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

Dygz

I think I already answered that.
We don't need to agree on the usages we prefer.

If it's a player who typically plays Arena on PvE servers because they don't enjoy non-consensual PvP - it doesn't really matter whether we call them a PvPer or a PvEer - that player most likely will not be playting Ashes because they don't like to play MMORPGs on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers.
So, they are basically going to be in the same category as players who play on PvE-Only servers - even if they sometimes like to PvP.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.

If you want to come up with a label for players who like consensual PvP sometimes but hate non-consensual PvP - go for it.

Otr

Dygz wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

I don't like the NW toggle system.
And having separate servers is like a permanent toggle you choose when you make a character. Is somewhat better but I still have doubts about that. Not from player base size but from developers ability to stay true to the PvP side of game while the majority of players might be on the PvE side.
I prefer some players who would go to PvE servers to actually try to play and become PvX players.
And some to not come at all.

Of course, you don't like the NW toggle system. Why did you think needed to tell me that?

I don't know

CROW3

Otr wrote: »

Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.

I’m hoping logarithmic. That curve accelerates faster than a linear scale, but begins to flatten out at some threshold - it could be 100 kills or 10, but at some point there’s a diminishing return on punishment. Particularly if you need to pay it down.

Otr

CROW3 wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Will it be logarithmic or exponential?
Logarithmic means the added corruption becomes smaller with each additional kill.

I’m hoping logarithmic. That curve accelerates faster than a linear scale, but begins to flatten out at some threshold - it could be 100 kills or 10, but at some point there’s a diminishing return on punishment. Particularly if you need to pay it down.

I am not against a logarithmic curve but I always assumed wiki implies an exponential one and staying red long time will not be possible. But if being red brings risk, and risk is a core pillar, maybe those reds will ensure bounty hunters are always busy.

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

I think I already answered that.
We don't need to agree on the usages we prefer.

If it's a player who typically plays Arena on PvE servers because they don't enjoy non-consensual PvP - it doesn't really matter whether we call them a PvPer or a PvEer - that player most likely will not be playting Ashes because they don't like to play MMORPGs on PvP servers or PvP-Optional servers.
So, they are basically going to be in the same category as players who play on PvE-Only servers - even if they sometimes like to PvP.
A rose by any other name is still a rose.

If you want to come up with a label for players who like consensual PvP sometimes but hate non-consensual PvP - go for it.

well, you have a good point there. someone who likes arena and pvp events but doesnt like open world pvp probably wont play ashes because of their experience in wow just getting killed left and right in ow pvp...unless we had something like a penalty of some sort, or deterrent or just consequences when you kill someone in open world pvp...hmm i wonder if ashes had that? i mean ther ewasnt any consequence for killing someone of the opposing faction in wow...maybe ahses should have some deterrent...

Dygz

It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about wanting to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.

Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.

Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.

does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.

Dygz

Nope. I play hardcore hours, so I can usually complete that kind of quest fairly quickly when there is low server population. On PvE servers, other players cannot disrupt my play session goals.
That only ever occurs with non-consensual PvP.

Depraved

Dygz wrote: »

Nope. I play hardcore hours, so I can usually complete that kind of quest fairly quickly when there is low server population. On PvE servers, other players cannot disrupt my play session goals.
That only ever occurs with non-consensual PvP.

well, I envy you, because when I've played games with no open world PVP (combat) I used to rage pretty often because of people farming where I am, etc. and that's back then when I used to play 10-15 hours a day...i rather finish something in 30 mins than in 1 or 2 hours, even if I play all day.

I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>

Ludullu

Depraved wrote: »

I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>

Yep, I had the same feeling when I tried wow. Couldn't stand that someone else was taking mobs near me and I couldn't do shit about it.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

I categorize by the server type the player plays on - so, for me, PvP players who play on PvE servers in WoW because they don't like "Open World PvP" would be PvEers.

Agreed for the sake of discussion.

Would the PvEers out there be opposed to PvPers receiving a small (but not insignificant) buff to exp gained in return for perma-flagging?

Personally I'd be willing to perma flag, or at least play under firmer flagging rules, as long as the game rewards / compensates for it.

I'd also argue that me perma-flagging makes non-consensual PvP less likely for PvEers.

EDIT: to add to this, ideally corruption would still be incurred when killing combatants that are significantly lower in level.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>

Yep, I had the same feeling when I tried wow. Couldn't stand that someone else was taking mobs near me and I couldn't do shit about it.

Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)

Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.

Ridiculous. Totally beyond immersion-breaking. Game-breaking IMO.

