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

blat

NiKr wrote: »

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.

Ah fair. Misunderstood. I hate that too. But at least it's not quite as absurd as being unable to attack an enemy faction (or node/whatever).

Dygz

blat wrote: »

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

LMAO
Not as obvious as you think. I had to read that 5+ times to finally figure out what you meant.
I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.
I'm also not sure why I would have any interest in playing an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that it's giving bonuses for flagging for PvP combat.

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?

Pretty clear no?

Dygz wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

JustVine

blat wrote: »

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

A. I can imagine it would make the types of groups (people similar to me) that overlap with PvEr's who are less benevolent than I to push the larger PvE community to 'flag always on to optimize XP' while not giving any real incentive to the more hardcore PvE onlies to actually engage.

B. As a PvP enjoyer exp doesn't effect me. The whole point of PvEvP 'open flagging' to me is so that we can properly contest hunting grounds.

GrilledCheeseMojito

blat wrote: »

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?

Pretty clear no?

Dygz wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

A. It depends on the multiplier, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very easy to come up with a number that leads to PvE becoming a second class citizen unless other compensation is provided.
B. If you mean flag at all times forever from account creation, I wouldn't do it. Some days I just want to go pick some herbs undisturbed and would find it really annoying to have to be subjected at all times to it, in a game that *claims* to be PvX. If you're locked in to flagging permanently I would just play something else more clearly designed to be PvP only.

SunScript

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?

It's terrible design on multiple levels, so yes I am opposed. Let me know if you would like me to break down the whys.

blat wrote: »

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

You're actually attempting to satisfy a half-acknowledged personal need by having people reassure you we will all want the same thing so it's ok for you to get invested into Ashes.
Ah sorry, this one wasn't a question, I gotta kick that habit.

blat wrote: »

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?

Ah, I believe I already answered above.

blat wrote: »

B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

As a PvP enjoyer (yes I know it's all hip and cool on these forums to pretend people are one or the other lol) I would find this system insulting on multiple levels. I would probably dismiss such a game as bad and never even give it a fair chance because the people who could make such a system fair are maybe like 5 in the entire world IMO. Like above, hit me up if you want me to break it down.

GrandSerpent

blat wrote: »

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?

Pretty clear no?

Dygz wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

A: I don't think that I understand what the XP bonus would be meant to accomplish. I guess incentivizing a larger population of the playerbase to remain flagged, so that PvP players are more likely to be able to find someone to fight? I don't think I'd object to it if the XP bonus was relatively small.

B: I wouldn't consider doing this, bonus XP isn't worth being unable to do PvE content undisturbed when I want to. If I wanted that kind of experience, I'd play a MOBA or fighting game instead.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

Pretty clear no?

Nope. But... I finally got it... so...
No worries.

blat wrote: »

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

You are being very constructive. No worries, there.

PvP is not the foundation of RPGs. That is trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.
Which is why PvPers typically find a great deal of dissatisfaction with PvP design in MMORPGs.
Always-on PvP is going to be pretty niche for RPGs - MMORPGs included.

If the suggested mechanic does not negate the non-consensual PvP in The Open Seas, it's mostly moot.
And very possibly unnecessary if the Corruption-free Open Seas did not exist and Corruption worked as intended.

blat wrote: »

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

I would not play an MMORPG that is so PvP-centric that PvPers gain a bonus for perma-flagging for PvP unless I could perma-flag PvE and always ignore PvP combat - like I do in New World.

SongRune

blat wrote: »

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

What's the point? The goal seems to be giving the PvP players an advantage over PvE players in PvE progression for... being PvP players? What does a PvE player get out of this, or is it just a strict disadvantage? I don't really like the idea of "flag up or lose out", personally.

blat

GrilledCheeseMojito wrote: »

blat wrote: »

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?

Pretty clear no?

Dygz wrote: »

I guess I don't understand how this suggestion negates the current design of The Open Seas auto-flagging everyone for PvP combat.

It doesn't.
I'm attempting to be constructive here, btw!

I'm referring to the original point in this thread.
IE: the weird* dynamics that come with the opt-in flagging system. (* Weird to those of us who prefer an always-on PvP environment)

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

A. It depends on the multiplier, doesn't it? I'm not opposed to the idea, but it's very easy to come up with a number that leads to PvE becoming a second class citizen unless other compensation is provided.
B. If you mean flag at all times forever from account creation, I wouldn't do it. Some days I just want to go pick some herbs undisturbed and would find it really annoying to have to be subjected at all times to it, in a game that *claims* to be PvX. If you're locked in to flagging permanently I would just play something else more clearly designed to be PvP only.

Reasonable, similar to @JustVine's point above.

A: it does def depend on the multiplier. I guess the reason I've gone with an exp gain specifically is to offset for the increased downtime that comes with PvP, exp loss from deaths etc. Seems to me like a reasonable balance could be found that could give everyone what they want.
B: yeah fair. Those details could be debated though. IE: a toggle that can be set in town / your home node etc.

Azherae

blat wrote: »

A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?

I generally choose not to play games that can't come up with better than this.

blat wrote: »

B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

Same answer.

blat

SongRune wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

What's the point? The goal seems to be giving the PvP players an advantage over PvE players in PvE progression for... being PvP players? What does a PvE player get out of this, or is it just a strict disadvantage? I don't really like the idea of "flag up or lose out", personally.

