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.
If the entire group attacks the one green all at once, and kills him... Well it depends if they hit the green more than 3 or 4 times times(the amount of hits I'd imagine it'd be tuned to before you get the debuff). If everyone hit once and took him down it'd be only the killing blow that gave corruption.
One guy should probably hit the green a few times to decide if the green wants to flag himself and fight back or not first. If you cant one or two shot him with your group that is.
Either way its not less WPvP, it changes hardly anything for PvPers, only griefers does it really effect. Griefers and PvPers looking to exploit corruption.
you are only thinking about a group vs 1 or 1 dude griefing, whatever your definition of griefing is. but you still dont get it. a common strategy is to hit the opposing party a little bit before the fight starts to make them start lower on health, low on mana, or force them to use something, or maybe you catch them without buffs and you are hitting them. now people arent even going to do that because you get corrupted for hitting someone before you kill them...which is dumb =_= thats why it will stop/reduce ow pvp.
the meta will be to let the other person hit you until they get corruption. now they cant cc you and you can cc them, and they drop their gear. if they stop and dont hit you...you wont hit them, because you will be purple too and lose your advantage. so the options are pk or go do something else. it will end up increasing corruption or reducing pvp...
you shouldn't be corrupted for hitting someone without killing them, unless you change what being corrupted means.
Corruption sucks for normal PvPers, I know it will, better than 90% of the playerbase I imagine.
People like me who intend on not body camping, waiting for fullish health/mana, trying to stay away from real low levels, corruption sucks.
For those people that want to swat the human bot farming their area, corruption sucks.
"normal pvpers" don't just PK others, because to them that is not pvp. So "normal pvpers" have nothing to do with corruption and it in no way "sucks for them".
The only people it should suck for are those who're trying to kill a ton of players.
If you can't win out against a "human bot farming your location" in pve, then you either move onto a location where you can outfarm others or you PK them. If you PK them and they come back and STILL outfarm you - you've lost and should be ashamed of yourself. At that point PK is the least of your troubles, because you've failed as a gamer.
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.
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.
The "invisible buff" is just there as a counter for the game. But i get you lol. It would probably have to be tuned to 3 or 4 hits before the real debuff is applied.
Idk, it could apply to the group of people attacking(no point in making it party only), or it could only apply to the last person to hit them. That was just the cherry on the sundae, the point was to prevent exploiting the corruption system and to give greens the opportunity to commit suicide to punish a griefer trying to keep their health low.
Or just add risk to the griefer. But someone above had a very nice argument on why it should split. Seems logical to me. Though I dont think its really that important.
Also I dont think it would need a cooldown, just a duration that refreshes when they hit the green again.
The "invisible buff" is just there as a counter for the game. But i get you lol. It would probably have to be tuned to 3 or 4 hits before the real debuff is applied.
So people can hit the victim even more w/o any fear of repercussion.
Idk, it could apply to the group of people attacking(no point in making it party only), or it could only apply to the last person to hit them. That was just the cherry on the sundae, the point was to prevent exploiting the corruption system and to give greens the opportunity to commit suicide to punish a griefer trying to keep their health low.
Unless I missed it, you still haven't said if people would get flagged for those first several hits. Because if they don't - your suggestion has even more exploits than the current system.
Also I dont think it would need a cooldown, just a duration that refreshes when they hit the green again.
That's what I meant. What kind of duration would it be? Would the victim have to heal up in order to live through the repeated attacks? Because, depending on the health regen values/methods, the victim might not even be able to outheal the incoming dmg, if the duration is shorter than ~1m.
I mean... that's just a quibble over whether the magic number to understand the target intends to remain a Non-Combatant is 2 or 3 (or 4).
The point of the statement is keeping the target's health low with no intention of killing the target.
Is the Purple following the Green around and hitting them over a prolonged period of time without killing them? That seems like harassment, whether it’s griefing or not.
Or is the Purple one of several Purples that hits a green with a few shots, but the group hits the Green enough that they die and now we’re assigning accountability for corruption?
Is it really possible for the flagging system to parse intent from one scenario to the next instead of focusing on outcomes?
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My understanding of the example is that it’s griefing for an individual to keep hitting the Non-Combatant just to keep the target’s health low with no intention of killing the target.
If a group accidentally hits the target multiple times, that’s not griefing.
If they intentionally hit the target multiple times just to keep their health low without killing the target, that’s griefing.
I dunno that the current system needs to be changed.
My understanding of the example is that it’s griefing for an individual to keep hitting the Non-Combatant just to keep the target’s health low with no intention of killing the target.
If a group accidentally hits the target multiple times, that’s not griefing.
If they intentionally hit the target multiple times just to keep their health low without killing the target, that’s griefing.
I dunno that the current system needs to be changed.
I can kind of agree actually. It sort of exploits the system in the same way a player can remain level 1 but advance their artisan level to gather resources and basically be a corruption bomb. Both exploit the intended design in my opinion.
One just avoids corruption, the other uses it as a shield.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
We can't advance our Artisan Levels and remain Level 1 Adventurer.
