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.

Technical aspect of the flagging system

135

Comments

  • even real life aint got system to tell whos the aggresor when a third party joins in late, obviously there are exceptions but you get the point. gotta jump in the middle and figure out who the bad guy is if you are gonna interrupt em other wise leave em alone.

    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.

    Real life got the law though, and will hold the aggressor accountable.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Saabynator wrote: »
    But in normal PvX games, people WILL take advantage, if they can gain something, without losing much.
    Yes they will - which is why this isn't an issue in Ashes.

    There is a very good chance that if you attack and kill a random player, they drop nothing. If you have no crafting materials or glint on you, you have nothing at all that you can drop. Even if you do drop something, if the attacker isn't set up to specifically carry that type of object, they may well have no option other than to leave it on the ground.

    When looking at what happens in other games and trying to compare that to Ashes, you need to look at systems that Ashes is planning on doing differently - in this case it is inventory management.
  • cupicupi Member, Alpha Two
    If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world.
    It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP

    But considering the corruption system up to a point the farmer will have the upper hand in the fight since the corrupted player will be slightly to highly handicaped. In this case there is easy opportunity to benefit from it.

    Besides whether they like to be attacked or not there's no denying the considerable amount of satisfaction of taking down a PK.





    To the attacking a PK point, I also disagree that someone should flag for engaging a corrupted player. Globally flagging a player for attacking a PK would legitimize the act of PKing. Only suggesting it feels a bit weird, they are ''outlawed'' so their fate should tend to death until and if they redeem themselves.

    Although with the bounty hunting system people actually go out their way to get at them. I don't know that it would be so much significant if those players locally flagged to the PK and not give the corruption if they get killed by the PK.



  • One thing I do like about this, is that you cant spec for 100 % PvE, and still have an edge in PvP. To be competative, you need abilities up, that work well in PvP. I like that idea. It worked well in other games. You have a choice to make around your own security.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    cupi wrote: »
    It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP
    Saabynator wrote: »
    One thing I do like about this, is that you cant spec for 100 % PvE, and still have an edge in PvP. To be competative, you need abilities up, that work well in PvP. I like that idea. It worked well in other games. You have a choice to make around your own security.
    There won't be a pvp/pve separation in gear. And we currently don't know what kind of mobs we'll have, so it's impossible to say if any of the skillset builds will be stronger in pve rather than in pvp, or the other way around.

    I personally expect mobs to have same defensive passives, stats, potentially even abilities as players do, so any given player would have builds that would work in the same manner against both/either.

    Obviously there's gonna be differences between any given mob or player, but this still doesn't mean that there's pvp builds and pve builds, it simply means that there's different builds to match different situations.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    There won't be a pvp/pve separation in gear. And we currently don't know what kind of mobs we'll have, so it's impossible to say if any of the skillset builds will be stronger in pve rather than in pvp, or the other way around.
    No, this isn't impossible to say.

    There will be builds better suited to PvE, and builds better suited to PvP.

    This is because you use different tactics against each. A plan that works well in PvE will often not work in PvP, and vice versa. Thus, the optimal PvE builds will - at a minimum - work to emphasize the tactics used in PvE, while the optial PvP builds will emphasize PvP tactics.

    We can say that we don't know what those builds will be, and we can say we don't know how unoptimized each build will be for the other sphere of combat, but we can absolutely state without any hesitation that there will be builds better suited to PvP, and other builds better suited to PvE.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    This is because you use different tactics against each. A plan that works well in PvE will often not work in PvP, and vice versa. Thus, the optimal PvE builds will - at a minimum - work to emphasize the tactics used in PvE, while the optial PvP builds will emphasize PvP tactics.
    Like I said in that comment, this would highly depend on the difference between pve and player skillset design. If pve is overdesigned in some places, while player skillsets have a hole there - yes, there's gonna be obviously-separate builds. But I personally hope this kind of design is not the case.

    I'm sure EQ was overdesigned like that, but what about AA? Was it overbalanced the other way or was some gear just optimal for both situations?
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    This is because you use different tactics against each. A plan that works well in PvE will often not work in PvP, and vice versa. Thus, the optimal PvE builds will - at a minimum - work to emphasize the tactics used in PvE, while the optial PvP builds will emphasize PvP tactics.
    Like I said in that comment, this would highly depend on the difference between pve and player skillset design. If pve is overdesigned in some places, while player skillsets have a hole there - yes, there's gonna be obviously-separate builds. But I personally hope this kind of design is not the case.

    I'm sure EQ was overdesigned like that, but what about AA? Was it overbalanced the other way or was some gear just optimal for both situations?

    It wasn't about gear, it was more about your build.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Dolyem wrote: »
    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.
    But that's the exact point. The former are just randoms that happen to come across the Red and are, at best, opportunists, while the latter are professionals who literally have tracking for the PKer.

