Greetings, glorious testers!
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.
To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
I'm very curious about this because it's not as such in every MMO's that's hardcore Pvp oriented. I could name a few but there's no point to it.
Why attacking makes me the aggressor? Maybe the person I am attacking said that my guild is a bunch of whiners that couldn't complete Tower of Carphin, and I don't stand for that crap and I fight back.
It doesn't really matter in a "fight" who the Aggressor is.
What matter is only -> will the attacked Person fight back - - > OOORRR go down without resisting as a Green Player,
effectively transforming/turning the Attacker into a Red/corrupted Player - - - > who is then Open Season for Everyone else ??
Funny enough,
" IF " you come back as a Green Person and attack/kill the Person who killed You first and became corrupted because you did not fight back,
you stay a green Person even if you kill him.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Is this a real question?
Probably not, the situation at hand is with a carebear being savagely engaged.
All I can say is that it seemed to work out surprisingly well.
lol, bad move becomming purple for everybody
you become purple and every roguei the woodworks will unstealth
You are supposing that there is someone in the area that wants to attack and kill you, but aren't specifically and only because they assume you will not fight back, and they don't want corruption.
If there's someone around that wants to kill you fir what ever reason, they will attack you to see if you will fight back or not. There is very little reason for them to not do this.
If you were willing to fight back against the first person that you defensed yourself against, you would then most likely do the same if this other player attacked you.
The theoretical situation you are complaining about here isn't really a reasonable one.
This depends on what the fight is about.
If the game encourages fighting over farm spots like L2 and BDO did, then I would agree. However, that is such a stupid thing to fight over that the bigger issue would then be that the game as a whole is shit.
If there is something of value to fight over (rare mob or resource), then you would probably want to fight back.
The decision to fight back or not should never just be about the corruption you can inflict vs the resources you could drop. There should always be "something" that people are fighting over.
Your complaints are very accurate and valid if the fight is taking place jn a vacuum - if nothing of value is being fought over. However, that should never be a situation in Ashes.
What is a Question ?
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
if there was a aggresor icon / marking then you will see people instigating fights just to get the other player tagged as an aggressor for more drama and no one likes drama.
Your suggestion is interesting but I would be more interested to know who's defending if the fight becomes global.
What I'm trying to point out here is that keeping the fight to the two people would limit the possibility of griefing by technically just having two people show up instead of one.
If two people show up it will deter the person from defending even though they would like to reply back.
I could be wrong but just stating that it works in another game isn't a very good argument if we don't know how much or if thought was put into it.
Ultima Online and Mortal Online are two that I could site that make the target locally flagged to the attacker. What about DaoC?
The other games with a PK system I'm not so aware how they work except now of course Lineage 2.
Actually, anyone here can site games with an open world PK system where one goes ''red'' after X amount of unlawful kills and is penalized when X grows?
2 green kills makes you corrupted level 1
50 mob kills to removed corruption debuff from the 2 kills (if my memory serves i counted it one of the livesteams when he accidently went corrupted like 6 months ago)
my theory is atm of that livestream along the line of this
each player kill = 5 corruption point
10 corruption point make you go corrupt at level 1 (icon had a 1 inside which would indicate several severity of corruption)
every 5 mob kills removes 1 point of corruption and goes away at 0 corruption.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption
@Veeshan I couldn't find your numbers on the wiki, but of course that is something that is bound to be tweaked based on testing in Alpha 2, don't you think?
I got the numbers manually counting the kills from steven in a livestream several months ago might of been ranger one it was the one he fought mushrooms mobs :P i can see if ican find it again :P and of course that info might already be out of date but it what we have atm to go off of
Edit: Ranger showcase was the video i got that info from the numbers
29:50 = 1 kill
31:10 = 2 kill gets a red debuff head with a 1 in it (Corruption)
31:33 = 3rd kill Debuff still same
36:30 = Starts killing mobs
42:35 = Debuff goes away after 50 kills that the party did (steven was fluffing about for some and didn't hit a couple but seems they counted
so seems like 50 kills erases 2 kills with the assumption that each mob is worth the same amount of corruption removal and you have 1 free kill before u go corrupt without any pve between.