Stuff we do for Artisan progression also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
Exploration also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
We'll have to see how low we can be on Adventurer Level. It is one of the things I plan to test in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
My understanding of the example is that it’s griefing for an individual to keep hitting the Non-Combatant just to keep the target’s health low with no intention of killing the target.
If they intentionally hit the target multiple times just to keep their health low without killing the target, that’s griefing.
nah that's removing someone from a farming spot and that is fair. if the green leaves and the group follows him around all day, going to other areas, keeping him low so he cant really do anything then that's griefing
I haven't read all the comments on this thread so it may have already been said, but it seems like an easy fix for this is to just have corruption apply if the person someone attacks dies within a certain amount of time, or if they die between the time that player caused them to lose health and them being at full health again. That way, even if they didn't land the killing blow, the attacker is still held responsible for the death (which they are indeed at least partially responsible for).
Edit: Reading more, my post is irrelevant as it's essentially what OP was talking about, I just misunderstood. My B.
We can't advance our Artisan Levels and remain Level 1 Adventurer.
Stuff we do for Artisan progression also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
Exploration also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
We'll have to see how low we can be on Adventurer Level. It is one of the things I plan to test in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
Definitely test it out. Hopefully that can be solved with xp gains
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?
Obviously the system would have to be adapted to account for multiple people splitting the corruption instead of 1 getting it all. A couple solutions I could see would be either having a Corruption Meter that builds up slowly over time and turns you corrupt after filling 100% or expanding the range of corruption, having it start off at much lower levels of penalties for lesser crimes and progressing from there. Personally, I like the idea of a Corruption Meter because I believe 8 people going corrupt instantly for 1 kill is excessive. Partial corruption gain for those who took 2 swings or barely contributed would probably be the way to go. Then, if they continue to participate in green player's deaths, they would eventually turn red for their accumulated actions. Essentially, corruption would be broken up into pieces rather than it being a severe lump sum punishment applied to whoever gets unlucky with the killing blow.
Wars are a separate topic. Were talking about Corruption, so I'm not going to get into that.
I recognize that's a possibility with it's current design, however, leaving it as is will result in easy exploitation and an ineffective system.
Who ever said it would be party based? I said it should be contribution based and group based as in- anyone who contributed to the Green players death (Damage, CC, Debuffs, Buffing and Healing attacking players), same as it is with looting rights and xp with PvE kills. In the current system, they've had to continue adding stipulations to make up for it's shortcomings rather than addressing the issue directly. A perfect example is a more recent change, being unable to CC greens. None of that would be necessary because CC would 1. Flag you as a combatant and 2. Result in corruption from the player dying to the mob shortly after.
Yes, that's what Alpha 2 is for, testing the systems to make sure they are working and adjusting the 'dials' accordingly. Could be 30 seconds or a minute, I'm not sure. Not being able to "sell buffs" is not a serious issue, that's your own personal problem. You're clinging to some silly money making scheme you could do in your 20 year old game. The Corruption System is much more important. Stop being lazy and go make money like everyone else.
you are only thinking about a group vs 1 or 1 dude griefing, whatever your definition of griefing is. but you still dont get it. a common strategy is to hit the opposing party a little bit before the fight starts to make them start lower on health, low on mana, or force them to use something, or maybe you catch them without buffs and you are hitting them. now people arent even going to do that because you get corrupted for hitting someone before you kill them...which is dumb =_= thats why it will stop/reduce ow pvp.
the meta will be to let the other person hit you until they get corruption. now they cant cc you and you can cc them, and they drop their gear. if they stop and dont hit you...you wont hit them, because you will be purple too and lose your advantage. so the options are pk or go do something else. it will end up increasing corruption or reducing pvp...
you shouldn't be corrupted for hitting someone without killing them, unless you change what being corrupted means.
When I told you I was getting words mixed around and having a hard time talking I was putting together corruption and griefing in my head(which I already know it's not). Getting corruption doesn't mean you are griefing.
BUT, if you kill a green you must get corruption because that's the mechanism to prevent griefing.
How have you read this much of the thread and my comments and think the corruption is applied automatically after a hit or so many hits? It applies after the green dies. And go read the wiki again, nobody can CC greens, ever. Additionally, if the attacker has hit enough to get debuff and then the green swings back on that attacker before they die and goes purple, then the debuff would dissapear.
Also, shoot, idk, could be 10 hits honestly.
The main point is that someone isn't allowed to sit there and keep attacking you for small amounts keeping your health low forever. Which isn't really an opinion of griefing, it is griefing.
Also its to make sure someone who keeps someones health low trying to get them killed by a mob has at least a chance to get corruption, as they should. As per Stevens very own words on corruption, they should.
Corrupted means what Steven said it means, a tool for curbing griefing while still allowing for open world PvP. If you can exploit that system and go completely around it to PK a green then it does not serve it's intended function and like Steven said, it will be reworked until it does.
This very likely going in the game unless there's a really interesting way to stop that from happening. As far as I know this is the only way. I'd love to hear other suggestions though, this is very interesting and something the devs more than likely have been talking about.
Corruption sucks for normal PvPers, I know it will, better than 90% of the playerbase I imagine.
