Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!

A likely aspect of corruption

PherPhurPherPhur Member
edited July 2023 in General Discussion
I don't know other solutions to this problem, if there even is any. But I imagine that there will be a debuff that gets tacked onto your character every time you do damage to a green, which last for I'm going to guess a couple minutes at least.

If you do any damage to them again before the debuff duration has expired then the duration refreshes.

And if the green player dies within that time, from anything, then you will receive corruption.

This way all attackers on a green suffer corruption and people will usually not try to keep a player at low health hoping they die to a mob while they're questing/tasking/farming/ect.
5lntw0unofqp.gif
«134

Comments

  • DolyemDolyem Member
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Which is why corruption isn't shared among those who attacked, and the purpose of that defuff or marker, I'm guessing. (I'm not advocating for this to change btw)

    @PherPhur Don't forget that everyone start green, so someone has to attack a green to start the fight. Although the initiator doesn't have a debuff, per say, they're not fighting you at full potential: while you're still green you're immuned to their CC until you fight back.

    And we're not suppose to know/see the health of people not in our group/raid, so attacking someone is always a gambit, any attack could finish them and grant the killer corruption.

    I can see why your idea makes sense in a X vs 1 scenario, but when we're getting in large groups vs other groups, with random solo players thrown in the mix, it gets way harder to keep track on people.
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • PherPhur wrote: »
    I don't know other solutions to this problem, if there even is any. But I imagine that there will be a debuff that gets tacked onto your character every time you do damage to a green, which last for I'm going to guess a couple minutes at least.

    If you do any damage to them again before the debuff duration has expired then the duration refreshes.

    And if the green player dies within that time, from anything, then you will receive corruption.

    This way all attackers on a green suffer corruption and people will usually not try to keep a player at low health hoping they die to a mob while they're questing/tasking/farming/ect.

    how about this, someone is trying to mob drop you over and over so you hit them hoping the mob kills them. now you get corruption fighting someone who was trying to grief you. good job.

    your "solution to the problem" isnt a solution to the problem, because there isnt a problem. stop trying to ruin open world pvp for everybody just because you dont like it or find it inconvenient.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    Yeah it's silly. The people on this forum like it tho because it's easy to abuse. Take someone down 95% of their HP and get mobs to last hit them and bypass corruption completely. That's like having a PvE system where looting rights and xp are given only to whoever does the killing blow.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited July 2023
    And how does the attacker know when to stop at 95%?
    The HP bar of players isnt visible to non party members.
  • AbaratAbarat Member, Alpha One, Adventurer
    Voeltz wrote: »
    Yeah it's silly. The people on this forum like it tho because it's easy to abuse. Take someone down 95% of their HP and get mobs to last hit them and bypass corruption completely. That's like having a PvE system where looting rights and xp are given only to whoever does the killing blow.

    im not entirely sure you can escape corruption by doing damage but not the kill shot, are you?
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited July 2023
    And how does the attacker know when to stop at 95%?
    The HP bar of players isnt visible to non party members.

    According to the Ashes wiki:
    "The character's nameplate will deteriorate to give an indication of how much damage they have taken."

    It doesn't say anything about them needing to be in your group. Maybe not as precise as an HP bar, but same idea.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited July 2023
    It's not the same idea because based on that you either kill the victim by accident and get pk, risk dying losing your items, or you get to troll the victim, which is fair play.

    The system worked fine in L2. I dont understand your insecurities, nor do I understand your sense of logic in the pk system being even more severe than it already is.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    That's you speculating. We don't know how accurate or inaccurate the nameplate deterioration will be.

    Didn't play Lineage but I played Archeage, and in that game it was not fine, it was exploited. The problem with having only 1 person gaining corruption is if a group is involved, only one person is punished and the rest get to keep doing it. That was my experience in Archeage, that's what every group did.

