A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.

The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Liniker

I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,

Percimes

A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...

I prefer your simpler solution.

(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)

Dolyem

Liniker wrote: »

I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

Dolyem

Percimes wrote: »

A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...

I prefer your simpler solution.

(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)

I also wouldn't be against making the attacking green against the corrupted player have the 50% drop rate to the corrupted in this 4th flagging state. To me it's just a bit extreme to punish an already punished player for defending themselves. It doesn't even go with the theme of corruption lore at that point.

unknownsystemerror

Percimes wrote: »

A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...

I prefer your simpler solution.

(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)

Yes, that is true. What he is upset about is that anyone who attacks him is going to stay green. Which if he fights back and kills them, he is going to accrue even more corruption. So funnily enough, for those that don't want to be caught in an increasing spiral of exp debt and time sink, they are going to have to do the dreaded thing that got them corrupt in the first place by killing someone who didn't fight back. Just stand there and take it. Working as intended.

Dolyem

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

A green who attacks a red, fails and dies, suffers a full dead penalty instead of the 1/2 of combatants. So there is a "higher" risk for the greens too. But staying green also protect against CC, so there are pros to the risks...

I prefer your simpler solution.

(If there is a colour for your 4th status, I vote for orange)

Yes, that is true. What he is upset about is that anyone who attacks him is going to stay green. Which if he fights back and kills them, he is going to accrue even more corruption. So funnily enough, for those that don't want to be caught in an increasing spiral of exp debt and time sink, they are going to have to do the dreaded thing that got them corrupt in the first place. Just stand there and take it. Working as intended.

"Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear

Liniker

Dolyem wrote: »

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

how so? the game wants to deter PK against green players, make it like 1% of what you would get in a month, that's the intention, you may not like the design, but it is not a design flaw at all

so yea, you will be fucked if you go red, so don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason or you have friends willing to help you, like flagging up and CCing the greens so you can run away etc,

now, we could talk about how often would people flag up vs not flagging up, because they expect most engagements to be with both sides flagged, and will balance accordingly, but again, for me its kinda pointless to speculate over a system that we haven't tested and we don't know how player behavior will be like

Ludullu

Iirc UO had this feature. I think some usual poster here played UO, but I don't remember who it was.

Dolyem wrote: »

At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance.

And I personally want exactly this. A corrupted player should be hunted by everyone who sees them and the corrupted player should either fear everyone around them or know what they're getting themselves into when they PK.

But as I wrote before, I do want a system that would, at least marginally, decrease the number of greens trying to immediately kill the PKer. Imo some tweaks to the BH system could accomplish that. But we haven't heard about that whole system recently, so maybe it's completely gone already.

But with all of that being said, I still think that what I want would only really work if the corruption is balanced in a fairly precise way. But my desired balancing might be against Steven's current plan for corruption. And that plan includes corrupted players suffering as much as possible, so that barely anyone wants to be Red.

And I know that some people might point me to the "Steven wants to prevent griefing and not PKing", but we'll see about that "want" when we come to testing the system and to the overwhelming amount of casual feedback of "whaaa, I keep getting killed even though corruption is overtuned to all hell. I want it even harsher".

Also, PKing is not pvp, so pvpers have nothing to worry about.

Dolyem

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

how so? the game wants to deter PK against green players, make it like 1% of what you would get in a month, that's the intention, you may not like the design, but it is not a design flaw at all

so yea, you will be fucked if you go red, so don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason or you have friends willing to help you, like flagging up and CCing the greens so you can run away etc,

now, we could talk about how often would people flag up vs not flagging up, because they expect most engagements to be with both sides flagged, and will balance accordingly, but again, for me its kinda pointless to speculate over a system that we haven't tested and we don't know how player behavior will be like

The gaining of corruption should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing. However, defending yourself from attacking players is not griefing. So you shouldn't be penalized with corruption when you are the one being engaged. It doesn't make sense with the lore, and it doesn't make sense to prolong corruption when not doing corrupt actions.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Iirc UO had this feature. I think some usual poster here played UO, but I don't remember who it was.

Dolyem wrote: »

At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance.

And I personally want exactly this. A corrupted player should be hunted by everyone who sees them and the corrupted player should either fear everyone around them or know what they're getting themselves into when they PK.

But as I wrote before, I do want a system that would, at least marginally, decrease the number of greens trying to immediately kill the PKer. Imo some tweaks to the BH system could accomplish that. But we haven't heard about that whole system recently, so maybe it's completely gone already.

But with all of that being said, I still think that what I want would only really work if the corruption is balanced in a fairly precise way. But my desired balancing might be against Steven's current plan for corruption. And that plan includes corrupted players suffering as much as possible, so that barely anyone wants to be Red.

