You could appear as purple for way longer than 90 seconds to the last person you have fought or killed in a consensual battle. Basically, allow players to be retaliated against without their consent. It's not a "free kill" (unless getting jumped unexpectedly is your definition of it), it simply prevents a confirmed PvPer from "abusing" the corruption system and so their only choice is to fight back, because, you know, they fought recently, and won, against the very same person, so surely they're not a carebear PvEer needing corruption system's protection.
But then, this could lead to less OWPvP if you know that winning against someone in a consensual fight means they can freely come back and try to jump you while you're minding your own business.
It would also add extra complexity to the system, which may not be worth it.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yeah... I mean... the original Corruption design is a bit harsher on PvPers than L2 Karma.
So, it seems unlikely that Corruption will be tuned to be less harsh on PvPers.
Attackers will probably be attacking Non-Combatants more frequently than Combatants, on land, because Non-Combatant is the default state and the Combatant flag cools down in less than 1 minute, IIRC.
One of the things I hate most about the PvP-flagging system on PvP-Optional servers is being attacked while I'm waiting for the PvP-flag to cool down when I'm no longer in the mood for PvP.
As in, I've been defending a Town or Caravan for an hour - and now I want to do anything else in the game except PvP. But, people contine to attack me because the flag cool-down lasts too long.
Ashes is desgined for gamers who love the L2 Karma design, like Steven.
So... I would not hold out hope that Corruption is going to be vastly different than Karma.
I dunno what the cool-down was in L2, but expect it to be fairly close.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
An unflagged person might not be a pvper but I don't think a person who stopped pvping for 90 seconds after attacking someone suddenly stops being a pvper.
I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?
Everyone playing Ashes is a PvXer.
So... you stop being a Combatant and become a Non-Combatant.
If you wish to become a Combatant again after the flag cools down, you'll have to go combat a player character.
Once again, I've been playing with this exact pvp system for 12 years. I've been pvping in this exact system for the same 12 years. I've fought thousands upon thousands of different players, all with different approaches to not just the fights but the system itself as well.
Good to hear! Tbh this is kind've why I'm here, sounds like this system shouldn't be too much of a pain in the arse then, once I've got used to it.
But I do think you're so used to this/other systems that you can't appreciate how artificial the rules are (and basically how pure wPvP really works).
Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.
Would you still consider that exploit of the system?
Of course not. There will be other more subtle examples but I've been keeping it simple here:
Again.. I'm talking about active pvpers. Active pvpers deciding on the spot whether to fight or to lean on a punitive system, not based on their appetite for PvP, but based entirely on how much of an advantage/disadvantage they have in that moment.
Also, I never once said I was against the corruption system, or want "Steven to change the system"... I am simply trying to understand where the friction is with these PvP rules.
Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.
Would you still consider that exploit of the system?
Of course not. There will be other more subtle examples but I've been keeping it simple here:
Again.. I'm talking about active pvpers. Active pvpers deciding on the spot whether to fight or to lean on a punitive system, not based on their appetite for PvP, but based entirely on how much of an advantage/disadvantage they have in that moment.
Also, I never once said I was against the corruption system, or want "Steven to change the system"... I am simply trying to understand where the friction is with these PvP rules.
Ow pvp is not going to be fair... of course people will do what will give them an advantage to some random person attacking them. With other factors judging their decision like what they have to lose as well based around the systems.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Attackers will probably be attacking Non-Combatants more frequently than Combatants, on land, because Non-Combatant is the default state and the Combatant flag cools down in less than 1 minute, IIRC.
@NiKr so the scenario we're talking about will be pretty common
One of the things I hate most about the PvP-flagging system on PvP-Optional servers is being attacked while I'm waiting for the PvP-flag to cool down when I'm no longer in the mood for PvP.
See this is wild for me to get my head round (and I imagine for anyone who's played in similar environments to me).
I'm not condemning anyone's playstyle here, just saying this expectation to hop in and out of PvP is as bad as it gets, for me. Totally ruins the game tbh. Artificial feeling & immersion breaking. Zero element of danger too as long as you manage to outsmart the mobs.
It's like throwing a punch irl and then saying *I'm not playing* a second later.
This is why corruption is a big deal, it needs to somehow accommodate as many of us lot as possible!
Funnily enough that is what I've been trying to say. The rules you are familiar with force it to be fairer than it would be in a game without such rules.