    Not more severe, distributed amongst those involved based on contribution. Why is it that rewards such as loot and XP are shared in a group setting, but punishment(corruption) is not? You wouldn't want all the loot and xp going to whoever got a lucky last hit on a mob, yet you're ok with it when it comes to corruption. Why is that? Even the combatant status is spread if you help another combatant in any way, but corruption is where the line is drawn for some odd reason. Doesn't make any sense. Contribution is contribution whether positive or negative.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited July 2023
    Shared xp and loot doesnt shut down open world pvp, now does it?
    You want to have entire groups go red for a silly reason like that? Nobody will be able to flag anyone with your suggestion. The abuse would be like this:
    Group shows up in zone, flags one guy. Guy runs into mobs, dies, group goes red. Group has to get out of there.
    0 contest for the zone.
    The dead guy is rezed by his friend. Keep farming unopposed.

    I dont care about your AA experience, plain and simply because your reasoning is one of overexagerration. You are not credible anymore.
    Your solution would create big problems, plus it leans on the side of restricting pvp even more. Plus.... it worked fine in L2. Done.


    The broken nameplate doesnt help attackers bring the hp of the victim tp 95%. The attacker risks going red in this system.
    Your solution gives all the power to the victim. Which will be abused.
    IS is thinking things through.
    You cant see one step further than your position/desire, nor do you see the ties to the rest of the game design.
    Stop the victimhood mentality.
  • Voeltz wrote: »
    That's you speculating. We don't know how accurate or inaccurate the nameplate deterioration will be.

    Didn't play Lineage but I played Archeage, and in that game it was not fine, it was exploited. The problem with having only 1 person gaining corruption is if a group is involved, only one person is punished and the rest get to keep doing it. That was my experience in Archeage, that's what every group did.

    Not more severe, distributed amongst those involved based on contribution. Why is it that rewards such as loot and XP are shared in a group setting, but punishment(corruption) is not? You wouldn't want all the loot and xp going to whoever got a lucky last hit on a mob, yet you're ok with it when it comes to corruption. Why is that? Even the combatant status is spread if you help another combatant in any way, but corruption is where the line is drawn for some odd reason. Doesn't make any sense. Contribution is contribution whether positive or negative.

    because of all the ways it can be abused. its also not fair.
    your argument is to help solo players somehow, but your suggestion hurts solo players...
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited July 2023
    @George_Black

    Neither would shared corruption. Now you're drawing conclusions on top of a false premise. Maybe you need to look up what the word shared means. It means divided, not multiplied. If a group of 8 people share a pizza, it doesn't mean there are now 8 pizzas. You also forgot about all the other forms of Open World PvP. So to make the conclusion that there would no longer be any World PvP is actual silliness.

    Your entire arguement, if you want to call it that, is emotional. You do not determine anyone's credibility. Again, continuing your speculation on something you can't understand. Just because something worked doesn't mean it can't be improved. Wooden wagon wheels "worked" and so did typewriters. Thank God you're not a developer because your type of thinking and stubbornness would have left us in the dark ages.
  • aoc corruption system is already an improvement from l2 corruption system. it prevents some of the abuses that could be done in l2.

    doesnt matter if the corruption is divided and not multiplied. its super abusable and unfair. what you are suggesting isnt an improvement, its actually going back.

    also ow pvp = pvp in the open world that isnt a pvp event, like caravans, etc
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
    We'll have to test Corruption and then provide feedback.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack
    Voeltz wrote: »
    @George_Black

    Neither would shared corruption. Now you're drawing conclusions on top of a false premise. Maybe you need to look up what the word shared means. It means divided, not multiplied. If a group of 8 people share a pizza, it doesn't mean there are now 8 pizzas. You also forgot about all the other forms of Open World PvP. So to make the conclusion that there would no longer be any World PvP is actual silliness.

    Your entire arguement, if you want to call it that, is emotional. You do not determine anyone's credibility. Again, continuing your speculation on something you can't understand. Just because something worked doesn't mean it can't be improved. Wooden wagon wheels "worked" and so did typewriters. Thank God you're not a developer because your type of thinking and stubbornness would have left us in the dark ages.