And I know that some people might point me to the "Steven wants to prevent griefing and not PKing", but we'll see about that "want" when we come to testing the system and to the overwhelming amount of casual feedback of "whaaa, I keep getting killed even though corruption is overtuned to all hell. I want it even harsher".

Also, PKing is not pvp, so pvpers have nothing to worry about.

I mean, the amount of time it would take to reduce your corruption alone would be the fear driver for a corrupted player. Making it impossible to reduce your corruption while being hunted because you're defending yourself just feels bad.

unknownsystemerror

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

so yea, you will be fucked if you go red, so don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason or you have friends willing to help you, like flagging up and CCing the greens so you can run away etc,

Can't CC greens

Liniker

Dolyem wrote: »

The gaining of corruption should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing. However, defending yourself from attacking players is not griefing. So you shouldn't be penalized with corruption when you are the one being engaged. It doesn't make sense with the lore, and it doesn't make sense to prolong corruption when not doing corrupt actions.

I don't know a nicer way to put this, but "should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing" according to who? to you?

Corruption in AoC is a harsh punishment system for those that kill a green player. That's it. It has nothing to do with griefing, I can choose to kill someone over a very rare resource that I need, and take the corruption, that is not griefing...

so there is no design flaw, if you are red, that was your decision, and you will be punished accordingly.

PvP in Ashes is intended to be consensual, through either purple vs purple or events, that's about it. You can either accept that or hang around and realize this game won't be for you, if you have hopes you will be ganking people and getting away with corruption,

also, you can't use the "pve carebear" card on me, as I am a former perma-red BDO player, DAOC, MO1 and MO2, full-loot Ark, Rust, Conan pvp player so...

Percimes

Dolyem wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

how so? the game wants to deter PK against green players, make it like 1% of what you would get in a month, that's the intention, you may not like the design, but it is not a design flaw at all

so yea, you will be fucked if you go red, so don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason or you have friends willing to help you, like flagging up and CCing the greens so you can run away etc,

now, we could talk about how often would people flag up vs not flagging up, because they expect most engagements to be with both sides flagged, and will balance accordingly, but again, for me its kinda pointless to speculate over a system that we haven't tested and we don't know how player behavior will be like

The gaining of corruption should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing. However, defending yourself from attacking players is not griefing. So you shouldn't be penalized with corruption when you are the one being engaged. It doesn't make sense with the lore, and it doesn't make sense to prolong corruption when not doing corrupt actions.

For this to work though, who attacks who first need to be part of the triggering of the status. A red going after a green isn't defending themselves: they're the offender, again. If the green dare defend themselves, the red would be safe from piling more corruption. How corruption currently works is to prevent players going on a killing spree against people who don't fight back.

Dolyem

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

The gaining of corruption should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing. However, defending yourself from attacking players is not griefing. So you shouldn't be penalized with corruption when you are the one being engaged. It doesn't make sense with the lore, and it doesn't make sense to prolong corruption when not doing corrupt actions.

I don't know a nicer way to put this, but "should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing" according to who? to you?

Corruption in AoC is a harsh punishment system for those that kill a green player. That's it. It has nothing to do with griefing, I can choose to kill someone over a very rare resource that I need, and take the corruption, that is not griefing...

so there is no design flaw, if you are red, that was your decision, and you will be punished accordingly.

PvP in Ashes is intended to be consensual, through either purple vs purple or events, that's about it. You can either accept that or hang around and realize this game won't be for you, if you have hopes you will be ganking people and getting away with corruption,

also, you can't use the "pve carebear" card on me, as I am a former perma-red BDO player, DAOC, MO1 and MO2, full-loot Ark, Rust, Conan pvp player so...

Corruption is implemented to deter rampant griefing, not to punish PvP. If you're being punished for defending yourself, that's just punishing PvP. Simple as that. Corruption was gained from killing someone who didn't fight back, you shouldn't gain it from someone fighting you.

"Well you shouldn't have become red to begin with because blah blah blah" Corruption shouldn't be taken lightly, this is reflected with losing gear, power decrease, 4x death penalties, no access to cities and services, etc. But prolonging this punishment by defending yourself from players attacking you is stupid. The time corrupted should be reflected in the kills against players who didn't fight back. But if players seek you out for PvP, you don't punish that PvP interaction.

No where in the post have I said I want to get away with ganking? I still want the corruption penalty for the gank, I still think Corruption should take time to remove. But it shouldn't be increased from being engaged by another player.

You may as well make corruption permanent until death if you intend to continue to corrupt players defending themselves.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, the amount of time it would take to reduce your corruption alone would be the fear driver for a corrupted player. Making it impossible to reduce your corruption while being hunted because you're defending yourself just feels bad.