Well that is working in how they said it would work, get corruption by killing greens which it did, remove corruption by PvE action (Although i think they said XP) but it gives an idea on there rough values that they think is right at the time (Of course values will change once testing/feedback occurs) They also said dying also removes it in some way along as potential quests to remove it, they also stated there are various stages of corruption which is also indicated by the 1 on the debuff. Killing lower level players give more corruption too
So yes corruption in it current state of that video is working as they said it would mechanically but the values on it is subjected to change which is expected however the initial numbers in the video gives you an idea/indication on what there originally thought was good values for it.
As it stands it seems like a player kill (around your level)= 10 corruption points, you get the debuff when u are above 10 and you can get atleast 2 kills before corruption debuff escalates to stage 2 which is currently unknown and it takes roughly 25 mobs worth of xp to undo 1 green kill. ofcourse all subjected to change but you get an idea on what going on in there mind with regards to corruption.
I just take the info i can get and expect things to change there a reason i havant realy given any feedback on mechanics on pvp and corruption and when people complain about it and all that i say just wait till alpha 2 before u complain on the topic.
To me, this is the system not working as been previously explained. If you have a quote somewhere that says the first PK doesn't give corruption then I'll agree that the system was working correctly. Though at that point I'd have a much bigger problem with the design
It does give your corruption it just dont go over the threshold for the corruption debuff to kick in just yet and this make sense from gameplay perspective because u dont want to punish somone to hard if they accidently kill somone (which can happen) or somone gets frustrated and kill somone being an ahole to them. Going cupptuped off a single kill has the potential to lead to a corruption death circle since green players attacking somone corrupted doesnt trigger them as combatants to the corrupted player so if they defend themself there corruption debuff gets worst and worst (with exception of bounty hunters which corrupted players can kill without making it worst from my understanding).
logicaly to me the way it set up in the video makes the most sense from a gameplay perspective it allows for some minor friction between players without cause a corruption death spiral of constantly defending urself from greens after one player kill.
corruption is designed to stop griefing in steven own words It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif
and killing a random somone once (Around ur level) every now and then i wouldnt consider griefing so there no reason for corruption to kick in off one kill. its there to sop people going on a murder spree and ganking lowbie player ganking.
Going Red should always mean "I'm a mob now and anyone can kill me", and going Red should be done right from the first kill.
This only works if the PKer is clearing their PK count after every kill. And I definitely hope the cost of that is really high. But then if the first kill is also "free", then this would still be really abusable, because a party (let alone a raid) can kill 8 (40++) people for free, as long as they have clean Counts.
And please don't say anything about "party should get corruption for kills", cause that's been discussed to death and not a single time anyone provided any solution to the counterargument of "the killer just exists the party for a minute, kills, rejoins".
The binarity of the system works great, because it's the main tool to prevent absolute majority of green murders. Free first kills would immediately increase the number of those murders by at least tenfold imo.
Don't remember this so thanks for sharing. This falls in line with my suggestions for "tiered" corruption with gradually adding debuffs and punishments for more consecutive kills in a single span of corruption as opposed to just 1 or 2 PKs here or there.
Looking forward to testing the hell out of this and provide lots of feedback!
Well then it works for the intended reason to not punish accidently killings and allows for fricting around mob farming since you wouldnt think u would be killing somone accidently too often or mob fricting like killing somone for stealing mobs or just being a plain butt since one would think u would be killing mobs afterwards to clear the corruption there.
Now in regard to clearing corruption it needs to be either somewhat quick or green players attacking a corrupted player counts as a combatant to the corrupted player (aka no additional corruption for defenidng themselfs)
Reason for this is
Once ur red for what ever reason everyone gonna be attacking u on sight to a degree so either need to be able to evade and clear corruption relativly quickly or there needs to be a mechanic that doesnt force you deeper into the red each time u defend urself from a green attacking you.
That's part of the deterrent for PKing. So no, Reds should not be able to just go on killing everyone over and over and over again w/o gaining more corruption.
Also, I do expect first PK to give us a fairly small amount of corruption that can be cleared within just a few minutes. But this is also the exact reason why PK count removal should be an expensive and lengthy ordeal, cause otherwise people will just quickly get their count back to 0 and go PK again w/o much of a penalty.
All of this works towards the PK deterrent, so that PKing should be THE last resort action, not something that's done off the cuff randomly.
Grief detterent you mean. PKing does not equate to griefing.
Also to brush off the fact that corruption was shown as it was is just as wrong as accepting it as it being written in stone.