Azherae

Depraved wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

It's not really even about being killed.
Rather it's about want to have full control over when you participate in PvP combat and when you don't.
Rather than some random gamer deciding for you when you must participate in PvP combat.
Who wins or loses is mostly irrelevant - especially if that's going to add more than 5-10 minutes to your play session goals.

Ashes has The Open Seas. With no deterrents.

does it bother you if you want to farm a mob to finish a quest, but there are people killing the mob and you cant finish your quest? do you feel like you don't have control because some random gamers wont let you finish your quest? in pve servers I mean.

That's called 'bad quest design' though.

It applies both ways, I've brought this up to them recently.

That Minotaur Stormcaller thing is set up to be miserable in ANY game.

Dygz

Depraved wrote: »

well, I envy you, because when I've played games with no open world PVP (combat) I used to rage pretty often because of people farming where I am, etc. and that's back then when I used to play 10-15 hours a day...i rather finish something in 30 mins than in 1 or 2 hours, even if I play all day.

I've always found that other players disrupt my play session and I cant just kill them (no owpvp). if anything, best I can do is mob drop them xD but some of them also try to do that to me >_>

I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear.
My bartle score is Explorer 87%; Socializer 73% ; Achiever 47%; Killer 0%
Which means I am also highly social.
So, sharing farm spots with other players is always welcome.

I imagine the opposite is true for competitive gamers who enjoy defeating and killing other gamers.
Yes.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)

Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.

Ridiculous. Totally beyond immersion-breaking. Game-breaking IMO.

In RPGs -including MMORPGs- my Class choices will revolve around movement, Stealth and/or Healing; not combat.
RPG Classes are not really intended to be all about combat.
That MMORPGs rely so heavily on combat is a detriment to the RPG aspect of MMO RPG.
So instead of tripling-down on Class (Primary Archetype) being all about combat - as tech improves, MMORPG Classes should provide more Skills and abilities that are non-combat.

Seems like project Ghost by Fantastic Pixel Castle is heading in that direction.
And I expect to be playing that most of the time - if it releases.
Also because I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear, I'm unlikely to have "sworn enemy" - especially not another player.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Yeah I can't even imagine this gameplay. I'd have quit decades ago.
These are games that revolve around combat; in general the most consequential choice you make for your character is class (primary archetype) which is all about combat.
The story, lore, environment etc is also all centred around conflict (factions/nodes/religions/resources etc etc)

Then, you are standing next to your "sworn enemy".. and all you can do is engage in /emote warfare.

Ridiculous. Totally beyond immersion-breaking. Game-breaking IMO.

That MMORPGs rely so heavily on combat is a detriment to the RPG aspect of MMO RPG.
RPG classes are not really intended to be all about combat.
So instead of tripling-down on Class (Primary Archetype) being all about combat - as tech improves, MMORPG classes should provide more Skills and abilities that are non-combat.

Seems like project Ghost by Fantastic Pixel Castle is heading in that direction.
And I expect to be playing that most of the time - if it releases.
Also because I am a commie/hippie non-competitive Carebear, I'm unlikely to have "sworn enemy" - especially not another player.

Niche opinions/dreams aside a sec, you have to admit that until now that is generally the case. Class selection (IE combat abilities) are core.

The example of WoW was given earlier; a game literally called World of Warcraft, players split into two warring factions.. and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.

blat

blat wrote: »

Would the PvEers out there be opposed to PvPers receiving a small (but not insignificant) buff to exp gained in return for perma-flagging?

Personally I'd be willing to perma flag, or at least play under firmer flagging rules, as long as the game rewards / compensates for it.

I'd also argue that me perma-flagging makes non-consensual PvP less likely for PvEers.

EDIT: to add to this, ideally corruption would still be incurred when killing combatants that are significantly lower in level.

Btw @Dygz, intrigued as to your thoughts on this suggestion. And any other PvEers out there.

Also, fellow PvPers, would you take such a deal?

Dygz

I would never under any circumstances perma-flag for PvP combat.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

and you can't attack the enemy stood next to you (on a PvE server)... is totally absurd.

Oh, and just to make it clear, I wasn't talking about pve servers or enemies. I was annoyed that another dude being of my faction was preventing me from removing him from the location. This is why I always disliked faction-based games.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

I would never under any circumstances perma-flag for PvP combat.

Yeah thanks for clearing that up.

I'm obviously talking about PvPers having the option to perma flag and being incentivised to do so, via say a buff to exp gained

Child Item