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.
Comments
L2 end game XP loss through death in pvp was highly impactful. A quick skirmish round of pvp of only 5-10min could mean a good 3-5 hours of XP to recover the loss...45min-90min per death in the pvp round.
High stakes, high pressure.. great adrenaline
To me that would improve pvp since you know corrupted players most likely will always hold onto loot to ensure their chance to drop gear isn't even higher. Making them a target and knowing you can always get some loot off them even more likely.
If a red player dies, the possibility of dropping something would depend on variables like PK count, etc. Let's say that this calculation results in a 5% chance of dropping (roll a 1-5 on a 100 number table resulting in something dropping) and the dead player rolls a 3, so something they carry is going to drop.
This results in a 2nd calculation to find out what drops. Assume there are 15 gear/jewelry/weapon slots on a player and that we also have up to 45 additional inventory slots (just making up numbers). We cannot just roll on a 1-60 table to see which slot drops because a PKer's strategy would be to fill up all 45 inventory slots with junk to decrease the odds of a gear drop. Instead, we might roll on a 1-4 table and a 1 is something dropping from a gear slot and a 2, 3, 4 is something dropping from an inventory slot.
The 3rd calculation now rolls on the number of FILLED slots in the category chosen in roll #2. For example, if it is an item drop and there are 12/15 item slots filled on the dead PKer, then we roll on a 1-12 table for something to drop. Or, if it is an inventory drop and 31/45 slots are filled then we roll on a 1-31 table to see which inventory slot drops its contents.
Perhaps this is an individual who has a LOT of PKs, or for some other reason game rules determine they will drop more than one slot. If they are going to drop 3 slots, we just go through the calculations three times, or however many times is necessary for the number of drops.
I recall a few times back in L2 when I killed a deep red player and they popped like a pinata and left a pile of items/stuff on the ground. Best drops of the game are red players!
You all, please feel free to find flaws in the above system!
I personally think this is just making it more complicated for no reason, but also leads to a generally less punishing end result - meaning less of a deterrent.
In your example, the chances of dropping an item I care about have gone from 5% down to 1.25%,
I personally am much more of a fan of simply preventing inventory access (or at least preventing gear swapping/unequipping), and leaving that drop chance at 5% in your hypothetical. This leaves players knowing that the gear they use to gain corruption is the gear they stand to lose.
To me, there is a simple elegance to this as a mechanic, it is something that is easy for players to understand from a conceptual point of view. When it comes to any system around which payers may make important decisions, keeping this as simple as possible is always a good idea, imo.
It really depends on what your goal is. If you are after a system to determine a drop from either inventory or equipped gear, then the above works. That just isn't what I would personally want from such a system.
With that said, I do have some ideas.
First, I would have any system be part of the lore and be explained in those terms. So if I kill a player and I get corruption, why do I not get corruption if I kill a wolf, let's say.
As such, I would probably scrap the corruption system (Keep in mind I don't really understand how it works currently) and use a reputation system instead. You start out with neutral relations. If you do things that would effect the node you're in negatively, your reputation goes down, to the point where you cannot visit the city without everyone being aggressive, or even the gates just not opening for you. Just for that node though. During war time, this might even raise your reputation with the opposite city-state.
I would add another "city-type" but with some added restrictions, and some restrictions removed. For example, you can form a bandit camp of sorts, in a place that already has a node. A place to store the valuables you steal during caravan raids. Even bandits work together. I would also add an option to improve reputation, paying an outstanding fine, for example. People gravitate towards that sort of playstyle, some don't. In theory, in can create intrigue, for example, city-state B sponsoring and supplying the outlaws. In exchange for them taking the other's caravans. There could be protection rackets etc.
They already plan to have systems in place like caravans. Supply lines basically. It would make sense for city locations not to be equal. Some might have a lot of fish, others are in a tropical place and produce exotic fruits. If you make these goods an actual physical commodity you'll create trade networks in an organic, non-forced manner.