A PvEer gets the advantage of reduced non-consensual PvP activity. Well the point really would be to compensate PvPers to remain flagged.

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

blat

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?

I generally choose not to play games that can't come up with better than this.

Well this is I'm addition to the existing corruption mechanics right. Just to fix* the issue* that this thread exists to discuss.

*I know I know, not everyone agrees it's an issue that needs fixing. Some do, though.
Before the semantic warriors charge to the rescue!

SongRune

blat wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Regardless, I wonder:
A: would PvEers be opposed to PvPers receiving an exp buff in exchange for the PvPers perma-flagging?
B: would PvPers consider perma-flagging if they received such a buff to exp?

What's the point? The goal seems to be giving the PvP players an advantage over PvE players in PvE progression for... being PvP players? What does a PvE player get out of this, or is it just a strict disadvantage? I don't really like the idea of "flag up or lose out", personally.

A PvEer gets the advantage of reduced non-consensual PvP activity. Well the point really would be to compensate PvPers to remain flagged.

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

I'm not seeing it. How do I get lowered risk of nonconsentual PvP here? People who want to gank me are not in any way prevented from doing so are they? Maybe they have more other people to fight, but 'lack of consensual PvP options' was never a PvEr's problem. The problem was "gonna get ganked cause somebody else wants your spot or resources". People who want a fair, willing opponent could already find one.

This sounds like "consenting to PvP gives you a benefit". Was there another part to this scenario that wasn't in the post? The only thing this does to reduce nonconsentual PvP is pushing people to consent by penalizing them for not doing so.

Azherae

blat wrote: »

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

A useful note is probably that this is the fundamental difference between us and 'you' (or Steven).

We don't want to play a game 'about conflict'. We want to play 'a Fantasy game about Nodes which allows reasonable/meaningful conflict'.

We have enough games that are about conflict to play, and we have a non-Fantasy game with 'Nodes' AND a better conflict system.

So the response to such suggestion just ends up being 'whatever makes conflict-first players happy'.

I mention this because I got them to engage enough to answer, but probably won't get more than that.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

A: it does def depend on the multiplier. I guess the reason I've gone with an exp gain specifically is to offset for the increased downtime that comes with PvP, exp loss from deaths etc. Seems to me like a reasonable balance could be found that could give everyone what they want.
B: yeah fair. Those details could be debated though. IE: a toggle that can be set in town / your home node etc.

I don't consider it an offset since PvPers already have a half-normal reduction in death pnealties.

blat

Dygz wrote: »

blat wrote: »

A: it does def depend on the multiplier. I guess the reason I've gone with an exp gain specifically is to offset for the increased downtime that comes with PvP, exp loss from deaths etc. Seems to me like a reasonable balance could be found that could give everyone what they want.
B: yeah fair. Those details could be debated though. IE: a toggle that can be set in town / your home node etc.

I don't consider it an offset since PvPers already have a half-normal reduction in death pnealties.

Lol well regardless, flagging in advance obviously increases your chance of dying to PvP, and that'd have to be incentivised somehow, eg via a buff to exp.
It's really not complicated.

I reckon I could propose that 2+2=4 here and the thread would light up with PvEers who've found a way to disagree.

blat

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

A useful note is probably that this is the fundamental difference between us and 'you' (or Steven).

We don't want to play a game 'about conflict'. We want to play 'a Fantasy game about Nodes which allows reasonable/meaningful conflict'.

All respect but we are on an Ashes forum right, the brainchild of Steven who has repeatedly declared conflict and risk v reward to be central to gameplay.
We're not necessarily discussing our personal hopes and dreams for MMOs generally.

Azherae

blat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

A useful note is probably that this is the fundamental difference between us and 'you' (or Steven).

We don't want to play a game 'about conflict'. We want to play 'a Fantasy game about Nodes which allows reasonable/meaningful conflict'.

All respect but we are on an Ashes forum right, the brainchild of Steven who has repeatedly declared conflict and risk v reward to be central to gameplay.
We're not necessarily discussing our personal hopes and dreams for MMOs generally.

Ashes is still a little unclear for some of us, you see.

Don't worry, we'll probably realize and leave eventually. It's just taking a long time.

blat

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Yknow because the game is about conflict. Risk v reward, etc etc.

A useful note is probably that this is the fundamental difference between us and 'you' (or Steven).

We don't want to play a game 'about conflict'. We want to play 'a Fantasy game about Nodes which allows reasonable/meaningful conflict'.

All respect but we are on an Ashes forum right, the brainchild of Steven who has repeatedly declared conflict and risk v reward to be central to gameplay.
We're not necessarily discussing our personal hopes and dreams for MMOs generally.

Ashes is still a little unclear for some of us, you see.

Don't worry, we'll probably realize and leave eventually. It's just taking a long time.

Well for me too. The purpose of the thread was to discuss a v specific situation that is more relevant to PvPers, who are not so familiar with a flagging system.
And an incentive to pre-flag is a humble attempt to address that, without penalising the PvEers out there.

It'd be nice if people could recognise a genuine constructive attempt without it descending into the usual polarised tit-for-tat rubbish.

Child Item