    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.
    So this is purely an immersion reasoning? I was speaking more along the lines as a system in particular as opposed to "lore" base reasoning. Any player should be able to defend themselves from any attack. But if anyone did have to cost more corruption to kill during a defense situation itd be the players actively hunting you down, giving incentive to run. But like I said, I still believe that even in that case it is a bad design.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    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.
    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 wouldnt ask players who dont want to PVP for much input on a PVP system in a PVX game. Players not planning to PVP at all shouldnt be catered to in a game that requires both PVP and PVE participation. That is why this system should ONLY deter griefing. PKing within reason should be a natural part of the game, as it is one of the main Risks for going out into the Open World to do anything. I am not saying that players should get to PK for free and murder unchecked, it should only be limited to reasonable amounts with reasonable times determined by testing. And if you are attacked by someone and you defend yourself, you are no longer PKing, you are PvPing. So that should no longer count as a noncombatant kill seeing as that "noncombatant" is literally initiating a fight.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    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.
    I've described my preference for the system in another thread

    As for how many PKs should be happening. Imo <=1% of concurrents should be PKers (i.e. ~100 PKers across the entire map). This would then mean that around 2-3% would be victims. Absolute majority of those victims would come from places with valuable resources/mobs/bosses, so it'd be meaningful PKing.

    But, as Crow said, those PKers should only be able to do only a few kills at most, because after those they'll get hit with corruption-based stat dampening and shouldn't be able to kill more. Those few kills would create the 2-3% victims I mentioned, and would also give the PKers a PK count of ~3.

    Anything over this PK count should drastically increase the chance of dropping gear and should also give enough corruption to completely disable the PKer's combat ability. In other words, repeat killers wouldn't be able to do more than a single kill within a certain timeframe (balanced during A2).

    PK count reduction methods should be expensive as fuck, in terms of both time and resources/money. So anyone who wants to PK more often would have to spend their time reducing their PK count and earning money for that action, which in turn reduces their time PKing others. I'd personally also tie those methods to serving the nodes of the victims.

    I personally believe that this kind of system would keep the risk of getting ganked fairly high. Would keep the ability to PK someone when you really need to viable. Would bring node XP to the nodes of the victims. And, depending on how well the Guild/Node war declarations are balanced, would keep the unavoidable owPKing to a relatively low number.

    If people see 3% victims as "a murderbox" - I don't really know what to tell them :)

    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.

    So its purely a personal preference of yours that PKing should be practically nonexistent, as opposed to design corresponding with what Stevens Design may be? Not to say there is anything wrong with that. I just want to be clear this is just what you prefer as opposed to attempting to claim this goes according to what the game design is actually aiming to achieve according to what we currently know so far.

    By going this route, you are making bounty hunting irrelevant, youre erasing a majority of risk when entering the Open world, and making being the player who engages open world PvP extremely disincentivized to do so. I am a diehard PvPer and can tell you that if it is so punishing that only an average of 100ish players would likely ever risk a noncombatant PK at any given time, I would not only avoid initiating PVP completely, but I would actively not retaliate, as to cause corruption, flag as a bounty hunter (Or hit up a guildie who is one or have an alt account already flagged as one so I could find them on the map ASAP) and hunt them down for 4 times the reward every single time. With that strictness, you are making a faux opt-out/opt-in PVP system.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Any player should be able to defend themself from any attack.
    And as I keep saying, Reds are not players. They give up that right as soon as they become red. This is why they can't deposit things in storage, why they can't talk to npcs, why everyone can attack them for completely free, why BHs can track them.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    So its purely a personal preference of yours that PKing should be practically nonexistent, as opposed to design corresponding with what Stevens Design may be?
    As I've said before, Steven copied this system from L2 one-to-one, with the slight change to decrease what he sees as griefing (i.e repetitive PKing at scale). If he wanted PKers to be able to "defend themselves" - he would've changed the system more.

    So no, it's not just my personal preference. It's that my personal preference matches that of Stevens. Except, considering that he said it'd take way longer to clear corruption than it did in L2 - my preference is even laxer on the PKers than what he wants.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    By going this route, you are making bounty hunting irrelevant, youre erasing a majority of risk when entering the Open world, and making being the player who engages open world PvP extremely disincentivized to do so. I am a diehard PvPer and can tell you that if it is so punishing that only an average of 100ish players would likely ever risk a noncombatant PK at any given time, I would not only avoid initiating PVP completely, but I would actively not retaliate, as to cause corruption, flag as a bounty hunter (Or hit up a guildie who is one or have an alt account already flagged as one so I could find them on the map ASAP) and hunt them down for 4 times the reward every single time. With that strictness, you are making a faux opt-out/opt-in PVP system.
    Yes, you're thinking about it from the pov of a pvper, while I'm thinking about it from the pov of how the game will be seen by everyone. 100 PKers at any given time is not just "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, and are now just existing in the world". It's "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, then cleared their corruption because they were at <3 PK count, then another 100 dudes kill another 100 dudes because the world is huge and there's a ton of content to fight over".