    What emotional? What are you saying.
    "The corruption system worked in L2. 0 problems." Where is the emotion on that? It's a fact.
    God I love it when people run out of arguments and they talk about my behaviour. It's the sign that says "this guy gave up. You are free now." Cya mate.
  • VoeltzVoeltz Member
    edited July 2023
    What emotional? What are you saying.
    "The corruption system worked in L2. 0 problems." Where is the emotion on that? It's a fact.
    God I love it when people run out of arguments and they talk about my behaviour. It's the sign that says "this guy gave up. You are free now." Cya mate.
    Yes, every one of your posts is filled with emotional rants and name calling. Like I said, just because something "worked" in your subjective opinion, 20 years ago in your favorite game, does not mean it is without flaws and cannot be improved in a new game. My experience in a more recent game with the same flagging system, was that it didn't work and was easily exploited.

    I love it when people quote me, ignore every point I made, then claim I don't have any arguments all in the same post. Didn't make a single rebuttal. Laughable. Simply restating "It wOrKeD iN LiNeAgE 2" over and over and using made up scenarios is not an arguement. Come up with something better.
  • Voeltz wrote: »
    What emotional? What are you saying.
    "The corruption system worked in L2. 0 problems." Where is the emotion on that? It's a fact.
    God I love it when people run out of arguments and they talk about my behaviour. It's the sign that says "this guy gave up. You are free now." Cya mate.
    Yes, every one of your posts is filled with emotional rants and name calling. Like I said, just because something "worked" in your subjective opinion, 20 years ago in your favorite game, does not mean it is without flaws and cannot be improved. My experience in a more recent game with the same flagging system, was that it didn't work and was easily exploited.

    I love it when people quote me, ignore every point I made, then claim I don't have any arguments all in the same post. Didn't make a single rebuttal. Laughable. Simply restating "It wOrKeD iN LiNeAgE 2" over and over and using made up scenarios is not an arguement. Come up with something better.

    You are right on this, that is why IS has already adjusted it from L2 and it isn't the exact carbon copy but with some tweaks from my understanding.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack
    edited July 2023
    What emotional? What are you saying.

    My dude, I've told you a few times that most of your posts are coming across as over emotional.

    We've also talked a few times about how players look at games differently now than they did 20 years ago.

    20 years ago, people were just thrilled with the ability to play an MMO. Even mediocre games were loved by people due to how new it was.

    Some things from back then will still work today, but some things simply wont.

    One of the ways people look at games differently now is that they play to win, rather than 20 years ago when people were playing for the joy of it. As such, things that could have been abused back then but weren't absolutely will be abused now.

    While I'm not saying this is the case here, what I am saying is that the argument of "it worked in a game 20 years ago" doesnt mean shit.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Voeltz wrote: »
    Not more severe, distributed amongst those involved based on contribution. Why is it that rewards such as loot and XP are shared in a group setting, but punishment(corruption) is not? You wouldn't want all the loot and xp going to whoever got a lucky last hit on a mob, yet you're ok with it when it comes to corruption. Why is that? Even the combatant status is spread if you help another combatant in any way, but corruption is where the line is drawn for some odd reason. Doesn't make any sense. Contribution is contribution whether positive or negative.
    Would it give the PK count to all in the group as well? Because PK count would be exactly like 8 pizzas instead of one pizza split amongst 8 people.

    And even if it doesn't, a group of people who're getting attacked would just need to die once to the attackers to pretty much completely disable their entire group. Respawning and coming back within 5 minutes is way easier than trying to cleanse 8-victims-worth of corruption within the same 5 minutes.

    This is why George says that this will remove owpvp from the game. Yes, there'll be wars that will comprise the majority of pvp that will happen in the game, but if a party in a guild has an important goal and the goal is worth a ton of time/money - they'll just leave the guild for a few days and will become untouchable, because no sane group would go corrupt against them.