People like me who intend on not body camping, waiting for fullish health/mana, trying to stay away from real low levels, corruption sucks.
For those people that want to swat the human bot farming their area, corruption sucks.
"normal pvpers" don't just PK others, because to them that is not pvp. So "normal pvpers" have nothing to do with corruption and it in no way "sucks for them".
The only people it should suck for are those who're trying to kill a ton of players.
If you can't win out against a "human bot farming your location" in pve, then you either move onto a location where you can outfarm others or you PK them. If you PK them and they come back and STILL outfarm you - you've lost and should be ashamed of yourself. At that point PK is the least of your troubles, because you've failed as a gamer.
Corruption sucks for anyone who gets it. By normal I partially mean common, and if someone is an common "PvPer" they're gonna attack some greens out in the open world. I expect to see the majority of PvP'ers do this at some point without a doubt. I don't have some absolute record to pull that from but I can get in the mind of a PvP'er being one myself and having played many games with them.
Corruption sucks for normal PvPers, I know it will, better than 90% of the playerbase I imagine.
People like me who intend on not body camping, waiting for fullish health/mana, trying to stay away from real low levels, corruption sucks.
For those people that want to swat the human bot farming their area, corruption sucks.
"normal pvpers" don't just PK others, because to them that is not pvp. So "normal pvpers" have nothing to do with corruption and it in no way "sucks for them".
The only people it should suck for are those who're trying to kill a ton of players.
If you can't win out against a "human bot farming your location" in pve, then you either move onto a location where you can outfarm others or you PK them. If you PK them and they come back and STILL outfarm you - you've lost and should be ashamed of yourself. At that point PK is the least of your troubles, because you've failed as a gamer.
Corruption sucks for anyone who gets it. By normal I partially mean common, and if someone is an common "PvPer" they're gonna attack some greens out in the open world. I expect to see the majority of PvP'ers do this at some point without a doubt. I don't have some absolute record to pull that from but I can get in the mind of a PvP'er being one myself and having played many games with them.
Corruption is supposed to suck.
That's why it is this way.
As long as there is a threat meter in the game, this has a relatively simple solution, just tie the two together in one of many ways and you're basically done.
The way corruption works now is extremely intentional, which is why you end up with this discussion.
I'm not at liberty to say much more because of who I had the conversation regarding this with, but if you want to come up with a 'perfect' Corruption system, start from the threat/hate values and work backward and it's really hard to come to a conclusion that fails.
Except that I would assume Intrepid devs ALSO know this, and it's still just not a priority for change.
I haven't read all the comments on this thread so it may have already been said, but it seems like an easy fix for this is to just have corruption apply if the person someone attacks dies within a certain amount of time, or if they die between the time that player caused them to lose health and them being at full health again. That way, even if they didn't land the killing blow, the attacker is still held responsible for the death (which they are indeed at least partially responsible for).
Edit: Reading more, my post is irrelevant as it's essentially what OP was talking about, I just misunderstood. My B.
Hey, there we go. It's a little less foolproof, and it doesn't stop people from griefing by following you and keeping your health at 50% for 20 minutes lol, but it's constructive and unique.
Actually, come to think of it this is spectacular. The issue is that the debuff needs to be applied after sevvvveral hits(an invisible and inconsequential one applies off the first several hits and acts as a counter) because as one person pointed out, people need to be able to hit a green many times to test their willingness to flag, or to just try and get them to go away.
Which is fine, the actual debuff can get applied after a ton of hits, but that does leave a window where the attacker can still try to get the green dead by a mob, exploiting corruption.
BUT, with both ideas combined it takes care of the issue. Or so it seems, I might be missing something.
I haven't read all the comments on this thread so it may have already been said, but it seems like an easy fix for this is to just have corruption apply if the person someone attacks dies within a certain amount of time, or if they die between the time that player caused them to lose health and them being at full health again. That way, even if they didn't land the killing blow, the attacker is still held responsible for the death (which they are indeed at least partially responsible for).
Edit: Reading more, my post is irrelevant as it's essentially what OP was talking about, I just misunderstood. My B.
Hey, there we go. It's a little less foolproof, and it doesn't stop people from griefing by following you and keeping your health at 50% for 20 minutes lol, but it's constructive and unique.
Actually, come to think of it this is spectacular. The issue is that the debuff needs to be applied after sevvvveral hits(an invisible and inconsequential one applies off the first several hits and acts as a counter) because as one person pointed out, people need to be able to hit a green many times to test their willingness to flag, or to just try and get them to go away.
Which is fine, the actual debuff can get applied after a ton of hits, but that does leave a window where the attacker can still try to get the green dead by a mob, exploiting corruption.
BUT, with both ideas combined it takes care of the issue. Or so it seems, I might be missing something.
Yeah, there you go. Add the threat values instead of hit numbers and you're done. This is not a complex design problem to solve if you have a bit of experience solving this type of problem. I'd be surprised if a room of people didn't converge on the main solutions every time.
And because of that I feel like Intrepid already did, and then decided 'nah we don't want to do it that way for some other design reason'.