I would make every stage of a city require an amount of materials, and consume an amount of materials. People need to eat, and a varied diet is important. And the amount of production a city makes depends on the activity of its citizens, the mayor of a city will be tasked with allocating resources and funds (NPC guards and such need a wage)
Why would there be bandits, living in a city clearly seems better? Yes, well, as a gold sink, I'd introduce a taxation system, and bandits/outlaws would obviously not have to pay taxes.
Finally, I would make the prices of goods variable. Some goods may be harder to obtain then others, and it would be different per city. A city full of orchards would have a lower price for fruits then a city located in a sandy desert for example. But also, if a city is unable to secure it's supply lines, and goods can't come in, the price would also rise, despite, maybe the goods being relatively common.
Rare goods would be coveted, and that way you would promote strife.
Not all that thought out, of course, but I think as a baseline idea it's pretty neat.
As a Pvper, I have no problem with this system.
The only way you would drop armor is if you are the player attacking another non flagged player then the player that does the grieving would be open to an armor drop at some point.
If I decide I want to attack a non flagged player, then I get what is coming to me and If I think I can handle it, then let the games begin
There is a way that this could become a problem, but it is in a different way than what you think and would require some organization and more than one player.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
Increase regional guarding (higher pk penalty) at a high point or tax cost, snow running - cold zoning
Decrease pk penalty for own citizens (purge non-node players) increase pve drops - hot zoning
Increase residents running, decrease drops
Essentialy having all range of combinations for offsetting one benefit against at a series of selected costs
I believe that an issue Ashes will face is that Alpha 2 & Beta won't actually demonstrate if some systems are good or bad, including the Corruption System. Even worse, the testing phases might actually return a false positive when deciding if something works or not because of some biases most of the backers seem to have.
Once testing resumes I hope that carebears and PvE players won't have their opinions shutdown in the testing forum area like they are today, because I'm not sure if Ashes will have a healthy player base if it doesn't minimally cater to these kinds of players.
Now, talking specifically about the way the Corruption System currently works, I think it's theoretically fine the way it is. It probably only needs a few adjustments here and there, but the core of it should work. I'm not concerned about it as much as I'm concerned about the potential of zergs ruining the game, for example.
This is true.
It's a thing I've been saying here for a few years again. An alpha or beta is able to test a system to see if it is functioning as intended - but it is not going to see if players interact with it as intended.
You can test systems and mechanics in a test, but not players.
If the items were permanent then I would agree with you, however as far as I'm aware (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) item will have a limited lifespan in aoc so would only hasten them losing it.
Also would have to understand that the circumstances for gaining corruption is specifically KILLING non-combatants. That's deliberately killing those that do not wish for whatever reason to partake in PvP.
Back in the old days of WoW we had level 60s running around in stv killing level 30s for no reason without gain beyond "bullying" those of lower level. The corruption systems is designed to prevent this.
On the other hand I have always said that the corruption system is ultimately flawed in MANY ways. What's to stop you storing your good gear, going on a killing spree with rubbish gear and then dropping that when you die? Nothing. What's to stop you standing in an aoe to flag someone and then killing them when they're marked for pvp? If they make it so your aoesndont hit others when you aren't marked for pvp what's to stop you stealing farm until you are attacked, or standing in the way so a miss click marks them for pvp and killing them?
To me the corruption system is designed to prevent griefing, and sadly just gives a million more ways to grief others and get away with it.
And you won't be able to repeat that activity because of your PK count. So even if there is a lot of people willing to waste their time - it's gonna be a one-off thing.
Now, this assumes that PK count reduction methods will be very VERY costly and/or difficult to do. At least that's the feedback I'll be giving to Intrepid.
Aoes don't flag you up unless you use them to flag up (by hitting a key combo).