    Giving corruption to the entire party brings the risk of PKing way over any value of the reward.

    Oh, also, here's the most obvious abuse of this:
    • A member leaves the party for a minute
    • Kills the victim
    • Rejoins or just gets help clearing corruption
    • ???
    • Profit
    So "giving it to the whole party" just won't work out as you wish. I guess we'd have to go even further and say "give it to all who attacked the victim within a certain timeframe" and/or gave any kind of support (buff/heal) to the attacker within a certain timeframe.

    We'd then have to figure out what that timeframe is. Is it just a minute? Then we go back to the example I provided. Is it more than a minute? Then the game will lose the potential casual-friendly mechanic of "sell your buffs to make some money". "It wOrKeD iN LiNeAgE 2". People made quite a nice sum, considering that all they did was just sit in the city (in Ashes they'd be sitting near dungeons or other POIs).

    How would you address those issues?
  • NiKr wrote: »
    Voeltz wrote: »
    Not more severe, distributed amongst those involved based on contribution. Why is it that rewards such as loot and XP are shared in a group setting, but punishment(corruption) is not? You wouldn't want all the loot and xp going to whoever got a lucky last hit on a mob, yet you're ok with it when it comes to corruption. Why is that? Even the combatant status is spread if you help another combatant in any way, but corruption is where the line is drawn for some odd reason. Doesn't make any sense. Contribution is contribution whether positive or negative.
    Would it give the PK count to all in the group as well? Because PK count would be exactly like 8 pizzas instead of one pizza split amongst 8 people.

    And even if it doesn't, a group of people who're getting attacked would just need to die once to the attackers to pretty much completely disable their entire group. Respawning and coming back within 5 minutes is way easier than trying to cleanse 8-victims-worth of corruption within the same 5 minutes.

    This is why George says that this will remove owpvp from the game. Yes, there'll be wars that will comprise the majority of pvp that will happen in the game, but if a party in a guild has an important goal and the goal is worth a ton of time/money - they'll just leave the guild for a few days and will become untouchable, because no sane group would go corrupt against them.

    Giving corruption to the entire party brings the risk of PKing way over any value of the reward.

    Oh, also, here's the most obvious abuse of this:
    • A member leaves the party for a minute
    • Kills the victim
    • Rejoins or just gets help clearing corruption
    • ???
    • Profit
    So "giving it to the whole party" just won't work out as you wish. I guess we'd have to go even further and say "give it to all who attacked the victim within a certain timeframe" and/or gave any kind of support (buff/heal) to the attacker within a certain timeframe.

    We'd then have to figure out what that timeframe is. Is it just a minute? Then we go back to the example I provided. Is it more than a minute? Then the game will lose the potential casual-friendly mechanic of "sell your buffs to make some money". "It wOrKeD iN LiNeAgE 2". People made quite a nice sum, considering that all they did was just sit in the city (in Ashes they'd be sitting near dungeons or other POIs).

    How would you address those issues?

    damn i was thinking exactly that yesterday. we have the same degenerate pvp tricks T_T
    now their entire party is red and mine is green. we can cc them but they cant cc us, and for every person they kill in my party before we kill them, their chances of dropping gear increases xDDD
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    Depraved wrote: »
    now their entire party is red and mine is green. we can cc them but they cant cc us, and for every person they kill in my party before we kill them, their chances of dropping gear increases xDDD
    Yeah, I was keeping this for any responses. Being flagged means danger only from those who're willing to pvp you. While being red means danger from literally everyone, while you can't even fight back because you'll just get yourself deeper into the hole. It's just waaaay more dangerous w/ no reward to compare.
  • Voeltz wrote: »
    Yeah it's silly. The people on this forum like it tho because it's easy to abuse. Take someone down 95% of their HP and get mobs to last hit them and bypass corruption completely. That's like having a PvE system where looting rights and xp are given only to whoever does the killing blow.

    Aren't health bars hidden so you don't know the health of your opponent?