Obviously the system would have to be adapted to account for multiple people splitting the corruption instead of 1 getting it all. A couple solutions I could see would be either having a Corruption Meter that builds up slowly over time and turns you corrupt after filling 100% or expanding the range of corruption, having it start off at much lower levels of penalties for lesser crimes and progressing from there.
What would those "lesser crimes" be? As in, just buffing the dude who got the kill, or smth else?
Partial corruption gain for those who took 2 swings or barely contributed would probably be the way to go. Then, if they continue to participate in green player's deaths, they would eventually turn red for their accumulated actions. Essentially, corruption would be broken up into pieces rather than it being a severe lump sum punishment applied to whoever gets unlucky with the killing blow.
I'm assuming "partial corruption" means "150% death penalty instead of 400%" or smth like that (and the % growing with negative actions).
Does this system intend to have the same mechanics as the current one? The "greens don't flag against reds", "reds' stats lower with more corruption", "BHs see reds on the map" ones. Or would those be on the same scale as the %s of the death penalty?
Also, what's the timer on those actions? Because pugs could be completely fucked over by a some friends, where one player receives some kind of support from several people in the party and then goes PKs his friend and then other friends come and kill the newly "innocent" PKers that "contributed" to the PK.
And the higher the content lvl that's being farmed by that pug - the higher the chance of this happening, because their gear would be better and any lvl of corruption gives you a chance to drop items on death. Or would that feature also be subject to change within your suggested system?
For me you just need to look at intent and a sort of value. If you are farming a spot and person doesn't want to gain corruption by killing you but constantly weakening you with a few attacks to be safe and try to get mobs to kill you is their goal. (something players in BDO did as well).
If their goal is to not gain corruption and feed you to mobs and make it so you can farm mobs withing a reasonable degree and a solution needs to be found if that isn't the intent of the system.
What i would do is to counter their way to avoid punishment by inflicting that punishment upon them if you are to die to mobs if they have done a certain amount of damage to you. IE if they do 40% of your life (over a certain amount of dmg over a certain duration of time). If mobs were to kill you it would corrupt the player.
Nothing is ever for certain but it would again further bring up the barrier of people who would attempt to do that, without a way for them to avoid the negative consequences.
I'd love to see a "karmic debt" system, to prevent the "hit green a ton w/o killing them" abuse.
Dmg dealt to a green would be counted as points that you can remove through some positive actions for the node. Those points remain on you until you either remove them through those actions or kill a green. Killing a green turns all those points into corruption, multiplied by your PK count. So if you've attacked a shitton of greens w/o killing them, one kill could get you into a very deep hole.
The karmic points could also be initially multiplied by the difference in lvls of the attacker and victim. So hitting anyone below your lvl would completely fuck you over if you ever PK someone. Or it would just make you grind a ton for the node.
I don't really know how to explain this system in-lore though. And ideally there'd be some additional pressure on people to remove those points rather than the sheer hope of never becoming a PKer.
But this would still only influence the people who have directly attacked others, because trying to calculate "support" points is just a complete mess imo.
I'd love to see a "karmic debt" system, to prevent the "hit green a ton w/o killing them" abuse.
Dmg dealt to a green would be counted as points that you can remove through some positive actions for the node. Those points remain on you until you either remove them through those actions or kill a green. Killing a green turns all those points into corruption, multiplied by your PK count. So if you've attacked a shitton of greens w/o killing them, one kill could get you into a very deep hole.
The karmic points could also be initially multiplied by the difference in lvls of the attacker and victim. So hitting anyone below your lvl would completely fuck you over if you ever PK someone. Or it would just make you grind a ton for the node.
I don't really know how to explain this system in-lore though. And ideally there'd be some additional pressure on people to remove those points rather than the sheer hope of never becoming a PKer.
But this would still only influence the people who have directly attacked others, because trying to calculate "support" points is just a complete mess imo.
Whew, ok, now I can talk fully.
The explanation in lore is the same.
The Gods desire for Verra to be repopulated and for the Empires to rise once again, right? Civility is a positive toward this, things that sow discord and would break down society are a negative.
Those who desire to follow the will of the Ancients, to destroy civilization and weaken the solidarity of groups through this sort of thing, are 'agents of corruption'. Those who do it often, even if they basically do a few things to absolve themselves like killing mobs, are still 'watched more closely' by the Gods, and when they act up again, the 'punishment' is harsher (or if you prefer, they are more empowered by the Ancients, but I prefer that Corruption is viewed as a negative vector).
Those who desire to follow the will of the Ancients, to destroy civilization and weaken the solidarity of groups through this sort of thing, are 'agents of corruption'. Those who do it often, even if they basically do a few things to absolve themselves like killing mobs, are still 'watched more closely' by the Gods, and when they act up again, the 'punishment' is harsher (or if you prefer, they are more empowered by the Ancients, but I prefer that Corruption is viewed as a negative vector).
How'd you connect this with the additional push to remove/lessen that "attention from gods"? Or do you think that the potential huge hit of corruption is enough to dissuade people from accruing too many points?
I also immediately went with the religious approach (or smth like "spilled blood that fed corruption and created a link"), but I had a hard time of linking that to the "bring something positive to the game as a penance". I guess smth like religious quests of "do X in/for a node" could work as an explanation?
