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

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ignoring the fact that IRL and games have different consequences for those things, you know that is a horrible argument as the current system already allows you to freely kill someone after they attacked someone. It's already allowed, I'm just saying increase the time period it's allowed.

Well then all I can say is "I prefer the current timer"

blat

"Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?

NiKr wrote: »

Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills.

Disagreeing is fine but this is where any attempt at discussion just breaks down. Zero attempt to self-reflect or even understand the other perspective.
You are obviously used to a pretty particular set of rules. Of course anyone who is used to rule-less pvp is going to wonder how those rules manage to do their jobs without getting in the way unintentionally.

NiKr wrote: »

Because again, this game is not meant for free kills.

I have to assume this is trolling at this stage. After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

I have to assume this is trolling at this stage. After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".

I've asked several times for a clarification. What does the system prevent you from doing? Because the only thing I see is "killing the dude w/o repercussions". Mag noted that as well.

This is the main reason why I say that I see no "exploits" in this situation. I see several exploits of the target not being able to do any content, but that's an exploit on the side of the initial attacker and not the target.

So I'll ask again, what exactly is the system preventing you from doing here?

blat

NiKr wrote: »

the only thing I see is "killing the dude w/o repercussions".

Yeah I give up then. Others seemed to have managed fine, and attempted their own explanation. It's subtle maybe but really not complicated.

I'll leave you with @mcstackerson's attempt, which was spot on.

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.

I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Yeah I give up then. Others seemed to have managed fine, and attempted their own explanation. It's subtle maybe but really not complicated

Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.

Ok, then another question. How is that boldened part not "kill the dude for free"? Cause you said

blat wrote: »

After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".

Yet, the only thing that the system is stopping you from is "a free kill".

This is the part I'm not understanding. Your words say one thing, yet when I ask about that thing - you say that you mean some other thing.

If you just say "yes, I want to get a free kill on this person that was pvping me a minute ago but is now not flagged for pvp" - I'll completely understand your point and will simply disagree with it.

Yet you insist that this is not your point.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Yeah I give up then. Others seemed to have managed fine, and attempted their own explanation. It's subtle maybe but really not complicated

Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.

Ok, then another question. How is that boldened part not "kill the dude for free"? Cause you said

blat wrote: »

After multiple attempts to explain the scenario which never once hinted at wanting "free kills".

Yet, the only thing that the system is stopping you from is "a free kill".

This is the part I'm not understanding. Your words say one thing, yet when I ask about that thing - you say that you mean some other thing.

If you just say "yes, I want to get a free kill on this person that was pvping me a minute ago but is now not flagged for pvp" - I'll completely understand your point and will simply disagree with it.

Yet you insist that this is not your point.

Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."

Do you see this statement as false or true?

Yes, to your last part. We, or at least I, think that a person who intentionally attacked a non-combatant doesn't get to easily slip back to being a non-combatant and gain its protections after a little 30 second timer.

Okeydoke

blat wrote: »

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

I wouldn't call it broken, but yes the system is getting in the way of the particular pvp dynamics you mentioned. Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals. That is the price we pay. Push and pull, pros and cons, every system has them.

So yes that kind of unnatural feeling will be present when attacking greens/noncombatants. It does create a unique decision matrix for all the parties involved though, which will probably be interesting. You can't CC greens either. Your CC's will not affect them until they flag up and defend themselves.

That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation. Guild wars, node wars, caravans, sieges, the open ocean where everyone is flagged combatant by default, and when you come upon already combatant flagged, or corrupted players on land - in all of these other pvp situations it should have a more natural feel. You will be able to get the jump on people in all of these other situations and take full advantage of it.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Yet you insist that this is not your point.

Yeah because it's not. You keep telling me what I apparently want, clearly making no real attempt to understand the PoV, just ploughing forward with your own version.

When have made any suggestion that sounds like 'free kill'? I'm talking about getting the jump in wpvp, and then using the threat of corruption to nullify that (valid) jump advantage.

If you don't like my explanations, then try either @mcstackerson's or @hleV's, both clearly understood the issue.

blat wrote: »

Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?

NiKr wrote: »

Honestly, no.

Says all I need to know.

Mag7spy

I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.

Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.

blat

Okeydoke wrote: »

blat wrote: »

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

I wouldn't call it broken, but yes the system is getting in the way of the particular pvp dynamics you mentioned. Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals. That is the price we pay. Push and pull, pros and cons, every system has them.

So yes that kind of unnatural feeling will be present when attacking greens/noncombatants. It does create a unique decision matrix for all the parties involved though, which will probably be interesting. You can't CC greens either. Your CC's will not affect them until they flag up and defend themselves.

That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation. Guild wars, node wars, caravans, sieges, the open ocean where everyone is flagged combatant by default, and when you come upon already combatant flagged, or corrupted players on land - in all of these other pvp situations it should have a more natural feel. You will be able to get the jump on people in all of these other situations and take full advantage of it.

Oh look - another person capable of understanding.

Okeydoke wrote: »

That said, that unnatural dynamic is isolated to pretty much just that situation.

Okeydoke wrote: »

Simultaneously, that same system is achieving it's other intended goals

Yeah fair. As someone else said earlier, there's probably no easy solution to this (without doing more damage elsewhere). Definitely weird (for me), & have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.

Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.

That's great n all but yet again, I'm not sure who you're talking to because this has never been the point that I or anyone else has been making. But go for it.

mcstackerson

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.

Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.