I like the pros that come with that system (preventing/reducing toxic behaviour) but I'm here discussing the cons.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
[/quote]
Now there's a question.
But again as a few of us have said, no easy answer without upsetting the balance elsewhere.
I'm not just here waving a PvP flag, I'm trying to understand it the system & consequences.
Funnily enough that is what I've been trying to say. The rules you are familiar with force it to be fairer than it would be in a game without such rules.
I like the pros that come with that system (preventing/reducing toxic behaviour) but I'm here discussing the cons.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Now there's a question.
But again as a few of us have said, no easy answer without upsetting the balance elsewhere.
I'm not just here waving a PvP flag, I'm trying to understand it the system & consequences.
Its simple its just to prevent pvp it is not any more deep than that. Corruption is not the main source of pvp, this was even said on stream again.
I'm not condemning anyone's playstyle here, just saying this expectation to hop in and out of PvP is as bad as it gets, for me. Totally ruins the game tbh. Artificial feeling & immersion breaking. Zero element of danger too as long as you manage to outsmart the mobs.
It's like throwing a punch irl and then saying *I'm not playing* a second later.
This is why corruption is a big deal, it needs to somehow accommodate as many of us lot as possible!
NiKr so the scenario we're talking about will be pretty common
You've already seen that Dygz is on the extreme end of pvp-averse person. He has very particular preferences when it comes to being touched by other players.
I said what I said based on my experience with this system. And AoC's system will have even more avenues for pvpers to take.
I'm not condemning anyone's playstyle here, just saying this expectation to hop in and out of PvP is as bad as it gets, for me. Totally ruins the game tbh. Artificial feeling & immersion breaking. Zero element of danger too as long as you manage to outsmart the mobs.
I fail to see an alternative that would not be that though.
You want pvpers to fight pvpers, while pvers aren't getting attacked? That would be a toggleable pvp system, but how exactly is a literal toggle button not an "artificial feeling & immersion breaking"?
It's like throwing a punch irl and then saying *I'm not playing* a second later.
You seem to agree that a punch shouldn't be constantly punishable, when you meet the one who threw it later on (judging by your response to my latest question).
So what would be your limit on how long that punch should be punishable? Stackerson suggested 30m-1h timer. What would be your suggestion? And would that flagged state remain an exclusive 1v1 thing or should the player remain flagged for 1h after engaging in pvp?
This is why corruption is a big deal, it needs to somehow accommodate as many of us lot as possible!
Like I've been saying, imo it already does. I've seen it successfully accommodate a ton of different people even when the penalties for going corrupt weren't nearly as severe as they'll be in Ashes.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 30
LMAO
I am not on the extreme end of PvP-averse.
I just abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Sieges in Alpha One were a lot of fun.
LMAO
I am not on the extreme end of PvP-averse.
I just abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Sieges in Alpha One were a lot of fun.
Yeah, I forgot to change it in the comment. I wanted to change it to owpvp-averse.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 30
The difference is I want to play an MMO RP game while other people want to play an MMO PvP game.
We don't know how averse I would have been to Ashes with the original Corruption design because Steven prematurely broke that deal.
I want Meaningful Conflict and Steven wants Risk v Reward.
The difference is I want to play an MMO RP game while other people want to play an MMO PvP game.
Which is exactly the point in this context. Your brain remembers any attacks on your by owpvpers, because you dislike that interaction. Blat is used to a free pvp design, so he's as far on the opposite end of the spectrum from you as possible.
I'm somewhere closer to his side, which is why I said that my experience of the system is closer to what a pvper would experience in Ashes. And that experience was that of "non-green attacks were way more frequent".
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Which is exactly the point in this context. Your brain remembers any attacks on your by owpvpers, because you dislike that interaction. Blat is used to a free pvp design, so he's as far on the opposite end of the spectrum from you as possible.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.
I definitely remember instances of non-consensual PvP because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
There have been plenty of consensual battles with OWPvPers that were OK.
I'm somewhere closer to his side, which is why I said that my experience of the system is closer to what a pvper would experience in Ashes. And that experience was that of "non-green attacks were way more frequent".
I mean... obviously...
Because you enjoy L2 and Ashes is designed for gamers who enjoy L2.
Attacks on Greens is not an issue. That's how you gauge whether someone is interested in PvP or not.
Killing Greens could be an issue.
