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?
Big post inc. Sorry, couldn't make this one shorter. Lot to unravel here, but it's worth the read I believe.
For some reason I missed this comment Nikr. Now it makes sense what you said earlier. The thing is, if your group is trying to kill an entire group of greens and everyone who assists gets corruption, then why wouldn't your group just designate the people to get corruption.
The greens aren't going to fight back anyways, and if they are then that one or two or however many people will go purple and your entire group can attack them.
As it stands I think most people assume killing blow will give you corruption. So with that, do you plan on doing an all out assault and getting random people in your group corruption? I don't see why you would do that, let them decide if they want to flag first. Why would you get the corruption if you don't have to. Unless you just want to get the jump on them for that advantage and take them out, which makes sense. Or do you again, designate who will do the attacking and receive corruption?
If they're green and you're going to eat the corruption and just want them dead fast, then shared corruption does stand in the way by making corruption harsher. BUT in my honest opinion, shared corruption would make for much more interesting OWPVP. It would make PvP against other groups less sneak up and burst based, and be more "send out a anti-ambassador and see if they want to flag. If they don't, then they'll die one by one until they decide to attack back"
It would also let people who are greens try and escape if they want(some won't make it). Or people that want to fight, but are going to try to run and come back to attack later. Just overall much more interesting PvP. More, dare I say, meaningful.
Either way, if you're going to go all-in on a group of greens, eat corruption, and burst them down, then you're going to get around 50% of your group corrupted, and some will get double or triple corruption(dedicated healers will be fine, but they gotta be careful not to heal a corrupted lol). That's given that the groups are of equal size. But that's still less than the 100% of your participating party with shared corruption.
So the question is, does this help curb griefing(the point of corruption), this shared corruption? And how much does it negatively impact OWPVP? Well... I think it helps a little for griefing, some but not a ton.
I personally think it will make OWPVP better in the sense of how it will be gone about. So it's hard to say if this is something worthwhile, I think it is but I can totally understand where you and some others are against it.
That is if corruption is shared not like a slice of pizza. As it's been stated, if corruptions penalty can be lower than it is now then corruption can be shared based on "threat" as I think Azerhae was implying, a proportion of damage done. This helps a lot, but it still makes your entire group corrupt which means greens can now attack and CC all of them, but greens cannot be CC'd back and if they're killed by the corrupted player the corrupted player gets more corruption.
The thing is.. this is how corruption was designed, to prevent players from keep killing the same greens. If the paragraph before this is a problem to you, then I don't know what to say, that's intent of corruption. If this was a 1v1 and you killed a green you'd get corruption and that's how Intrepid intended it to work for a reason, why should being in a group give your group lee-way to grief.
With all that said, yes absolutely 10000% shared corruption(pizza style lol) is the best way to go about things. It makes PvP more interesting and it helps curb griefing. It also doesn't really change that much in terms of penalties to OWPVP groups bound to kill other groups of greens, lesser corruption penalty means less XP hit, easier to work off, less stat penalty, ect.
Also I addressed this earlier, but to keep this more contained in one post I'll say it again. There's no reason to have shared corruption only apply to a party, if several people attack a green, then this applies to them regardless of those peoples grouping status with each other.
With all that said, yes absolutely 10000% shared corruption(pizza style lol) is the best way to go about things. It makes PvP more interesting and it helps curb griefing. It also doesn't really change that much in terms of penalties to OWPVP groups bound to kill other groups of greens, lesser corruption penalty means less XP hit, easier to work off, less stat penalty, ect.
Also I addressed this earlier, but to keep this more contained in one post I'll say it again. There's no reason to have shared corruption only apply to a party, if several people attack a green, then this applies to them regardless of those peoples grouping status with each other.
I forgot to point it out better last time I answered this point, but PKing implies that the target didn't fight back. Which means that there's literally no point for several people to hit them. One will always be enough. Which is why I concentrated on the "party" side of the argument, because that would imply that the entire party would get corruption for the actions of a single member.
