A likely aspect of corruption

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

PherPhur wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

PherPhur

NiKr wrote: »

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.

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.

Ludullu

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

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?

Dygz

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.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Dygz

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.

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

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

Meztopheles

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.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

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

Voeltz

NiKr wrote: »

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.

PherPhur

Depraved wrote: »

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.

PherPhur

NiKr wrote: »

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

Azherae

PherPhur wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

PherPhur wrote: »

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.

PherPhur

Meztopheles wrote: »

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.

Azherae

PherPhur wrote: »

Meztopheles wrote: »

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'.

Ludullu

Voeltz wrote: »

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?

Voeltz wrote: »

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?

Mag7spy

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.

Ludullu

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.

Child Item