Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Alpha 2 Corruption Data Sheet
Dolyem
Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
Just a Simple Data Sheet I plan to use to collect data while testing corruption. The main basic Topics are on Data while making Corrupted Kills, Data for Cleansing Corruption, And data for death while corrupted.
Feel Free to makes Suggestions on things to keep track of. And feel free to copy and use it to collect your own data to give to devs while testing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1APMBnFX-tyg0EZPfOW4Yn_OHAdRrOTtrkzZ4QR-4xAo/edit?usp=sharing
Feel Free to makes Suggestions on things to keep track of. And feel free to copy and use it to collect your own data to give to devs while testing.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1APMBnFX-tyg0EZPfOW4Yn_OHAdRrOTtrkzZ4QR-4xAo/edit?usp=sharing
2
Comments
"I did not consent to PvP. Even though I am informed on the owpvp design, the Karma system doesnt work in my carebear opinion".
See the tally at the end.
If the attacker is already corrupted, it does not matter if you defend yourself or not, killing you will give them more corruption.
Defending yourself against any allies they have, however, requires you to flag for combat, which would remove any penalty for the corrupted player if they kill you.
?
You can defend yourself against anybody. You can also choose not to defend yourself against anybody.
This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption
Yep. And I predict this alone will cause too much unwillingness to risk corruption because of the massive likelihood of snowballing into more and more and more corruption.
Too much risk for too little reward. Just a prediction though.
Edit: to clarify, I've talked about this before, saying that while the player attacking a corrupted player shouldn't get flagged for PvP, the corrupted player shouldn't gain more corruption for defending themselves against attacked.
Corruption Gain:
Amount of corruption gained per kill.
Whether the killed player had active corruption and their corruption level.
Cleansing Corruption:
Methods used for cleansing (e.g., quests, items, abilities).
Time taken to cleanse corruption.
Success rate of cleansing methods.
Death While Corrupted:
Penalties incurred upon death (e.g., XP loss, item durability).
Whether corruption level affects penalties.
If other players can cleanse your corruption upon your death.
Player Behavior:
Frequency of players engaging in corrupted activities.
Common locations where corrupted players are found.
Player reactions and strategies to avoid or cleanse corruption.
Corruption Impact:
Effect of corruption on combat abilities and stats.
How corruption influences interactions with NPCs and other players.
Feel free to adjust these suggestions based on your testing focus. Thanks for sharing your data sheet and encouraging others to participate. This collective effort will undoubtedly provide valuable insights for improving the corruption mechanics in Ashes of Creation.
After work I'll see about adding some of these in. I like the NPC interactions suggestion
Ya I know and I hate that about it.
Why do you hate it?
If you start fighting against other players, you become a PvPer and makes no sense to put more corruption onto the red.
At least caravans are not subject to the corruption system. And caravans will transport more loot than players in their inventory.
I am curious what happens in dungeons. If players will avoid attacking each-other because corruption, then those become PvE dungeons which means grinding without risk. I don't see Steven letting that happen.
So if a guy mugs me in NY City while minding my own business I have to let his allies kill me before they becomes criminals?
Because in Ashes there is no such thing as 'minding your own business' in the same way.
Occupying an area claimed as the 'property' of others is a hostile act, and since there's no way to determine 'ownership' of an area like there is in other similar games, you can be considered 'hostile' for pretty much any reason.
The current protections in place are to give chances for that to be resolved in other ways, if you are being attacked by a red in unfamiliar territory and you don't know the people nearby, run.
If you were in 'your own territory', you'd probably know that you didn't need to run.
A more concrete case would be helpful.
One which I imagine is that two players attack a solo somewhere in a dungeon, the one which deals the killing blow becomes red.
The solo runs back, one is still red the other green.
The green attacks the solo, becomes purple
The same Red + Purple vs Green happens also if the solo attacks the red first and his friend tries to help.
I think the game rules would be unfair if somehow two players would be defeated by one player using the corruption mechanic against them, when this one player is willing to fight.
The question is why are you a friend with a criminal? I see your scenario as Mr. Green guy hanging out with Mr. Red as a way to try and game the system.
Because has a better sense of humor.