The same applies to group vs group. If the victims are purely green and won't fight back, the attacking party would need to just use their sacrificial lamb to attack the victim's healer until he dies. At that point the victim group can't sustain their farming and either leaves the spot or dies on that spot.
Hell, it could even just be an alt. And if buffers/healers get corruption just because they gave a buff or healed the attacker 5 minutes before his PKing - groups will just bring an alt with them who they would not even touch with any of their skills. That alt then kills the victim group's healer (or just makes it way easier for mobs to do so) and then the attacker group wins.
People will always find a way around the system, because no system is perfect.
I forgot to point it out better last time I answered this point, but PKing implies that the target didn't fight back. Which means that there's literally no point for several people to hit them.
To me, this is the reason why shared corruption just isn't needed.
In other games with different systems, sharing it is probably a good idea. In Ashes, with this system, it isn't needed.
1
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I forgot to point it out better last time I answered this point, but PKing implies that the target didn't fight back. Which means that there's literally no point for several people to hit them. One will always be enough. Which is why I concentrated on the "party" side of the argument, because that would imply that the entire party would get corruption for the actions of a single member.
I don’t believe that it was intended to apply to members of the party that did not contribute to the kill. I know at least that’s not how I have ever intended it talking about this. As stated in an above post there’s no reason to limit it to party but anyone that contributed to the killing of the green within a short period of time. One single person can still just kill that person not fighting back, but if I provide buffs so you can kill the green faster, or help you damage them I would expect to get corruption.
The same applies to group vs group. If the victims are purely green and won't fight back, the attacking party would need to just use their sacrificial lamb to attack the victim's healer until he dies. At that point the victim group can't sustain their farming and either leaves the spot or dies on that spot.
This is still possible with what was stated. It’s just that the other members of the party or other combatants in the area don’t get to contribute to the kill without taking on some corruption themselves.
Hell, it could even just be an alt. And if buffers/healers get corruption just because they gave a buff or healed the attacker 5 minutes before his PKing - groups will just bring an alt with them who they would not even touch with any of their skills. That alt then kills the victim group's healer (or just makes it way easier for mobs to do so) and then the attacker group wins.
I’ve seen one person suggest anything like that kind of time. I know myself and I’m pretty sure others have said that this is not some long term thing. A few seconds at most that refreshes individually every time they contribute to the attack through damage/heals/buffs/etc.
I’ve seen one person suggest anything like that kind of time. I know myself and I’m pretty sure others have said that this is not some long term thing. A few seconds at most that refreshes individually every time they contribute to the attack through damage/heals/buffs/etc.
Either way, this suggestion changes literally nothing about a PKing party's approach to the situation. They would've had a sacrificial lamb in the current system - they'll still have it in this suggestion.
The only case where the PKer would need "support" is if the victim fights back. But at that point it's just pvp and this discussion is over. In every other case it's a 1v1 fight.
This logic was what led me to think that yall been talking about "any buff that the attacker has will put corruption on the one who gave the buff, if the attacker becomes a PK".
you know...get your tank to leave your party and start attacking the enemies (and invite him back fast if the fight starts, takes less than a second) bypassing the silly shared corruption idea...
Comments
Big post inc. Sorry, couldn't make this one shorter. Lot to unravel here, but it's worth the read I believe.
For some reason I missed this comment Nikr. Now it makes sense what you said earlier. The thing is, if your group is trying to kill an entire group of greens and everyone who assists gets corruption, then why wouldn't your group just designate the people to get corruption.
The greens aren't going to fight back anyways, and if they are then that one or two or however many people will go purple and your entire group can attack them.
As it stands I think most people assume killing blow will give you corruption. So with that, do you plan on doing an all out assault and getting random people in your group corruption? I don't see why you would do that, let them decide if they want to flag first. Why would you get the corruption if you don't have to. Unless you just want to get the jump on them for that advantage and take them out, which makes sense. Or do you again, designate who will do the attacking and receive corruption?
