Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Corruption system and getting "the jump" in wpvp
blat
Member
I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios?
1v1:
Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp.
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
Group v group:
Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond?
Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.
I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!).
I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though.
Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
1v1:
Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp.
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.
Group v group:
Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond?
Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.
I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!).
I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though.
Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.
1
Comments
Plus I think it's weird for anyone looking for some OWPvP, running around hitting players until one of them decides to hit back. Really wish PvPers could just permaflag for some PvP-specific benefits, so that permaflaggers would immediately see who's ready for PvP (or rather has no other choice since they permaflagged) and wouldn't have to bother with green players. I suppose some sort of PvP-specific titles/icons over your name indicating that you're a PvPer could help, but I don't think we have any info whether we'd get something like that.
If the attacker is dumb enough to just stand next to a healing and buffing victim w/o thinking that this victim is about to throw down - that's completely on the attacker, and not the system.
If the victim group were not aware of their surroundings and couldn't react to the attackers - that's their fault.
And the attacking party would have only 1 PKer, because it's the killing blow that gives you corruption - not attacks themselves.
As much as I hate to admit it WPVP in an MMO is almost never equal. Gear, level, terrain, and game knowledge will differ between everyone in open world pvp. Unless the match is instanced the fight will never be truly equal and it is up to the player to overcome the odds. Or to be the issue and use the odds in their favor.
I don't understand the argument that a person who choses not to fight back can be considered a willing and active pvper. My understanding is that an active pvper would be someone who is currently flagged "purple". I don't know how long after pvp it takes to go back to "green". I do agree that there should be an option for someone to flag "purple" without have to enter combat.
I think the attackers should get corruption if they focus fire a "green" player and kill them before they have the chance to react. Currently though, only the person with the killing blow would get corruption.
If you want to focus down someone without getting corruption, why not try baiting them to flag. Have one member of your group attack them. If they fight back, the rest of you (hidden) focus down someone who flagged. This doesn't have to take place all at once. The bait could run away and your group could wait and jump later, before the flag wears off.
As for the focused person not getting the option to reduce the penalty for dying by fighting back. Well, that sucks, but at least their party can get revenge on the one person that might have gained corruption.
Well this is kind've my point. That in wpvp getting the jump (an advantage) is fair.
All I'm arguing here is that it has the potential to feel a bit janky. If person A opens up on person B (let's say they've been pvping each other all day, attempting to control resources or whatever).. then if A's opener is strong enough (eg like a mage in wow sheeping you and casting a big pyro that crits for 50% hp) then the incentive is for B to consider not bothering and daring A to take corruption.
We don't want wpvp to turn into a duelling game, where both sides only participate when they get a totally fair 3-2-1 count.
Yeah exactly this. We want to accommodate all types of players, which is so clearly what corruption is trying to achieve. I guess here we're just "theory testing" some of these mechanics to make sure they don't get in the way too much and let the game flow more naturally.
Well apologies if unclear I have tried to give examples and a tonne of context.
I'm saying I'm a fan of what corruption is trying to achieve, but wondering if the system does break down slightly in these "getting the jump" (the opener) scenarios, provided in my first post.
What I mean by "break down" is when the system is accidentally working to punish valid gameplay. Like an overzealous firewall accidentally blocking valid traffic.
In these hypothetical scenarios, I'm giving examples of two parties of willing & active pvpers being hit by corruption + drop penalties when perhaps they shouldn't.
Or at least being threatened with these penalties, affecting the natural gameplay.
If I'm pvping with someone on & off all day, and he comes along and manages to catch me unawares and pulls off his ideal start with cc & big dmg.. then fairplay to him. I should have to either fight back against the odds or run.
I shouldn't be able to decide to stand there and effectively threaten him with corruption, purely because he got the opener.
hleV's post above also summarises the concern pretty well.
That's the choice that Person B gets:
1) Fight back, try to heal up and win the fight, but even if you do die you only drop half the resources.
2) Don't fight back, hoping that they want to avoid Corruption, but risking more of your resources being dropped on your death.
If you're the Attacker and you want the kill without gaining Corruption, it's probably in your best interests to not open with your full salvo, to goad them into fighting back. And then once they're purple, you turn up the heat.
Doesn't that feel artificial and in the way of proper wpvp to you?
To me it feels not too far off having to agree formally to a duel, pistols at dawn.
I wonder though if being able to manually flag in advance (maybe with some buff to incentivise?) as hleV suggested could go a long way to solving it. (If it does even need solving! The game quite literally doesn't exist yet!)
The "duel at dawn" should be the goal of owpvp, because both sides have full agreement and understanding of what's about to happen and the consequences of that happening.
That is just another version of opt-in pvp, just the other way. And it functions to give those who chose to "toggle up" a case situation to avoid regular death penalties. If everyone exists in a "green state" until they initiate pvp, the corruption system works. If it is a toggle choice, then you will basically see anyone grinding pve content as pvp toggled to avoid death penalties to pve mobs. Dying as a green does not double your exp timesink, it is the standard. Dying as a purple halves that. They already plan case exceptions for certain content that is meant to be "challenging" to have modifiers to the death penalties where they choose to put them.
