Corruption system and getting "the jump" in wpvp

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ethanh37

the concept of fair/fariness in open world PVP is a non starter the only time to get fair combat is if in arena pvp where level and stats, equipment can be with in a margin of fairness. open world PVP can be a level 50 vs a level 1 or 10 level 50 vs a level 1 the point of open PVP is to have the risk VS reward be the test by witch something is controlled. the scenario in your 1 v 1 is just a strategy that is a big risk the defenders sidecan take as he has to hope the attacker does not wish too go red( corrupt) and if the attacker did not wishing to go red then maybe he would have to think about why he attacked in the first place.. is the risk worth the reward...

hleV

While I get "pure PvEers" who don't wish to partake in PvP, I wish "hehe I won't fight back so you either fuck off or become corrupted" wasn't a thing, it feels like exploiting the system that encourages you to fight back. Plenty of ways to annoy someone without attacking, yet the other guy getting rid of you is considered evil.

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.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.

No, that is exactly how it should be. The attacker should either be ready to go Red (depending on his goals) or ready to get fucked by CCs in return. The attacker has the advantage of the first strike and the victim has the advantage of CCing and retaliating. Seems as fair as possible to me.

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.

blat wrote: »

Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.

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.

Flanker

blat wrote: »

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.

But

blat wrote: »

To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.

Could you be more specific please? Because "to me this would feel a bit broken" most likely won't lead to any meaningful and constructive discussion

koltovince

For the 1v1 situation, I have come to the basic idea that someone who initiates combat with a non-combatant is already someone who takes the first step. The other person didnt start the fight, the combatant did, and thus they should have the will to finish the fight they started or else why did they start the fight?

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.

Yikan

blat wrote: »

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.

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.

blat wrote: »

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?

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.

blat

Ethanh37 wrote: »

the concept of fair/fariness in open world PVP is a non starter the only time to get fair combat is if in arena pvp where level and stats, equipment can be with in a margin of fairness. open world PVP can be a level 50 vs a level 1 or 10 level 50 vs a level 1 the point of open PVP is to have the risk VS reward be the test by witch something is controlled. the scenario in your 1 v 1 is just a strategy that is a big risk the defenders sidecan take as he has to hope the attacker does not wish too go red( corrupt) and if the attacker did not wishing to go red then maybe he would have to think about why he attacked in the first place.. is the risk worth the reward...

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.

blat

hleV wrote: »

While I get "pure PvEers" who don't wish to partake in PvP, I wish "hehe I won't fight back so you either fuck off or become corrupted" wasn't a thing, it feels like exploiting the system that encourages you to fight back. Plenty of ways to annoy someone without attacking, yet the other guy getting rid of you is considered evil.

Plus I think it's weird for anyone looking for some OWPvP, running around hitting players until one of them decides to hit back.

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.

blat

Flanker wrote: »

Could you be more specific please? Because "to me this would feel a bit broken" most likely won't lead to any meaningful and constructive discussion

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.

daveywavey

blat wrote: »

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.

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.

blat

daveywavey wrote: »

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!)

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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.

To me that is the only true owpvp. Anything else is either a full gank that's completely unfair or scaling harassment, where the attacker just keeps the victim at low hp w/o killing them.

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.

unknownsystemerror

blat wrote: »

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!)

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

blat

NiKr wrote: »

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.

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.

blat

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

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.

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!

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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.

And the current system presents exactly that. Anyone can be attacked at any time, but both sides of the encounter are in danger, because the victim could be hit with a super strong ability that bring them really low, while the attacker could be hit back with the strongest CC that allows the victim to retaliate in a big way.

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.

blat

This still feels a bit... artificial(?) to me. Then again I haven't played an MMO with those types of rules so, maybe it works without getting in the way too much?

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).

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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).

If Intrepid keep to their "30s-1min ttk" promise (a big IF at the moment) - your big opener would still be only ~20% of hp. You ain't becoming a PKer from just that.

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?

Nightmarelol

@blat, judging from your profile I see you might be a former or current player from WoW. If so, have we thought of designated areas (hoping massive ones) where once you enter this area, regardless of your corruption stance, all players in this designated area (or areas) become flagged for PvP and just like the way WoW did it no matter what you are hostile to everyone except for the members in your Party.

unknownsystemerror

Nightmarelol wrote: »

@blat, judging from your profile I see you might be a former or current player from WoW. If so, have we thought of designated areas (hoping massive ones) where once you enter this area, regardless of your corruption stance, all players in this designated area (or areas) become flagged for PvP and just like the way WoW did it no matter what you are hostile to everyone except for the members in your Party.

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

Child Item