Edit: Also. Defending yourself even as a red is hardly considerable as PKing nor griefing.
But all that other stuff is deterrent to PKing, because Steven doesn't want a shitton of PKers running around.
I'm simply saying that there's been no indication that first kill will not give us corruption, so I took that showcase as having a broken system.
Like I said, I completely disagree with this position, as, seemingly, does Steven. If he agreed with this position Reds would be able to defend themselves, but there's been not a single word towards that direction.
So, again, fuck all Reds for killing a defenseless passive player. Yes, there always can be a good reason to PK someone, but the "goodness" will simply have to be of way higher quality, because Reds will have to be ready to not even touch another green.
This is also the entire point of BHs flagging purely against PKers. THOSE are the ones that PKers can defend themselves against. Which is simply yet another proof that Steven doesn't agree with yours and Veeshan's position.
I'd like to hear valid reasoning why corrupted players should obtain corruption while defending themselves from random noncombatant players attacking them, but it also being fine that someone hunting them for their corruption to not give those defensive kills corruption at all? If anything it would make more sense to be the other way around, but even then it is still a bad design.
The only thing I've gathered from Stevens goal for the corruption system is to stop/minimize griefing. Otherwise if he didn't want PKing to happen in the first place he would easily accomplish that with an opt-out of PvP system option.
What would exactly be your reasoning to go against designing a system that allows for non griefing PKing while simultaneously focusing punishment on griefing? Your goal seems less about mitigating griefing and more about punishing anyone who happens to PK someone who didn't fight back, justifiably or not.
If you kill someone in a vengeful mob - that will only make them more angry, but if you kill a merc that was sent to hunt you - it'll be hushed up, because hired kills is not something that's widely advertised.
Letting something happen and letting something happen frequently are not the same.
Griefing only applies towards a single person (or, at worst, a small group of weak players), while letting PKs happen frequently would change how the game is perceived. If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world.
And I know that the classic answer is "well, then the game is not for them then", but this answer would apply to the PKers who want to kill for free as well. And a PK where you can endlessly defend yourself IS a free kill.
I've described my preference for the system in another thread
And I'm fairly sure that if PKers are let to defend themselves from any attacker or are given a pure free kill (i.e. first PK doesn't give corruption) - that 1% from my preference would turn at least into 10%, mainly because strong groups will immediately start PKing whoeverthehell they want, cause no one will be able to do anything about it.
This might already happen btw, but with compounding corruption on the PKer it can be stopped within just a few kills, but if the PKer is allowed to freely kill anyone who touches him - ooooohhh boi, the game will 1000% be seen as a murderbox, because the murderers are literally not punished.
Steven counters that by saying if it is an intended game mechanic, then it is not griefing.
The intended game mechanic is to have risk as part of the risk vs reward game pillar.
An opt-out of PvP option would completely remove the risk of being attacked by other players.
The risk must be present so an opt-out is not a possibility.
I've seen a few videos where Steven presented the corruption system as a mechanic which protects.
The most recent one was about the option to use mules instead of caravans to transport small crates.
An older one was when describing the transition from land to the open sea full PvP system.
And an even older one was about mining some rich vein. Steven and Jeff were answering questions.
There is also the case where players want to prevent others to farm. And those who farm actually can be considered as destroying your resources as part of the economic warfare.
In a recent interview Steven detailed the options such players have: if the attackers are in a guild, declare a guild war. If they are just citizens of a node, declare a node war. If they are neither in a guild or citizens, then you have to mitigate their attack somehow else having some options in how they manage the land (he gave no details)
But his answer obviously shows that the flagging + corruption system will protect.
So if these resources have mobs nearby, players can try helping the mobs and letting them deal the killing blow but if they make a mistake and some become red, then these greens will rather attack the red players first. If the red would gain no corruption, a red + mobs would always win against green and would be a good way to defend resources, without need for guild was and node wars.
Ability to use economic warfare against others might feel unfair but then, having large guilds claiming areas is something I don't like either.
Ofcource I am setting up a scenario, to explain what I mean. If you respond to that argument, I assume, that you bought into the argument, not if it could happen or not - its not an unresonable scenario.
I am not complaining, I am speculating. Im not sure whatg your experiance with MMOs is. But in normal PvX games, people WILL take advantage, if they can gain something, without losing much. Someone butting in when you get attacked, is definetly not unreasonable, it happens tons in games.