Experience debt is the bite of not achieving success. If I die to a monster because my strategy was bad, because my performance was bad, because my planning was bad: all of that means that debt is the cost I pay for the bad choice.[31] – Steven Sharif
It's a fair point. I love me a "duel at dawn" and that's definitely the purest 1v1 skill test. But I don't think it's classic owpvp.
Personally it's more about the element of danger. The risk of being opened on at any time. The decision of whether I should attack first as a form of defence, to at least ensure I get the opener before he takes it.
Owpvp has those extra environmental, situational variables to bring a bit of chaos.
Another good point.
That rules out our workaround then, back to square one. I think there'll a bit of awkward jank in this corruption system. Then again we're a long way off release with plenty of testing + feedback to do!
Both sides experience the danger of pvp, while also actively participating in it.
And depending on the willingness and/or game knowledge of either side - the supposed "victim" could be the first one to strike. In L2 (where this system was taken from) the "victim" would quite often strike first, if it was confident in its strength. This would especially happen between classes that had a different approach to pvp (one with stronger CCs and the other with higher dps/burst), or simply between a range "victim" and a melee attacker-to-be.
I just don't like the potential dynamic where a really strong opener is punished by the threat of corruption (vs someone who is a willing pvper).
And as I said, if the target is a "willing pvper" quite often they'll be the first ones to strike.
Also, all of this is talking about some random 1v1 situations, while real pvp will be happening between warring guilds and nodes, where PKing is completely free at all times during the war, at which point if the target DIDN'T hit you first - they probably are shit at tracking their surroundings.
p.s. "switching on" pvp is the most artificial system there could be, so I don't really understand what you mean by this system feeling artificial. If a dude hits me - I know for sure he's my enemy. What can be more intuitive and "realistic" than that?
Already a thing. There are something like 9 different "sanctioned" pvp events and areas in Ashes. The open seas being an always flagged purple zone being the biggest. However, if you are red, you stay red.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/PvP
Corruption is what happens when you bloody murder Someone without that said Someone fighting back at all, right ?
So imagine You - well - stalk the Wilderness and then ambush a Player and bloody murder him, for this Ressources, Ingredients, Materials, whatever he/she has in their Pockets, right ?
Corruption for murdering even ONE Person will stick quite a few Minutes - but will go away again eventually.
Your Risk is -> You are now flagged so that People can just "murder You" (lol) and you might even drop one Piece of your Armor, Weapons, etc. But most likely a smaller Armor Piece like Shoulders, Gloves, Helmet, Cape, whatever.
However,
should You manage to wait long enough until the Corruption has left your Character - You can approach your Node again without the Guards murdering You - having Parts of whatever that Player you killed was carrying in your Pockets - along with whatever else You might have gathered yourself.
Even when playing as an "evil Player", the Risk versus Reward-Logic still applies.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
But what if I use a big cooldown to initiate combat? The target (let's assume he's an active pvper here) could just decide to sit this one out, and dare me to take corruption.
I then stop attacking before he dies. Combat drops. He heals up.
Then he could attack me, or I him.
Except now I've just wasted a cooldown.
All I'm getting at with these scenarios, is that I feel corruption can be leaned on and "low-key" (sorry) exploited by active pvpers.
Rather than simply protecting the non-pvpers out there.
There's no abuse of the system here. There's only poor decision-making and/or weird goals behind the initial attack.
You may be misunderstanding, not sure.
It's not really about them returning fire, I only include that to further highlight that this is a fellow PvPer.
Let's say, two people have been fighting (consensually) all day, both are willing combatants. Sometimes person A wins, sometimes person B. They're fighting over resources but enjoying the pvp challenge too
All I'm saying, or asking is; in this scenario, can the corruption system be used here in a way other than intended?
IE: this time round person B gets a really good start on person A. Maybe it's a ranger who's managed to get the jump on a fighter, and starts unloading on him at max range.
The fighter in this example can just decide to skip this round, not fight back, and dare the attacker to take corruption.
Then the attacker stops, they depart (for now) and go back to competing over resources.
Isn't this an obvious example of the system getting in the way of natural gameplay?
I am making the assumption here that corruption is intended to help prevent/reduce the more "toxic" PvP gameplay and protect PvEers, via it's use of incentive/disincentive, not to get in the way of combat between willing PvPers
How am I wrong here then? (Semantic bs aside)
While I can see how a ffa system could be seen as more straightforward, I'm sure it would just lead to OP people murdering literally everyone they see w/o anyone being able to fight back or even get powerful enough to fight back (afaik, that's the case in full loot free pvp games).
The attacker stopping if the target doesn't fight back would be the same as an irl fight stopping if one side gives up. Don't see how this is unnatural.
I'm not intending to argue here, exactly the opposite; I'm actually a bit of a fan of this corruption system and am trying to help theory-probe for gaps.
And to me, using the (very common) scenario I outlined.. this feels like one of those moments where the system gets in the way.
(Well ok I can't rule out defending resources, but generally no interest).
I play for the competitive element, and love those ongoing 'grudges' with like-minded people in the area.
My scenarios is clear; two such players, both totally happy to fight with each other. Taking turns to get "the jump" (a central element in wpvp.. situational awareness, preparation, environment).
In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.
That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.
So... they basically 'ragequit', and this is a concern in an MMO because... you're not having as much fun if your opponent ragequits?
Or... what?
Just don't fight weaklings.
Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?
Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?