But, attacks on Greens will be most common in Ashes because players are Green by default. And most of the gameplay takes place on land. Also, the Combatant flag has a cool-down of leas than 2 minutes. So, on land, most of our time will be spent Green.
But, attacks on Greens will be most common in Ashes because players are Green by default. And most of the gameplay takes place on land. Also, the Combatant flag has a cool-down of leas than 2 minutes. So, on land, most of our time will be spent Green.
Yes, just as it was in L2. And as I already said, in my experience way more pvp happened between guilds at war and/or siege-like events. And Ashes will have even more ways to pvp against non-green people.
Yes, there'll be attacks against greens, but I'm ~85% sure that they'll be only a minority of pvp attacks against players.
The solution to this revolving problem would be to declare war on their guild for the day (if they war back and it is mutual) so you can kill them without corruption and they can do the same to you (unfortunately this affects the whole of both clans involved). I always thought L2 should have had a Grudge type system where you could basically "war" a single other character for personal grudges. My grudge led me to hating and warring the top clan for years over a few bad eggs. Eventually friends made their way to that clan and friendly competitive pvp ensued. Sometimes we'd just talk standing by each other full warred, sometimes we'd fight if others were around, or we'd jump an at war friend just to startle them. Good times.
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.
One does not get flagged "Red" for attacking Someone else.
Only for KILLING someone else, if i understood this correct. And -> to kill Someone else, who has "NOT" fought back in the least. Did no become a purple/PvP-flagged Player as well.
Then,
it counts as a "Murder" understandably - and then People can hunt down and kill the corrupted Person.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
You are missing the point with what I'm saying, players will do whatever they can to win in most cases. Meaning any advantage they can use in a fight they will use good or bad.
Which means Ow pvp is low because of the consequences but sieges are high because of the consequences. It doesn't mean its a green flag to make it easy for people to do whatever they can or the most scummy things to win every fight or destroy economies.
I don't see that many people pking in AoC so long as there is a good amount of population and people again content pushing people to play in groups. I don't think a dps is going to want to stack up on 3 corruption kills like that as a constant thing.
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
A long timer is almost similar with having an option to chose if you want to be green or purple by default.
That would reduce the risk aspect in the game. So I am against it if is long. If is just 4 minutes (instead of the 2 minutes when you just reply to an attack) then is acceptable for me.
A better case to keep players purple longer would be when they become corrupt and ask a friend to help them clear the corruption by killing them.
We want them to actually try to run to grind XP and bounty hunters hunt them.
So red players trying to cheat to become green fast should become purple and have to grind XP to reduce that purple->green timer.
The main point of the green/purple/red system is to reduce ganking. Saying that this system impedes or skews "consentual owpvp" is being purposefully dense.
Anytime 2 or more people both want to fight, all they have to do is love tap each other and then both start the fight purple with full cooldowns. This includes kicking someone out of your farming/gathering/leveling area. You can just tap them even if you don't want to message them and they'll know what's coming.
Now, will people be hiding behind their green status? You bet. But this puts some risk on the attacker as well as the defender. Defender will lose more mats dying green. The attacker has to commit to the gank and go red.
But hiding behind their green status is the whole point! They don't want to pvp. Maybe think of it like a moving non-pvp zone with a population of one. DAoC had frontiers, ESO has Cyrodiil, and other games have their PvP-on zones where pvp is expected. The other parts of the games had no PvP. That's what the green flag means.
The option to kill them anyway and go red is a loophole that is supposed to be painful, but it's there to deal with exceptional a$$hats
2
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
A long timer is almost similar with having an option to chose if you want to be green or purple by default.
That would reduce the risk aspect in the game. So I am against it if is long. If is just 4 minutes (instead of the 2 minutes when you just reply to an attack) then is acceptable for me.
A better case to keep players purple longer would be when they become corrupt and ask a friend to help them clear the corruption by killing them.
We want them to actually try to run to grind XP and bounty hunters hunt them.
So red players trying to cheat to become green fast should become purple and have to grind XP to reduce that purple->green timer.
Edit: quoted wrong post
I think an increased timer does the opposite and increases risk since it increases your chances of being attacked. When you are purple, people know they can kill you without having to wait for you to attack back or
worrying about corruption. They go all red=dead mode and people who would have left you alone if you were green suddenly jump you. The longer you are purple, the higher the chance you will run into someone who will attack you.