If you can steal someone's farm - you already won. If their only choice is to flag on you - they'll either invite some help (be it for pve farming or to kill you) or they'll think that they're stronger than you. If they are stronger in pvp - you lost. If they're not - you've won the spot, congrats.
All of that is just a normal situation in an owpvp game. No griefing there.
I can't think of any ways they can do this.
The main penalty to corruption is the time it takes to work it off, not the chance of dropping gear. It is actually probable that the majority of times people gain corruption when the game is live, it will be worked out via experience gain before the player is killed.
The chance to drop gear is simply a mechanic to ensure players with corruption have an actual reason to want to work that corruption off - working corruption off is the penalty.
Griefing low levels players can be common at game startup, less common after the game establishes. With the penalties higher with level disparity, and greater social consequences when the game IS established, I believe it will dissipate down to players who learn very quickly what happens should they cross wrong paths.
This is where the MMO part of the game hopefully has sufficient breath to shine.
100%. Very well said.
It seems the Old Guard of this forum has good intentions in that they are trying to jawbone Ashes into being the ideal MMO for them, while not having the awareness that hitting those ideals will alienate the masses.
These people know who they are.
However, I honestly believe Steven understands that the most vocal members of today's forum do not represent the masses that will be so important to this game's future. Yesterday's WB demo reinforced this belief.
Steven also made a kinda long tired sigh when Margaret brought up the question of "there's gonna be pvp around the boss". I'd imagine that all those masses wouldn't be all too happy when a stonger party just comes to the same boss, wipes the floor with them and then kills the boss easily.
The old guard is just trying to keep the game on its original rails, that were promised by Steven quite some time ago. So far we seem to be fairly successful
Due to how mob spawn locations will work with node progression, there supposedly will always be high lvl mobs together with low lvl ones, so this should be doable in theory.
As akabear said, the friends part will be about the community and how it manages the game. Intrepid can't really do anything about that particular interaction. An asshole that doesn't let lowbies farm will be punished by those who're interested in those lowbies' success. It'll be guilds (that might have those lowbies as their mentees, or node mates who want their node to succeed, or just good samaritans that want to keep the game good).
There's always been some weird gate keeping behavior when it relates to this community. A lot of PvP centric guilds gonna make sure they pay up for acting like that.
Just the way it is.
The good thing is Steven is now clear that he wants balancing and combat design mechanics tested in A2 by the players and I do enjoy that.
Hopefully that'll make combat really damn good.
I agree entirely, which is why the whole corruption system is pointless. Its a system designed to prevent something that cannot be fixed by a system put in place. PKing will happen until the community as a whole decide to prevent it. That will only happen through the establishment of the node/game where things become more "civilised".
I remember in vanilla wow my guild took over an entire horde village for 3 days. Could you imagine that happening any other time then right at the start of WoW? Of course not. 6 guilds and 100 randomers would desend on us in 5 minutes and kill us all.
My point again is that the corruption system is fundermentally flawed and cannot be fixed.
Not at all. This would just mean level 50s would be able to farm in lower level areas.
I'd doubt they would combine the two as this would lead to big problems with lower level farming and make the above idea happening accidently far more likely making it even less viable.
Which once again makes the corruption system itself pointless lol
Trying to dictate player behavior is fundamentally a fruitless task for a developer, people are going to grief no matter what. The answer to griefers is people actually going out and stomping the shit out of them, honor PKing. Go out there, fundamentally make the griefers log off. They either quit or log back in and don't try that shit again out of fear of getting camped.
People also forget that griefing comes in all forms, not just ganking someone over and over. The answer to that is also, going out absolutely dominating someone and letting them rethink their actions.
The current system in corruption doesn't allow much room for players to police others, letting players set the tone for server culture is the way to go.
Let the players contain grief players and shitbags.
But either way we still haven't tested it and Intrepid don't know how their current iteration will work with players.
Yep. The best way to deter PKing is by having honor PKers, PK them.
That's why I hope to have an expanded system.