    694t8dpgyjm6.png


    I don't think the issue is going to be as big of a deal as people think it is for this reason.
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    I don't think the issue is going to be as big of a deal as people think it is for this reason.
    As long as it's at ~20-25% threshold - people will push for that decay state in hopes of mobs killing the person after that.

    I hope they remove the nameplate decay mechanic completely. I don't really see any point in it.
  • also, archeage had a completely different system than l2 or aoc =_=
  • PherPhurPherPhur Member
    edited July 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case.

    He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did.

    He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing.

    Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard.

    It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    PherPhur wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case.

    He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did.

    He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing.

    Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard.

    It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers.

    It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • Percimes wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Which is why corruption isn't shared among those who attacked, and the purpose of that defuff or marker, I'm guessing. (I'm not advocating for this to change btw)

    @PherPhur Don't forget that everyone start green, so someone has to attack a green to start the fight. Although the initiator doesn't have a debuff, per say, they're not fighting you at full potential: while you're still green you're immuned to their CC until you fight back.

    And we're not suppose to know/see the health of people not in our group/raid, so attacking someone is always a gambit, any attack could finish them and grant the killer corruption.

    I can see why your idea makes sense in a X vs 1 scenario, but when we're getting in large groups vs other groups, with random solo players thrown in the mix, it gets way harder to keep track on people.

    It might be that the first debuff is invisible and inconsequential, then if it gets refreshed it works like I stated. To allow for someone to basically ask "hey, do you want to fight" without risking full on corruprion by that persons potential suicide.

    And your concern in groups is made null with that change I just said.

    Also, players health being invisible adds no risk to you attacking them, only trying to keep them incredibly low on health.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • Dolyem wrote: »
    PherPhur wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case.

    He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did.

    He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing.

    Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard.

    It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers.

    It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict.

    Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption.

    And if you dont then you're just griefing.

    Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function.

    It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing.

    There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief.
    5lntw0unofqp.gif
  • NiKrNiKr Member
    PherPhur wrote: »
    It might be that the first debuff is invisible and inconsequential, then if it gets refreshed it works like I stated. To allow for someone to basically ask "hey, do you want to fight" without risking full on corruprion by that persons potential suicide.
    So literally what flagging up already achieves? And if the attacker was planning to PK their target anyway - they wouldn't care if the first hit made them red or not.
    PherPhur wrote: »
    And your concern in groups is made null with that change I just said.
    Does the "invisible and inconsequential" buff apply only to the attacker or to their entire party as well? What about its cd?

    Even if it applies to the entire party, the members could all leave for a second, everyone hit the target once with their strongest attacks and then rejoin the party. Now they're not flagged (cause I'm assuming your suggestion either removes that or goes around flagging) and their target is barely alive.
  • DolyemDolyem Member
    PherPhur wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    PherPhur wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    You only gain corruption for killing a green, not damaging

    Steven already told us the reasons why this will very possibly be the case.

    He said mechanisms in game were created to serve a function. He said if they did not serve their intended function that they would be tweaked or reworked until they did.

    He also said that corruptions intended purpose was to massively curb griefing.

    Corruptions and non visble healthbars do nothing to keep people from keeping other peoples health constantly low and griefing in this regard.

    It's also very fitting, fair and solves a serious problem that adds no enjoyment to the game but to griefers.

    It's to deter griefers yes, while also not preventing PvP. Corruption can't be too strict nor too lenient. Simply damaging to gain corruption is too strict.

    Make note of the comment of mine right above this. If you attack a green twice then you intend to get corruption.

    And if you dont then you're just griefing.

    Its not too strict, it serves exactly the intended function.

    It does nothing to prevent Steven from getting that 2% of corrupted players he wants, it just curbs full on griefing.

    There will be plenty of players like me who intend to get corruption and not grief.

    Killing a green a few times isnt griefing, intentionally camping a specific player for an hour+, that could be considered griefing.

    With your logic, we may as well have opt-in PvP which is a horrible idea
    GJjUGHx.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.