That's part of the "balancing" I want in the game. But I've discussed this in the past at length and w/o direct tests in A2 the repeat of that discussion would be pointless.

As for "defending yourself fucks you harder" - just don't defend yourself. Run away and farm mobs. No one is making you kill more greens. If you plan on PKing someone - be ready to lose whatever's on your character. That's part of the deal.

And if your PK was a sudden action - be prepared to run real far and fast. The only ones who can truly hunt you anywhere are BHs. And you can kill however many of those you want.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, the amount of time it would take to reduce your corruption alone would be the fear driver for a corrupted player. Making it impossible to reduce your corruption while being hunted because you're defending yourself just feels bad.

That's part of the "balancing" I want in the game. But I've discussed this in the past at length and w/o direct tests in A2 the repeat of that discussion would be pointless.

As for "defending yourself fucks you harder" - just don't defend yourself. Run away and farm mobs. No one is making you kill more greens. If you plan on PKing someone - be ready to lose whatever's on your character. That's part of the deal.

And if your PK was a sudden action - be prepared to run real far and fast. The only ones who can truly hunt you anywhere are BHs. And you can kill however many of those you want.

Running away isn't much of an option when you can't CC the target dude. No matter how you put it, punishing someone for defending themselves feels bad. If the corruption is too harsh, all you have is an opt-in PvP feature with more steps

Dolyem

Percimes wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

how so? the game wants to deter PK against green players, make it like 1% of what you would get in a month, that's the intention, you may not like the design, but it is not a design flaw at all

so yea, you will be fucked if you go red, so don't do it unless you have a very, very good reason or you have friends willing to help you, like flagging up and CCing the greens so you can run away etc,

now, we could talk about how often would people flag up vs not flagging up, because they expect most engagements to be with both sides flagged, and will balance accordingly, but again, for me its kinda pointless to speculate over a system that we haven't tested and we don't know how player behavior will be like

The gaining of corruption should indeed be the result from actions that would be defined as griefing. However, defending yourself from attacking players is not griefing. So you shouldn't be penalized with corruption when you are the one being engaged. It doesn't make sense with the lore, and it doesn't make sense to prolong corruption when not doing corrupt actions.

For this to work though, who attacks who first need to be part of the triggering of the status. A red going after a green isn't defending themselves: they're the offender, again. If the green dare defend themselves, the red would be safe from piling more corruption. How corruption currently works is to prevent players going on a killing spree against people who don't fight back.

To me it's no different than if a green player fought back normally against someone ganking them. The only case where you should gain corruption, is when killing someone who isn't fighting back, or capable of fighting back (low levels)

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Running away isn't much of an option when you can't CC the target dude. No matter how you put it, punishing someone for defending themselves feels bad. If the corruption is too harsh, all you have is an opt-in PvP feature with more steps

I mean, if you're PKing someone who's surrounded by several other people who're ready to kill you - that's a you problem. And if you've killed someone who was alone - you have time to distance yourself from anyone else, and be on the lookout for any approaching players.

And like I said, the harshness should be balanced in such a way where PKing is still viable from time to time, but rn I doubt it will be. We'll see.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Running away isn't much of an option when you can't CC the target dude. No matter how you put it, punishing someone for defending themselves feels bad. If the corruption is too harsh, all you have is an opt-in PvP feature with more steps

I mean, if you're PKing someone who's surrounded by several other people who're ready to kill you - that's a you problem. And if you've killed someone who was alone - you have time to distance yourself from anyone else, and be on the lookout for any approaching players.

And like I said, the harshness should be balanced in such a way where PKing is still viable from time to time, but rn I doubt it will be. We'll see.

We will indeed see. I am mostly arguing from what corruption has been explained to be. You kill someone who can't fight back or won't fight back, you get corrupted. So naturally if someone engages you, why the hell should you gain even more corruption? It doesn't make sense or feel good as a gameplay design, and it doesn't make sense with the lore of corruption so far. It just feels like an extra kick in the nuts.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

We will indeed see. I am mostly arguing from what corruption has been explained to be. You kill someone who can't fight back or won't fight back, you get corrupted. So naturally if someone engages you, why the hell should you gain even more corruption? It doesn't make sense as a gameplay design, and it doesn't make sense with the lore of corruption so far. It just feels like an extra kick in the nuts.

Because corrupted players become "mobs" and greens don't flag against those.

Also, this directly prevents the main abuse of the corruption system. If greens "flag" against reds - a red party can then just go on an absolute destruction spree, because everyone will be "flagging" against them. This is exactly what would lead to the very griefing the system is trying to prevent. There'd be no punishment for the PKer.

Child Item