100% not going to be perfect but if someone jumps you at a spot and pushes you off, I'm not sure if it would be a bad change to the system if they are still considered a combatant, to you at least, when you come back to fight for your spot back.

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.

Also, just objectively speaking here, who's expectation of pvp is more likely to be flawed?
I am used to playing 'pure' pvp I guess you could say, whereas you are clearly used to a set of artificial rules.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that at all, as I've said several times... I like the concept of corruption!
I'm just trying to understand the implications of such a system; where it works perfectly as intended, and where it potentially breaks down and gets in the way a bit.

I have zero doubt Intrepid will have had a lot of similar discussions btw, all sorts of thought-exercises about various scenarios to 'test' whether corruption provides the desired effect. This is how systems are developed.

Mag7spy

blat wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

I'll say this again if you are looking for honorable pvp based around the corruption system in AoC you are nto going to get it. The same way that if you flag up in someone in the open world randomly to attack them you will not get honor there. This is not a flaw in the system but a flaw in your own expectation of pvp.

Stop in front of them and talk, say duel for spot and that is as close to honor as you are going to get if they are willing to do it.

That's great n all but yet again, I'm not sure who you're talking to because this has never been the point that I or anyone else has been making. But go for it.

You made this statement correct?

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.

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

You made this statement correct?

Did you want a "yes" or have you not finished your post?
Do us all a favour and make your point in a single post please rather than making it into a multi-part series.

Okeydoke

blat wrote: »

Yeah fair. As someone else said earlier, there's probably no easy solution to this (without doing more damage elsewhere). Definitely weird (for me), & have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.

Yeah my gut feeling is that attempts to try to fix it would probably just lead to an even more carebear system. I haven't really tried to think of any ways to fix it though. I think it just is what it is. I also come from more pure pvp games, and pure pvp modes like ESO Cyrodiil etc. Maybe there is a way to fix it, I dunno. But I think it'll end up mostly feeling alright regardless as is.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."

Do you see this statement as false or true?

If that person is flagged (or you are both in a pvp event or open seas) - yes, you can kill them for free.

But an unflagged person is not a pvper.

mcstackerson wrote: »

Yes, to your last part. We, or at least I, think that a person who intentionally attacked a non-combatant doesn't get to easily slip back to being a non-combatant and gain its protections after a little 30 second timer.

Uhm...

It's 90 seconds

And as I said, I prefer the current timer.

blat wrote: »

I'm talking about getting the jump in wpvp, and then using the threat of corruption to nullify that (valid) jump advantage.

And again. The "jump" you're doing, in this context, is against a green player. A, by default, passive player.

You are completely free to follow through on your "jump" and kill him. The system is not stopping you from doing that. The only thing it's doing is saying "if you kill a green player - the consequences are different from killing a purple one".

You ask me to see your pov, but you refuse to acknowledge that this game does not have a "free pvp" design. All player are non-combatants by default and return to this default state after 90 seconds of their last attack on a flagged/green player.

Your perceived unfairness comes from the inherent desire to be able to kill another player w/o a punishment. But any opponent can, at any time, decide that they've had enough pvp for the day and decline to flag back up. They won't be "hiding" behind the system or ragequitting (as Azherae put it). No player out there owes you a reciprocal flagging up at all times of your convenience.

I say "honestly no" to that question because that's exactly what I would say to a person who'd ask me "can't you see that him attacking me at any moment is unfair to me?" Both yours and this question are on the extremes of the pvp spectrum. You consider it a disadvantage that you can't keep your unfair advantage over a target, while another person considers it unfair that you even have that advantage.

The system is in the middle. Though it's not even the middle of those 2 extremes, it's way closer to the PK side, because you can still always attack another person and you're always free to kill that person. You just have to take into the account that there'll be consequences.

Also, you keep saying that you "lose advantage" due to this system, but how exactly is that true? You're free to keep up that advantage at all times. You don't need to keep using your strongest abilities on the target. You can just keep him at 25-50% hp until he either leaves, dies or fights back.

And if he does in fact leave, heals back and then comes back - how is that any different from him simply coming back after a death? And as today's showcase (and pretty much all the other ones) showed - none of our damaging abilities have smth like 1m++ cd. And even if the literal strongest ability does have that kind of cd - running away and healing up to full from it would potentially take ~the same amount of time. And this is w/o even mentioning that starting off pvp with it seems a bit silly imo.

blat

Okeydoke wrote: »

Yeah my gut feeling is that attempts to try to fix it would probably just lead to an even more carebear system.

That's a point.. if it changes significantly, eg as a result of some player backlash, it feels more likely to move in that direction.
Tbh I think it'll work too, overall anyway, just take a bit of adjusting to.

The biggest adjustment might just be sharing a server with people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of pvp without artificial rules to hide behind.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

have to assume this is an unintended consequence of such a system. But yeah as you say, push & pull.

As I pointed out on the last page, your exact interaction happened countless times in Lineage 2. Steven copypasted L2's system one to one and then simply tuned the nobs of punishment higher (into the pve side btw).

So this interaction is quite intended, otherwise Steven would've changed it when copying the system. This is exactly why I've been adamant on explaining that this is how the system is in this game.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

And even if the literal strongest ability does have that kind of cd - running away and healing up to full from it would potentially take ~the same amount of time. And this is w/o even mentioning that starting off pvp with it seems a bit silly imo.

Idk it's a hell of a Leap.

From downtown!

Child Item