Corruption sucks for normal PvPers, I know it will, better than 90% of the playerbase I imagine.
People like me who intend on not body camping, waiting for fullish health/mana, trying to stay away from real low levels, corruption sucks.
For those people that want to swat the human bot farming their area, corruption sucks.
"normal pvpers" don't just PK others, because to them that is not pvp. So "normal pvpers" have nothing to do with corruption and it in no way "sucks for them".
The only people it should suck for are those who're trying to kill a ton of players.
If you can't win out against a "human bot farming your location" in pve, then you either move onto a location where you can outfarm others or you PK them. If you PK them and they come back and STILL outfarm you - you've lost and should be ashamed of yourself. At that point PK is the least of your troubles, because you've failed as a gamer.
Corruption sucks for anyone who gets it. By normal I partially mean common, and if someone is an common "PvPer" they're gonna attack some greens out in the open world. I expect to see the majority of PvP'ers do this at some point without a doubt. I don't have some absolute record to pull that from but I can get in the mind of a PvP'er being one myself and having played many games with them.
Corruption is supposed to suck.
That's why it is this way.
As long as there is a threat meter in the game, this has a relatively simple solution, just tie the two together in one of many ways and you're basically done.
The way corruption works now is extremely intentional, which is why you end up with this discussion.
I'm not at liberty to say much more because of who I had the conversation regarding this with, but if you want to come up with a 'perfect' Corruption system, start from the threat/hate values and work backward and it's really hard to come to a conclusion that fails.
Except that I would assume Intrepid devs ALSO know this, and it's still just not a priority for change.
whoever said that and thinks its a simply solution and done...it isnt.
And because of that I feel like Intrepid already did, and then decided 'nah we don't want to do it that way for some other design reason'.
My current theory for the reasoning is Steven going "if they want their attacker to stop, they should just flag up and fight back" Cause that's kinda exactly what you gotta do if you want to avoid dying to mobs because of a dude who reduced your hp.
And the lowered death penalty when flagged is supposed to be a benefit to you in that situation.
Those who desire to follow the will of the Ancients, to destroy civilization and weaken the solidarity of groups through this sort of thing, are 'agents of corruption'. Those who do it often, even if they basically do a few things to absolve themselves like killing mobs, are still 'watched more closely' by the Gods, and when they act up again, the 'punishment' is harsher (or if you prefer, they are more empowered by the Ancients, but I prefer that Corruption is viewed as a negative vector).
How'd you connect this with the additional push to remove/lessen that "attention from gods"? Or do you think that the potential huge hit of corruption is enough to dissuade people from accruing too many points?
I also immediately went with the religious approach (or smth like "spilled blood that fed corruption and created a link"), but I had a hard time of linking that to the "bring something positive to the game as a penance". I guess smth like religious quests of "do X in/for a node" could work as an explanation?
There's no specific need. Nodes themselves are 'civilization'.
Remember (I think I've told you this before) that I don't have any ideas about combining 'the obvious other way' with 'the way Intrepid has chosen', they're not compatible, and you're still in the 'let's make Intrepid's system work' state.
I don't believe Intrepid would want your actions against Player A to impact your actions against Player B if Player A didn't die, if they wanted that, they'd use a different system.
Remember (I think I've told you this before) that I don't have any ideas about combining 'the obvious other way' with 'the way Intrepid has chosen', they're not compatible, and you're still in the 'let's make Intrepid's system work' state.
I don't believe Intrepid would want your actions against Player A to impact your actions against Player B if Player A didn't die, if they wanted that, they'd use a different system.
I mean, being flagged changes your interactions with player B, so in a way they already do, just to a lesser extent than what being red would do to that interaction.
Remember (I think I've told you this before) that I don't have any ideas about combining 'the obvious other way' with 'the way Intrepid has chosen', they're not compatible, and you're still in the 'let's make Intrepid's system work' state.
I don't believe Intrepid would want your actions against Player A to impact your actions against Player B if Player A didn't die, if they wanted that, they'd use a different system.
I mean, being flagged changes your interactions with player B, so in a way they already do, just to a lesser extent than what being red would do to that interaction.
Not really in the case we're talking about though.
I'm talking about 'constantly hitting one green target' and then 'constantly hitting another green target'.
In both cases you were flagged while doing it, and if Target A didn't die, and eventually just left, you were just 'defending your spot'.
If then you end up seeing an actual problematic person who you have a grudge against and want to just kill them, you getting more corruption for doing so because you were 'defending your spot' against Target A isn't something I think Intrepid would want.
Yeah, there you go. Add the threat values instead of hit numbers and you're done. This is not a complex design problem to solve if you have a bit of experience solving this type of problem. I'd be surprised if a room of people didn't converge on the main solutions every time.
And because of that I feel like Intrepid already did, and then decided 'nah we don't want to do it that way for some other design reason'.
Oh for sure, I'm sure they came to a conclusion on this topic in like 30 minutes of them hashing it out. And Steven often times will mention him figuring something out with a team of people so I think that does happen a lot of the time. That's why I named this "likely aspect of corruption". Cause I knew the gist of it and I knew there was a way without really effecting non griefing open world PvP. And I figured this was the conclusion they would have come to.