PvP shouldn't be discouraged. If you choose to attack someone, you're choosing to engage in PvP.
Griefing should be discouraged. And while corruption does that, as it is currently designed it also discourages PKing that isn't defined as griefing.
It needs more testing and balancing. But to say "I should be able to kill that guy easily because he's corrupted" is a bit of a cop out of " I don't like what he did so I should be able to kill him"
You should be able to ATTEMPT to kill him, but not guaranteed. And as a player engaging in PvP, you should not be exempt from what comes with it.
That's not what I am saying, what I am saying is if I am attacked I should be allowed to defend myself and at the same time because he initiated the attack no matter what he or anyone grouped or outside his group who attacks me for defending myself should gain corruption. Does that make sense or am I not understanding how it works?
What you are suggesting directly discourages all PvP as opposed to just trying to discourage griefing.
So no, it's a terrible suggestion
Corruption is only meant to deter griefing as Steven defines it.
I am more trying to understand how it works, and what I have gathered is this. If I am a minding my own business and get attacked the best option is to let them kill me, so they gain corruption and also not allow his uncorrupted friend the ability to kill without consequence.
Overall, based on what you've said so far, this is correct.
How do you not understand that you're contradicting yourself about the intended purpose of Corruption, when the system you're complaining about has existed in its current form for 5 years in Ashes' design, and in a functionally equal system for another 15 years in Linage 2?
Do you really think game designers are so clueless that they don't understand what a system does after 20 years of observing it, and somehow you are the only person with that clarity? Are you seriously that arrogant?
Intrepid knows what behaviour Corruption in its current form incentivises. Steven knows what Corruption in its current form incentivises. They've designed it that way, because that's what they want it to do.
It doesn't "discourage PvP." It discourages aimless PvP.
The point of Corruption is NOT JUST to discourage griefing, it's also generally to encourage deliberate risk-versus-reward assessments, instead of blind PvP for the hell of it.
The exception being both players wanting to engage in it, which is why you can attack a non-combatant, see how they react, and then choose to fight it out of they opt to become a combatant.
Or you accept the Corruption stacking, if their death is worth that consequence to you. (Territory control, objective control, asserting dominance, or they're carrying an exorbitant amount of resources.)
That's what Corruption is for. You've literally spelled it out for yourself. Now after years on this forum, can you finally accept this reality that you're not meant to be picking fights with killing/assassinating random opportunistic targets, if you're not willing to accept the Corruption, after you've clearly laid out the proof for yourself, or are you going to keep pretending Corruption would be an anti-bullying-tool only?
Sidenote: when I first joined this forum, my background was a game where griefing and/or PKing were considered normal too, and I thought Corruption was intended to work in Ashes the way you keep telling yourself it works, too.
It took me about a week of reading Lineage 2 players' explanations of it to figure out I was wrong, and to understand that Corruption is meant to work the way it does because that restriction is part of the intended PvX game loop.
The fact that you've been here for longer than me and still stick to your initial assumptions is driving me hella mad. I don't understand how a person can be okay with being so stubborn and arrogant.
If the opponent is already corrupted, you are free to fight back or even initiate the attack on them without flagging purple yourself, though you'll suffer full penalty if you die as attacking a corrupted won't flag you purple.
If you know you cant win the fight and/or are ok with losing more resources, yes
We've been through this before. Your definition of griefing is irrelevant. Griefing by Steven's definition is all that matters.
Corruption is to deter griefing.
Simple
I can't tell you enough: Actions (in this case years worth of game design decisions) speak louder than words. Actions that have been repeated for 5 years, based on evidence that has been observed and endorsed for 20 years. But keep thinking you know better than everyone else and being loud, I don't envy you for your harsh awakening when you failed to adjust your interpretation of the game's design philosophies until the game's release.
I accept whatever the games design truly becomes upon completion, however I wont let the speculation of whatever that future is prevent me from giving feedback in its current state. I'll continue to point out things I see, I will do my best to shape my feedback in accordance with Stevens Design philosophies. I will even voice opinions or suggestions that may go against them or point out contradictions while acknowledging I am doing exactly that.
I encourage you to do the same.