If they're green and you're going to eat the corruption and just want them dead fast, then shared corruption does stand in the way by making corruption harsher. BUT in my honest opinion, shared corruption would make for much more interesting OWPVP. It would make PvP against other groups less sneak up and burst based, and be more "send out a anti-ambassador and see if they want to flag. If they don't, then they'll die one by one until they decide to attack back"
It would also let people who are greens try and escape if they want(some won't make it). Or people that want to fight, but are going to try to run and come back to attack later. Just overall much more interesting PvP. More, dare I say, meaningful.
Either way, if you're going to go all-in on a group of greens, eat corruption, and burst them down, then you're going to get around 50% of your group corrupted, and some will get double or triple corruption(dedicated healers will be fine, but they gotta be careful not to heal a corrupted lol). That's given that the groups are of equal size. But that's still less than the 100% of your participating party with shared corruption.
So the question is, does this help curb griefing(the point of corruption), this shared corruption? And how much does it negatively impact OWPVP? Well... I think it helps a little for griefing, some but not a ton.
I personally think it will make OWPVP better in the sense of how it will be gone about. So it's hard to say if this is something worthwhile, I think it is but I can totally understand where you and some others are against it.
That is if corruption is shared not like a slice of pizza. As it's been stated, if corruptions penalty can be lower than it is now then corruption can be shared based on "threat" as I think Azerhae was implying, a proportion of damage done. This helps a lot, but it still makes your entire group corrupt which means greens can now attack and CC all of them, but greens cannot be CC'd back and if they're killed by the corrupted player the corrupted player gets more corruption.
The thing is.. this is how corruption was designed, to prevent players from keep killing the same greens. If the paragraph before this is a problem to you, then I don't know what to say, that's intent of corruption. If this was a 1v1 and you killed a green you'd get corruption and that's how Intrepid intended it to work for a reason, why should being in a group give your group lee-way to grief.
With all that said, yes absolutely 10000% shared corruption(pizza style lol) is the best way to go about things. It makes PvP more interesting and it helps curb griefing. It also doesn't really change that much in terms of penalties to OWPVP groups bound to kill other groups of greens, lesser corruption penalty means less XP hit, easier to work off, less stat penalty, ect.
Also I addressed this earlier, but to keep this more contained in one post I'll say it again. There's no reason to have shared corruption only apply to a party, if several people attack a green, then this applies to them regardless of those peoples grouping status with each other.
The same applies to group vs group. If the victims are purely green and won't fight back, the attacking party would need to just use their sacrificial lamb to attack the victim's healer until he dies. At that point the victim group can't sustain their farming and either leaves the spot or dies on that spot.
Hell, it could even just be an alt. And if buffers/healers get corruption just because they gave a buff or healed the attacker 5 minutes before his PKing - groups will just bring an alt with them who they would not even touch with any of their skills. That alt then kills the victim group's healer (or just makes it way easier for mobs to do so) and then the attacker group wins.
People will always find a way around the system, because no system is perfect.
In other games with different systems, sharing it is probably a good idea. In Ashes, with this system, it isn't needed.
I don’t believe that it was intended to apply to members of the party that did not contribute to the kill. I know at least that’s not how I have ever intended it talking about this. As stated in an above post there’s no reason to limit it to party but anyone that contributed to the killing of the green within a short period of time. One single person can still just kill that person not fighting back, but if I provide buffs so you can kill the green faster, or help you damage them I would expect to get corruption.
This is still possible with what was stated. It’s just that the other members of the party or other combatants in the area don’t get to contribute to the kill without taking on some corruption themselves.
I’ve seen one person suggest anything like that kind of time. I know myself and I’m pretty sure others have said that this is not some long term thing. A few seconds at most that refreshes individually every time they contribute to the attack through damage/heals/buffs/etc.
The only case where the PKer would need "support" is if the victim fights back. But at that point it's just pvp and this discussion is over. In every other case it's a 1v1 fight.
This logic was what led me to think that yall been talking about "any buff that the attacker has will put corruption on the one who gave the buff, if the attacker becomes a PK".
*Looks at the tank*