But, since there seemed to be so much discussion around the topic, it became interesting to just kind of flesh it out.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they found a completely different way to solve this too, they're running on 120% with this project. A little surprised though cause I can't imagine for the life of me how.
I will say though, I don't think I know what you mean by add threat values instead of hit numbers. Unless you mean just have a threshold of threat and once it's passed then it applies that debuff, in which case that might work. Having it be based on damage instead of hits would change things, but honestly I'm like all tapped out of braincells regarding this for some reason.
Does it work better with hits or damage, or does it matter? Someone help pls lol
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I believe they mean look at the distribution in a similar sense to the threat meter.
A mobs threat meter will take into a variety of things. First to attack it, damage dealt, heals done, buffs. All that kind of adds up to each persons contribution to the engagement. It would obviously need to be tweaked since they serve a different purpose, but the general concept fits.
Some really interesting ideas on this and really cool to see how people could link it back to the lore.
I think the threat meter/PK meter would be an effective way to deal with groups PKing, means they couldn't have a sacrificial lamb just getting the killing blow to save them from corruption.
Could have the bar go round the players nameplate or something, filling up, so you can see if you're close to being corrupted and if so go work it off, or, continue and get corrupted.
Think it would need looking at if one person is hitting a green to find out if they want to PvP or not, maybe with a hit threshold or something, I don't know. Not saying I have the answers to any of it, just interested in the points raised.
Comments
you are only thinking about a group vs 1 or 1 dude griefing, whatever your definition of griefing is. but you still dont get it. a common strategy is to hit the opposing party a little bit before the fight starts to make them start lower on health, low on mana, or force them to use something, or maybe you catch them without buffs and you are hitting them. now people arent even going to do that because you get corrupted for hitting someone before you kill them...which is dumb =_= thats why it will stop/reduce ow pvp.
the meta will be to let the other person hit you until they get corruption. now they cant cc you and you can cc them, and they drop their gear. if they stop and dont hit you...you wont hit them, because you will be purple too and lose your advantage. so the options are pk or go do something else. it will end up increasing corruption or reducing pvp...
you shouldn't be corrupted for hitting someone without killing them, unless you change what being corrupted means.
The only people it should suck for are those who're trying to kill a ton of players.
If you can't win out against a "human bot farming your location" in pve, then you either move onto a location where you can outfarm others or you PK them. If you PK them and they come back and STILL outfarm you - you've lost and should be ashamed of yourself. At that point PK is the least of your troubles, because you've failed as a gamer.
The "invisible buff" is just there as a counter for the game. But i get you lol. It would probably have to be tuned to 3 or 4 hits before the real debuff is applied.
Idk, it could apply to the group of people attacking(no point in making it party only), or it could only apply to the last person to hit them. That was just the cherry on the sundae, the point was to prevent exploiting the corruption system and to give greens the opportunity to commit suicide to punish a griefer trying to keep their health low.
Or just add risk to the griefer. But someone above had a very nice argument on why it should split. Seems logical to me. Though I dont think its really that important.
Also I dont think it would need a cooldown, just a duration that refreshes when they hit the green again.
Unless I missed it, you still haven't said if people would get flagged for those first several hits. Because if they don't - your suggestion has even more exploits than the current system.
That's what I meant. What kind of duration would it be? Would the victim have to heal up in order to live through the repeated attacks? Because, depending on the health regen values/methods, the victim might not even be able to outheal the incoming dmg, if the duration is shorter than ~1m.
Is the Purple following the Green around and hitting them over a prolonged period of time without killing them? That seems like harassment, whether it’s griefing or not.
Or is the Purple one of several Purples that hits a green with a few shots, but the group hits the Green enough that they die and now we’re assigning accountability for corruption?
Is it really possible for the flagging system to parse intent from one scenario to the next instead of focusing on outcomes?
If a group accidentally hits the target multiple times, that’s not griefing.
If they intentionally hit the target multiple times just to keep their health low without killing the target, that’s griefing.
I dunno that the current system needs to be changed.
I can kind of agree actually. It sort of exploits the system in the same way a player can remain level 1 but advance their artisan level to gather resources and basically be a corruption bomb. Both exploit the intended design in my opinion.
One just avoids corruption, the other uses it as a shield.
Stuff we do for Artisan progression also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
Exploration also provides some xp for Adventurer Level.
We'll have to see how low we can be on Adventurer Level. It is one of the things I plan to test in Alpha 2 and the Betas.
nah that's removing someone from a farming spot and that is fair. if the green leaves and the group follows him around all day, going to other areas, keeping him low so he cant really do anything then that's griefing
Edit: Reading more, my post is irrelevant as it's essentially what OP was talking about, I just misunderstood. My B.