The main point of the green/purple/red system is to reduce ganking. Saying that this system impedes or skews "consentual owpvp" is being purposefully dense.
Anytime 2 or more people both want to fight, all they have to do is love tap each other and then both start the fight purple with full cooldowns. This includes kicking someone out of your farming/gathering/leveling area. You can just tap them even if you don't want to message them and they'll know what's coming.
Now, will people be hiding behind their green status? You bet. But this puts some risk on the attacker as well as the defender. Defender will lose more mats dying green. The attacker has to commit to the gank and go red.
But hiding behind their green status is the whole point! They don't want to pvp. Maybe think of it like a moving non-pvp zone with a population of one. DAoC had frontiers, ESO has Cyrodiil, and other games have their PvP-on zones where pvp is expected. The other parts of the games had no PvP. That's what the green flag means.
The option to kill them anyway and go red is a loophole that is supposed to be painful, but it's there to deal with exceptional a$$hats
If you agree that there will be times that a person who would have normally fought back chooses not to because of the corruption system, then I'm not sure why you would call this premise dense. Yes, the system needs to be designed this way to reduce ganking and you are right that the benefits of becoming a combatant are there to curve this but that doesn't mean there might not be other things that can be done to encourage "consentual owpvp."
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
You are missing the point with what I'm saying, players will do whatever they can to win in most cases. Meaning any advantage they can use in a fight they will use good or bad.
Which means Ow pvp is low because of the consequences but sieges are high because of the consequences. It doesn't mean its a green flag to make it easy for people to do whatever they can or the most scummy things to win every fight or destroy economies.
I don't see that many people pking in AoC so long as there is a good amount of population and people again content pushing people to play in groups. I don't think a dps is going to want to stack up on 3 corruption kills like that as a constant thing.
You underestimate the fuel some gankers have. Gankers also work in groups and nothing is better or adds more kudos than wiping another group. Especially if you wipe a group without casualties. As corruption doesn't degrade your pve effectiveness then its a no brainer that groups will quite happily wipe another group to take a grind spot and some will wipe groups just for fun.
The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.
A long timer is almost similar with having an option to chose if you want to be green or purple by default.
That would reduce the risk aspect in the game. So I am against it if is long. If is just 4 minutes (instead of the 2 minutes when you just reply to an attack) then is acceptable for me.
A better case to keep players purple longer would be when they become corrupt and ask a friend to help them clear the corruption by killing them.
We want them to actually try to run to grind XP and bounty hunters hunt them.
So red players trying to cheat to become green fast should become purple and have to grind XP to reduce that purple->green timer.
I think an increased timer does the opposite and increases risk since it increases your chances of being attacked. When you are purple, people know they can kill you without having to wait for you to attack back or
worrying about corruption. They go all red=dead mode and people who would have left you alone if you were green suddenly jump you. The longer you are purple, the higher the chance you will run into someone who will attack you.
And how big that chance of being attacked becomes?
If 100% then is not a risk anymore but certainty. Certainty does not mean risk.
Is like turning a PvP flag on and telling players to come and PvP with you because you are in PvP mood.
That's why I would prefer the transitions between green and purple to stay the same but only the transition from red to green to be different, and only if that red did not served the higher Gods by getting XP killing monsters.
Attacking players is not discouraged at all. It is encouraged by setting the default state to green.
Killing green (ganking) is somewhat discouraged.
Killing green often is strongly discouraged.
The risk manifests itself by not letting players know if the other side wants to fight or not and if estimates your resources to worth being taken or not.
In some places, close to where very rare resources drop, I think players will usually fight no matter what color they have. Those will be places where also a lot of XP is rewarded so cleaning the Red color will be fast.
Would be interesting if bosses which drop rare resources would give little, or no XP at all.
What do you think players will do?
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
You are missing the point with what I'm saying, players will do whatever they can to win in most cases. Meaning any advantage they can use in a fight they will use good or bad.
Which means Ow pvp is low because of the consequences but sieges are high because of the consequences. It doesn't mean its a green flag to make it easy for people to do whatever they can or the most scummy things to win every fight or destroy economies.
I don't see that many people pking in AoC so long as there is a good amount of population and people again content pushing people to play in groups. I don't think a dps is going to want to stack up on 3 corruption kills like that as a constant thing.
You underestimate the fuel some gankers have. Gankers also work in groups and nothing is better or adds more kudos than wiping another group. Especially if you wipe a group without casualties. As corruption doesn't degrade your pve effectiveness then its a no brainer that groups will quite happily wipe another group to take a grind spot and some will wipe groups just for fun.
