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

Mag7spy

blat wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

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.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Dygz

blat wrote: »

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!

PvP inherently ruins RPGs, so…

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

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.

blat wrote: »

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"?

blat wrote: »

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?

blat wrote: »

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.

Dygz

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.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Dygz

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.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

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".

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

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.

NiKr wrote: »

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.

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

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.

NateDogg187

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.

Aszkalon

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.

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.

Aszkalon

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

And hopefully Node-Sieges as well.

Nodes are in the Open World, after all ... ...

Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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. >;-]

Mag7spy

Attacks on greens are far less likely when in a group xD

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

And hopefully Node-Sieges as well. Nodes are in the Open World, after all ... ...

Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Otr

mcstackerson wrote: »

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

Spif

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

mcstackerson

Otr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

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.

Spif wrote: »

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."

Songcaller

Mag7spy wrote: »

Attacks on greens are far less likely when in a group xD

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

And hopefully Node-Sieges as well. Nodes are in the Open World, after all ... ...

Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Otr

mcstackerson wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

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?

Mag7spy

Song_Warden wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Attacks on greens are far less likely when in a group xD

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

And hopefully Node-Sieges as well. Nodes are in the Open World, after all ... ...

Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Songcaller

Mag7spy wrote: »

Song_Warden wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Attacks on greens are far less likely when in a group xD

Aszkalon wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

And hopefully Node-Sieges as well. Nodes are in the Open World, after all ... ...

Search for Allies, Mag7. Search for Allies or die hopelessly in an Assault and become a Vassal.

Mag7spy wrote: »

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.

Child Item