Definitely test it out. Hopefully that can be solved with xp gains
Obviously the system would have to be adapted to account for multiple people splitting the corruption instead of 1 getting it all. A couple solutions I could see would be either having a Corruption Meter that builds up slowly over time and turns you corrupt after filling 100% or expanding the range of corruption, having it start off at much lower levels of penalties for lesser crimes and progressing from there. Personally, I like the idea of a Corruption Meter because I believe 8 people going corrupt instantly for 1 kill is excessive. Partial corruption gain for those who took 2 swings or barely contributed would probably be the way to go. Then, if they continue to participate in green player's deaths, they would eventually turn red for their accumulated actions. Essentially, corruption would be broken up into pieces rather than it being a severe lump sum punishment applied to whoever gets unlucky with the killing blow.
Wars are a separate topic. Were talking about Corruption, so I'm not going to get into that.
I recognize that's a possibility with it's current design, however, leaving it as is will result in easy exploitation and an ineffective system.
Who ever said it would be party based? I said it should be contribution based and group based as in- anyone who contributed to the Green players death (Damage, CC, Debuffs, Buffing and Healing attacking players), same as it is with looting rights and xp with PvE kills. In the current system, they've had to continue adding stipulations to make up for it's shortcomings rather than addressing the issue directly. A perfect example is a more recent change, being unable to CC greens. None of that would be necessary because CC would 1. Flag you as a combatant and 2. Result in corruption from the player dying to the mob shortly after.
Yes, that's what Alpha 2 is for, testing the systems to make sure they are working and adjusting the 'dials' accordingly. Could be 30 seconds or a minute, I'm not sure. Not being able to "sell buffs" is not a serious issue, that's your own personal problem. You're clinging to some silly money making scheme you could do in your 20 year old game. The Corruption System is much more important. Stop being lazy and go make money like everyone else.
When I told you I was getting words mixed around and having a hard time talking I was putting together corruption and griefing in my head(which I already know it's not). Getting corruption doesn't mean you are griefing.
BUT, if you kill a green you must get corruption because that's the mechanism to prevent griefing.
How have you read this much of the thread and my comments and think the corruption is applied automatically after a hit or so many hits? It applies after the green dies. And go read the wiki again, nobody can CC greens, ever. Additionally, if the attacker has hit enough to get debuff and then the green swings back on that attacker before they die and goes purple, then the debuff would dissapear.
Also, shoot, idk, could be 10 hits honestly.
The main point is that someone isn't allowed to sit there and keep attacking you for small amounts keeping your health low forever. Which isn't really an opinion of griefing, it is griefing.
Also its to make sure someone who keeps someones health low trying to get them killed by a mob has at least a chance to get corruption, as they should. As per Stevens very own words on corruption, they should.
Corrupted means what Steven said it means, a tool for curbing griefing while still allowing for open world PvP. If you can exploit that system and go completely around it to PK a green then it does not serve it's intended function and like Steven said, it will be reworked until it does.
This very likely going in the game unless there's a really interesting way to stop that from happening. As far as I know this is the only way. I'd love to hear other suggestions though, this is very interesting and something the devs more than likely have been talking about.
Corruption sucks for anyone who gets it. By normal I partially mean common, and if someone is an common "PvPer" they're gonna attack some greens out in the open world. I expect to see the majority of PvP'ers do this at some point without a doubt. I don't have some absolute record to pull that from but I can get in the mind of a PvP'er being one myself and having played many games with them.
Corruption is supposed to suck.
That's why it is this way.
As long as there is a threat meter in the game, this has a relatively simple solution, just tie the two together in one of many ways and you're basically done.
The way corruption works now is extremely intentional, which is why you end up with this discussion.
I'm not at liberty to say much more because of who I had the conversation regarding this with, but if you want to come up with a 'perfect' Corruption system, start from the threat/hate values and work backward and it's really hard to come to a conclusion that fails.
Except that I would assume Intrepid devs ALSO know this, and it's still just not a priority for change.
Hey, there we go. It's a little less foolproof, and it doesn't stop people from griefing by following you and keeping your health at 50% for 20 minutes lol, but it's constructive and unique.
Actually, come to think of it this is spectacular. The issue is that the debuff needs to be applied after sevvvveral hits(an invisible and inconsequential one applies off the first several hits and acts as a counter) because as one person pointed out, people need to be able to hit a green many times to test their willingness to flag, or to just try and get them to go away.
Which is fine, the actual debuff can get applied after a ton of hits, but that does leave a window where the attacker can still try to get the green dead by a mob, exploiting corruption.
BUT, with both ideas combined it takes care of the issue. Or so it seems, I might be missing something.
Yeah, there you go. Add the threat values instead of hit numbers and you're done. This is not a complex design problem to solve if you have a bit of experience solving this type of problem. I'd be surprised if a room of people didn't converge on the main solutions every time.
And because of that I feel like Intrepid already did, and then decided 'nah we don't want to do it that way for some other design reason'.
I'm assuming "partial corruption" means "150% death penalty instead of 400%" or smth like that (and the % growing with negative actions).
Does this system intend to have the same mechanics as the current one? The "greens don't flag against reds", "reds' stats lower with more corruption", "BHs see reds on the map" ones. Or would those be on the same scale as the %s of the death penalty?
Also, what's the timer on those actions? Because pugs could be completely fucked over by a some friends, where one player receives some kind of support from several people in the party and then goes PKs his friend and then other friends come and kill the newly "innocent" PKers that "contributed" to the PK.