I think u are underestimating the effect of corruption if you think people are going to roll in groups and kill people. Effectively your corruption build up is going to immensely increase since you are now killing groups of people. Meaning you will be more of a target for people for a longer period of time and every time you kill someone again you are gaining more corruption.
On top of that every time you kill a person you gain more corruption per kill, meaning if you have killed 10 people over your accounts life time you are gaining more corruption per kill than your first kill as it builds up.
Since it is the killers that are corrupted everyone else can attack them for free without turning purple meaning if there are like 30 people around the area seeing them there is a good chance someone is going to attack them to hope they drop their gear.
People that have not experienced these systems are severely underestimating the effect of being a big red flag with a ton of other people around. You are effectively potential loot everyone will want to take.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
You are missing the point with what I'm saying, players will do whatever they can to win in most cases. Meaning any advantage they can use in a fight they will use good or bad.
Which means Ow pvp is low because of the consequences but sieges are high because of the consequences. It doesn't mean its a green flag to make it easy for people to do whatever they can or the most scummy things to win every fight or destroy economies.
I don't see that many people pking in AoC so long as there is a good amount of population and people again content pushing people to play in groups. I don't think a dps is going to want to stack up on 3 corruption kills like that as a constant thing.
You underestimate the fuel some gankers have. Gankers also work in groups and nothing is better or adds more kudos than wiping another group. Especially if you wipe a group without casualties. As corruption doesn't degrade your pve effectiveness then its a no brainer that groups will quite happily wipe another group to take a grind spot and some will wipe groups just for fun.
I think u are underestimating the effect of corruption if you think people are going to roll in groups and kill people. Effectively your corruption build up is going to immensely increase since you are now killing groups of people. Meaning you will be more of a target for people for a longer period of time and every time you kill someone again you are gaining more corruption.
On top of that every time you kill a person you gain more corruption per kill, meaning if you have killed 10 people over your accounts life time you are gaining more corruption per kill than your first kill as it builds up.
Since it is the killers that are corrupted everyone else can attack them for free without turning purple meaning if there are like 30 people around the area seeing them there is a good chance someone is going to attack them to hope they drop their gear.
People that have not experienced these systems are severely underestimating the effect of being a big red flag with a ton of other people around. You are effectively potential loot everyone will want to take.
I don't think you've played on a pvp server before if you think its any different to be red. Gankers names get called out on global and you get hunted constantly until you log off - there is no arbitrary function that prevents further hunting/retribution when you turn green again. The system is a fallacy and makes people like you believe something which is not the case.
Comments
But then, this could lead to less OWPvP if you know that winning against someone in a consensual fight means they can freely come back and try to jump you while you're minding your own business.
It would also add extra complexity to the system, which may not be worth it.
So, it seems unlikely that Corruption will be tuned to be less harsh on PvPers.
Attackers will probably be attacking Non-Combatants more frequently than Combatants, on land, because Non-Combatant is the default state and the Combatant flag cools down in less than 1 minute, IIRC.
One of the things I hate most about the PvP-flagging system on PvP-Optional servers is being attacked while I'm waiting for the PvP-flag to cool down when I'm no longer in the mood for PvP.
As in, I've been defending a Town or Caravan for an hour - and now I want to do anything else in the game except PvP. But, people contine to attack me because the flag cool-down lasts too long.
Ashes is desgined for gamers who love the L2 Karma design, like Steven.
So... I would not hold out hope that Corruption is going to be vastly different than Karma.
I dunno what the cool-down was in L2, but expect it to be fairly close.
So... you stop being a Combatant and become a Non-Combatant.
If you wish to become a Combatant again after the flag cools down, you'll have to go combat a player character.
"+98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs"
so if is not PvPer then is PvXer.
Or is one of those 2%.
Good to hear! Tbh this is kind've why I'm here, sounds like this system shouldn't be too much of a pain in the arse then, once I've got used to it.
But I do think you're so used to this/other systems that you can't appreciate how artificial the rules are (and basically how pure wPvP really works).
Tf? Again, where have I said anything like this?
Of course not. There will be other more subtle examples but I've been keeping it simple here:
Again.. I'm talking about active pvpers. Active pvpers deciding on the spot whether to fight or to lean on a punitive system, not based on their appetite for PvP, but based entirely on how much of an advantage/disadvantage they have in that moment.
