrupt. Your risk is surviving long enough to return home safely.
If there is a player killing low level players you can now attack the corrupted player without penalty in hopes he drops some stuff you can loot. Only time will tell how much effect being corrupted will have on a player. As Steven has stated "There is no incentive to go corrupt... There's zero incentive for a player to go red. It actually gives you negatives for doing that- very significant downsides.
If you need ore, you could just go gather it by yourself, or buy it. I don't see why PvP should be the first thing that comes to your mind.
The exception would be if you see me gathering ore for hours, and I just take your farming/gathering spot or whatever, then sure, you'll assume I have a full inventory of valuables, and/or I'm competing for your gathering spot, sure PvP now is a valid option.
I just don't think players should be subjected to getting killed for just gathering or killing stuff around the world.
That's where the corruption system comes into play. It should discourage the PvP over miniscule things, but if the reward from going corrupt is good enough, then it shouldn't be discouraged and it's up for the player to decide if it's worth it or not.
Specifically, no I cant.
The specific reason for this is because I specifically DID NOT SAY THAT THE CORRUPTION SYSTEM WILL FAIL.
What I specifically said is that the corruption system wont be much of a deterrent for people engaging in PvP with others.
Why would it? You dont get corruption for engaging in PvP with others. You only get corruption if you kill them without then fighting back.
As such, corruption likely will alter the outcome of PvP a number of times.
When you see someone you want to attack (for example, they are harvesting some resources you want to harvest), you have zero reason to not attack them. Corruption is simply not a factor at all in that decision.
Once you attack them though, if they do not fight back, corruption becomes a factor in whether or not you kill them.
Is that specific enough for you? It isnt my fault you are specifically asking the wrong question.
I’m quibbling over the distinctions in this thread because risk includes a high possibility of loss - as if the primary concern is losing (xp, gear, the battle).
Whereas for me it’s weighing the %chance that I will be forced into gameplay I don’t particularly like much - when I’m absolutely not in the mood for that gameplay.
I think it doesn’t matter to me whether people are out to get me specifically.
* I can go red while carrying no unfinished items
* There is no XP loss, just XP debt. I'm L50, why would I care about XP debt?
* Durability loss still happens at 4x
If items didn't drop on the lowest level of redness, the only downside for a L50 would be higher durability loss *IF* you died before clearing corruption via XP
Now, don't get me wrong, *BEING* red for a while is going to have it's stat downsides and other annoyances. But that's clearable with death and then repairing your items at a later time.
I understand your stance, especially after that example with eating fish eye.
Luckily I am somewhat more resilient. Not to fish eye but to AoC, including future unforeseen changes.
That debuff lowers your stats and skills, lowers your HP and mana, lowers your gear proficiency, and lowers the drop rate when you kill mobs.
I will personally care about that when I am at the level cap.
I would say that the vast majority of the time, PvP isn’t fun. I vastly enjoy cooperative play over competitive play.
I have 0 interest in competing against other players when I play MMORPGs.
Sometimes, I enjoy the RP of defending towns against enemies - which could include other player.
But, I find the concept of players being content for other players to be repulsive.
I prefer my risk to come from mobs/NPCs, rather than from other players.
I want to cooperate with other players, rather than compete with them.
That has a great deal of appeal for people who enjoy PvP. Yes.
And holds little-to-no interest for people who have little interest in PvP.
Also, not enough incentive to play the game for people who have little interest in PvP.
Oops, I should reframe back to the OP: Something I plan to try out during Alpha 2 is creating Zombie Alts.
Have an Alt who is turned into a Zombie that becomes as Corrupt as possible from ganking others - until it basically just falls to pieces.
For people who enjoy PvP - high Corruption can be a lot of fun for Alts.
Being Corrupt is not necessarily a risk - if your goal is for that character to be riddled with Corruption.
When using one of my Zombie alts, ganking and being ganked would be part of the fun. If I don't consider myself to be griefing other players. (Or I don't care if I'm griefing other players.)
I mean... for my Zombie alt my goal is to go Corrupt. It's not a risk. Also...eventually having worthless stats and low survivabilty chance is also a goal; not a risk. Returning home safely would not necessarily be a goal for my Zombie Alts and even when it is a goal, there would be no risk.
With Zombie alts, it's always a win/win scenario. Everything is part of the fun of RPing a Zombie. (If I don't care about griefing other players).
I'd probably have mostly trash on a Zombie Alt, but... dropping decent gear for my adversaries could be a service to players... and part of the fun.
"A character's PK value increases with each non-combatant player killed over the lifetime of that character."
Source: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
So it will not be easy to always have the "lowest level" of corruption if you plan to constantly go red.
Also we will have A2, where many systems will be tested and changed if needed, so if there is a way to do it, be sure it will be patched way before official release.
About right?
At some point, Reds will probably choose to stop PvPing so they can decrease their Corruption Score.
No.
In regards to corruption, any time you say "so you think corruption will fail at..." you are wrong. Corruption will succeed at what it is designed for.
The problem is, you have the wrong idea as to what it is designed for.
Corruption is not a deterrent against PvP. If anything, the whole system (in combination with death penalties) should encourage actual PvP.
Corruption is a deterrent against griefing others, but not against PvP. Corruption exists to maintain a sense of risk vs reward for players, even if the fight is goingto be one sided.
Corruption is not, however, a PvP deterrent.
That's what he said... a deterrent for PvP...
"Come join us as you wont like the taste of the Grapefruits we're throwing at our enemies."
"Never settle for what you think you know" - C. Krauthammer
This take is so wrong and refusing to take into account of actual logic. Makes it clear you don't play pvp games if you think there is no deterrent with the corruption system and flagging. You blindly ignore the wider scope of the consequences, and ignore intent.
Corruption is a deterrent to griefing and to pvp in general to limit how much goes on in the world. The more you attack someone the higher you risk killing them and going corrupted. Meaning there is more push back to stop attacking if your intent from the beginning is not to be corrupted. Attacking someone a few times that is not fighting back is not PvP.
Being unable to understand basic things shows you really don't know much about the world of pvp and lack experience. You need to paly these types of games before you start talking in absolutes and actually learn something.
Yeah, it feels like we--
Oh nvm.