And the higher the content lvl that's being farmed by that pug - the higher the chance of this happening, because their gear would be better and any lvl of corruption gives you a chance to drop items on death. Or would that feature also be subject to change within your suggested system?
If their goal is to not gain corruption and feed you to mobs and make it so you can farm mobs withing a reasonable degree and a solution needs to be found if that isn't the intent of the system.
What i would do is to counter their way to avoid punishment by inflicting that punishment upon them if you are to die to mobs if they have done a certain amount of damage to you. IE if they do 40% of your life (over a certain amount of dmg over a certain duration of time). If mobs were to kill you it would corrupt the player.
Nothing is ever for certain but it would again further bring up the barrier of people who would attempt to do that, without a way for them to avoid the negative consequences.
Dmg dealt to a green would be counted as points that you can remove through some positive actions for the node. Those points remain on you until you either remove them through those actions or kill a green. Killing a green turns all those points into corruption, multiplied by your PK count. So if you've attacked a shitton of greens w/o killing them, one kill could get you into a very deep hole.
The karmic points could also be initially multiplied by the difference in lvls of the attacker and victim. So hitting anyone below your lvl would completely fuck you over if you ever PK someone. Or it would just make you grind a ton for the node.
I don't really know how to explain this system in-lore though. And ideally there'd be some additional pressure on people to remove those points rather than the sheer hope of never becoming a PKer.
But this would still only influence the people who have directly attacked others, because trying to calculate "support" points is just a complete mess imo.
Whew, ok, now I can talk fully.
The explanation in lore is the same.
The Gods desire for Verra to be repopulated and for the Empires to rise once again, right? Civility is a positive toward this, things that sow discord and would break down society are a negative.
Those who desire to follow the will of the Ancients, to destroy civilization and weaken the solidarity of groups through this sort of thing, are 'agents of corruption'. Those who do it often, even if they basically do a few things to absolve themselves like killing mobs, are still 'watched more closely' by the Gods, and when they act up again, the 'punishment' is harsher (or if you prefer, they are more empowered by the Ancients, but I prefer that Corruption is viewed as a negative vector).
I also immediately went with the religious approach (or smth like "spilled blood that fed corruption and created a link"), but I had a hard time of linking that to the "bring something positive to the game as a penance". I guess smth like religious quests of "do X in/for a node" could work as an explanation?
whoever said that and thinks its a simply solution and done...it isnt.
And the lowered death penalty when flagged is supposed to be a benefit to you in that situation.
In other words, "man up and git gud".
There's no specific need. Nodes themselves are 'civilization'.
Remember (I think I've told you this before) that I don't have any ideas about combining 'the obvious other way' with 'the way Intrepid has chosen', they're not compatible, and you're still in the 'let's make Intrepid's system work' state.
I don't believe Intrepid would want your actions against Player A to impact your actions against Player B if Player A didn't die, if they wanted that, they'd use a different system.
I mean, being flagged changes your interactions with player B, so in a way they already do, just to a lesser extent than what being red would do to that interaction.
Not really in the case we're talking about though.
I'm talking about 'constantly hitting one green target' and then 'constantly hitting another green target'.
In both cases you were flagged while doing it, and if Target A didn't die, and eventually just left, you were just 'defending your spot'.
If then you end up seeing an actual problematic person who you have a grudge against and want to just kill them, you getting more corruption for doing so because you were 'defending your spot' against Target A isn't something I think Intrepid would want.
Oh for sure, I'm sure they came to a conclusion on this topic in like 30 minutes of them hashing it out. And Steven often times will mention him figuring something out with a team of people so I think that does happen a lot of the time. That's why I named this "likely aspect of corruption". Cause I knew the gist of it and I knew there was a way without really effecting non griefing open world PvP. And I figured this was the conclusion they would have come to.
But, since there seemed to be so much discussion around the topic, it became interesting to just kind of flesh it out.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they found a completely different way to solve this too, they're running on 120% with this project. A little surprised though cause I can't imagine for the life of me how.
I will say though, I don't think I know what you mean by add threat values instead of hit numbers. Unless you mean just have a threshold of threat and once it's passed then it applies that debuff, in which case that might work. Having it be based on damage instead of hits would change things, but honestly I'm like all tapped out of braincells regarding this for some reason.
Does it work better with hits or damage, or does it matter? Someone help pls lol
A mobs threat meter will take into a variety of things. First to attack it, damage dealt, heals done, buffs. All that kind of adds up to each persons contribution to the engagement. It would obviously need to be tweaked since they serve a different purpose, but the general concept fits.
I think the threat meter/PK meter would be an effective way to deal with groups PKing, means they couldn't have a sacrificial lamb just getting the killing blow to save them from corruption.
Could have the bar go round the players nameplate or something, filling up, so you can see if you're close to being corrupted and if so go work it off, or, continue and get corrupted.
Think it would need looking at if one person is hitting a green to find out if they want to PvP or not, maybe with a hit threshold or something, I don't know. Not saying I have the answers to any of it, just interested in the points raised.