Also, I never once said I was against the corruption system, or want "Steven to change the system"... I am simply trying to understand where the friction is with these PvP rules.
Ow pvp is not going to be fair... of course people will do what will give them an advantage to some random person attacking them. With other factors judging their decision like what they have to lose as well based around the systems.
What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?
@NiKr so the scenario we're talking about will be pretty common
See this is wild for me to get my head round (and I imagine for anyone who's played in similar environments to me).
I'm not condemning anyone's playstyle here, just saying this expectation to hop in and out of PvP is as bad as it gets, for me. Totally ruins the game tbh. Artificial feeling & immersion breaking. Zero element of danger too as long as you manage to outsmart the mobs.
It's like throwing a punch irl and then saying *I'm not playing* a second later.
This is why corruption is a big deal, it needs to somehow accommodate as many of us lot as possible!
Funnily enough that is what I've been trying to say. The rules you are familiar with force it to be fairer than it would be in a game without such rules.
I like the pros that come with that system (preventing/reducing toxic behaviour) but I'm here discussing the cons.
[/quote]
Now there's a question.
But again as a few of us have said, no easy answer without upsetting the balance elsewhere.
I'm not just here waving a PvP flag, I'm trying to understand it the system & consequences.
Its simple its just to prevent pvp it is not any more deep than that. Corruption is not the main source of pvp, this was even said on stream again.
I said what I said based on my experience with this system. And AoC's system will have even more avenues for pvpers to take.
I fail to see an alternative that would not be that though.
You want pvpers to fight pvpers, while pvers aren't getting attacked? That would be a toggleable pvp system, but how exactly is a literal toggle button not an "artificial feeling & immersion breaking"?
You seem to agree that a punch shouldn't be constantly punishable, when you meet the one who threw it later on (judging by your response to my latest question).
So what would be your limit on how long that punch should be punishable? Stackerson suggested 30m-1h timer. What would be your suggestion? And would that flagged state remain an exclusive 1v1 thing or should the player remain flagged for 1h after engaging in pvp?
Like I've been saying, imo it already does. I've seen it successfully accommodate a ton of different people even when the penalties for going corrupt weren't nearly as severe as they'll be in Ashes.
I am not on the extreme end of PvP-averse.
I just abhor non-consensual PvP.
The Sieges in Alpha One were a lot of fun.
We don't know how averse I would have been to Ashes with the original Corruption design because Steven prematurely broke that deal.
I want Meaningful Conflict and Steven wants Risk v Reward.
I'm somewhere closer to his side, which is why I said that my experience of the system is closer to what a pvper would experience in Ashes. And that experience was that of "non-green attacks were way more frequent".
I definitely remember instances of non-consensual PvP because I abhor non-consensual PvP.
There have been plenty of consensual battles with OWPvPers that were OK.
I mean... obviously...
Because you enjoy L2 and Ashes is designed for gamers who enjoy L2.
Attacks on Greens is not an issue. That's how you gauge whether someone is interested in PvP or not.
Killing Greens could be an issue.
But, attacks on Greens will be most common in Ashes because players are Green by default. And most of the gameplay takes place on land. Also, the Combatant flag has a cool-down of leas than 2 minutes. So, on land, most of our time will be spent Green.
Yes, there'll be attacks against greens, but I'm ~85% sure that they'll be only a minority of pvp attacks against players.
One does not get flagged "Red" for attacking Someone else.
Only for KILLING someone else, if i understood this correct. And -> to kill Someone else, who has "NOT" fought back in the least. Did no become a purple/PvP-flagged Player as well.
Then,
it counts as a "Murder" understandably - and then People can hunt down and kill the corrupted Person.
And hopefully Node-Sieges as well.
Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.
Isn't Corruption already a nice Deterrent ?
You can lose not just Stuff from your Pockets but also your GEAR when You die as a corrupted Player.
Playerkillers will have to be careful.
I can imagine the fewest of them actually being bold enough to move around alone while they murder other Players and get corrupted for Minutes of Minutes to come. >;-]
You are missing the point with what I'm saying, players will do whatever they can to win in most cases. Meaning any advantage they can use in a fight they will use good or bad.
Which means Ow pvp is low because of the consequences but sieges are high because of the consequences. It doesn't mean its a green flag to make it easy for people to do whatever they can or the most scummy things to win every fight or destroy economies.
I don't see that many people pking in AoC so long as there is a good amount of population and people again content pushing people to play in groups. I don't think a dps is going to want to stack up on 3 corruption kills like that as a constant thing.
A long timer is almost similar with having an option to chose if you want to be green or purple by default.
That would reduce the risk aspect in the game. So I am against it if is long. If is just 4 minutes (instead of the 2 minutes when you just reply to an attack) then is acceptable for me.
A better case to keep players purple longer would be when they become corrupt and ask a friend to help them clear the corruption by killing them.
We want them to actually try to run to grind XP and bounty hunters hunt them.
So red players trying to cheat to become green fast should become purple and have to grind XP to reduce that purple->green timer.
Edit: quoted wrong post
Anytime 2 or more people both want to fight, all they have to do is love tap each other and then both start the fight purple with full cooldowns. This includes kicking someone out of your farming/gathering/leveling area. You can just tap them even if you don't want to message them and they'll know what's coming.
Now, will people be hiding behind their green status? You bet. But this puts some risk on the attacker as well as the defender. Defender will lose more mats dying green. The attacker has to commit to the gank and go red.
But hiding behind their green status is the whole point! They don't want to pvp. Maybe think of it like a moving non-pvp zone with a population of one. DAoC had frontiers, ESO has Cyrodiil, and other games have their PvP-on zones where pvp is expected. The other parts of the games had no PvP. That's what the green flag means.
The option to kill them anyway and go red is a loophole that is supposed to be painful, but it's there to deal with exceptional a$$hats
I think an increased timer does the opposite and increases risk since it increases your chances of being attacked. When you are purple, people know they can kill you without having to wait for you to attack back or
worrying about corruption. They go all red=dead mode and people who would have left you alone if you were green suddenly jump you. The longer you are purple, the higher the chance you will run into someone who will attack you.
If you agree that there will be times that a person who would have normally fought back chooses not to because of the corruption system, then I'm not sure why you would call this premise dense. Yes, the system needs to be designed this way to reduce ganking and you are right that the benefits of becoming a combatant are there to curve this but that doesn't mean there might not be other things that can be done to encourage "consentual owpvp."
You underestimate the fuel some gankers have. Gankers also work in groups and nothing is better or adds more kudos than wiping another group. Especially if you wipe a group without casualties. As corruption doesn't degrade your pve effectiveness then its a no brainer that groups will quite happily wipe another group to take a grind spot and some will wipe groups just for fun.
And how big that chance of being attacked becomes?
If 100% then is not a risk anymore but certainty. Certainty does not mean risk.
Is like turning a PvP flag on and telling players to come and PvP with you because you are in PvP mood.
That's why I would prefer the transitions between green and purple to stay the same but only the transition from red to green to be different, and only if that red did not served the higher Gods by getting XP killing monsters.
Attacking players is not discouraged at all. It is encouraged by setting the default state to green.
Killing green (ganking) is somewhat discouraged.
Killing green often is strongly discouraged.
The risk manifests itself by not letting players know if the other side wants to fight or not and if estimates your resources to worth being taken or not.
In some places, close to where very rare resources drop, I think players will usually fight no matter what color they have. Those will be places where also a lot of XP is rewarded so cleaning the Red color will be fast.
Would be interesting if bosses which drop rare resources would give little, or no XP at all.
What do you think players will do?
I think u are underestimating the effect of corruption if you think people are going to roll in groups and kill people. Effectively your corruption build up is going to immensely increase since you are now killing groups of people. Meaning you will be more of a target for people for a longer period of time and every time you kill someone again you are gaining more corruption.
On top of that every time you kill a person you gain more corruption per kill, meaning if you have killed 10 people over your accounts life time you are gaining more corruption per kill than your first kill as it builds up.
Since it is the killers that are corrupted everyone else can attack them for free without turning purple meaning if there are like 30 people around the area seeing them there is a good chance someone is going to attack them to hope they drop their gear.
People that have not experienced these systems are severely underestimating the effect of being a big red flag with a ton of other people around. You are effectively potential loot everyone will want to take.
I don't think you've played on a pvp server before if you think its any different to be red. Gankers names get called out on global and you get hunted constantly until you log off - there is no arbitrary function that prevents further hunting/retribution when you turn green again. The system is a fallacy and makes people like you believe something which is not the case.