    It can be the same dudes that cleared their corruption after the first kill, or it could be their partymates to share the corruption rather than stack it, or it could be someone across the world. But this would still be quite a lot of murdering.

    But to make it clear once more, cause I don't remember if I've said this in this thread. PKING IS NOT PVPING. When you PK someone - you're hitting a passive target. There's no "versus" there. All the pvp for all the hardcore pvpers will be happening in nearly a dozen different avenues for proper pvp where both sides are fully aware of it and are prepared for it. This is one of the main reasons why I desperately want more info aboute guild wars, because their balance will be one of the main things to support my suggested corruption balancing.

    As for "most people just wouldn't fight back" - that's exactly what I want. That's exactly how those "100 dudes" would come to be. As I said in that quote, I expect majority of PKs to happen around valuable locations, which means that it's either a deep dungeon that takes quite a bit of time/effort to get to and/or a place that has great loot, so the victim would also think twice about dying with green penalties.

    But if they do - they'd need to be sure that they can get revenge on the PKer or at the very least that the PKer would get scared by the danger of being Red and leave that valuable location. Except, as I stated in other explanations of my preference for the system, I want first PKs to be cleansable within the rough amount of time required for the victim to return to the same spot. In other words, the PKer wouldn't be as scared about the situation, if they believe that they can cleanse their corruption fast enough.

    And if the victim doesn't come back fast enough, and/or if no one else has enough time to catch the PKer - we come to a mirror situation where the initial victim now has to decide whether the location is worth them going corrupt. Of course there's a chance that the PKer believes in their power strongly enough to just fight back, but that's a whole separate discussion.

    And if the location IS valuable enough - we have ourselves the second wave of the "PKer dude" that comprises my suggested <=1%.

    And if the initial victim simply tries to outfarm the PKer - it might lead to a second count for that PKer, which means a longer timer on the corruption cleansing, at which point there's a much higher chance for BHs to catch him and/or for the victim to get revenge (or for an opportunist to come along).

    But if the PKer is now scared enough to earn a new PK count - they gotta either outfarm the victim or spend their time carefully bringing down the victim's hp, to put pressure on them. This would then tie back to my insistence on invisible hp values, because visible ones make this approach dumb fucking easy, and I got no damn clue why Steven decided to go with them. But that is also a separate discussion.

    And so, if the PKer is not strong enough of a PvX player (i.e. can't outfarm someone in pve) and is scared of going too deep into Redness - they'll leave the location and the victim will keep farming. And imo that's how it should be, because I want pvxers to be the main playerbase. If someone can only do one thing - they should lose. This also applies to the victim, cause if they lose on the outfarm stage of the interaction - they'd need to either engage in pvp or move on.

    Also, if the PKer does only sit there constantly flagged by trying to keep the victim at low hp - the victim should call for help against a harasser and any pvp-enjoyer around can come kick the attacker's ass.

    What I've just described is pretty much any given day in L2 in any given semi-valuable location. Except more often than not people would simply fight each other for the spot, rather than toy around with the corruption system. But I've heard waaaaaay too many people claim that everyone's a fucking pussy now and would not fight back. Even your assumption that "it's better to just give them corruption" goes towards supporting that claim.

    I hope that losing more loot on green death will push people to fight back and that corruption does enough being balanced towards quick cleansing at < 3 PK count, but, as I said at the start of this comment - Steven has already said that their current plan is to have that cleanse time to be reaaaaaaal fucking long (cause even L2's was quite long, and my suggestion is more based on private server interactions where it was quite faster). So it's Steven that wants the system to be really harsh towards PKers - not me.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Any player should be able to defend themself from any attack.
    And as I keep saying, Reds are not players. They give up that right as soon as they become red. This is why they can't deposit things in storage, why they can't talk to npcs, why everyone can attack them for completely free, why BHs can track them.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    So its purely a personal preference of yours that PKing should be practically nonexistent, as opposed to design corresponding with what Stevens Design may be?
    As I've said before, Steven copied this system from L2 one-to-one, with the slight change to decrease what he sees as griefing (i.e repetitive PKing at scale). If he wanted PKers to be able to "defend themselves" - he would've changed the system more.

    So no, it's not just my personal preference. It's that my personal preference matches that of Stevens. Except, considering that he said it'd take way longer to clear corruption than it did in L2 - my preference is even laxer on the PKers than what he wants.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    By going this route, you are making bounty hunting irrelevant, youre erasing a majority of risk when entering the Open world, and making being the player who engages open world PvP extremely disincentivized to do so. I am a diehard PvPer and can tell you that if it is so punishing that only an average of 100ish players would likely ever risk a noncombatant PK at any given time, I would not only avoid initiating PVP completely, but I would actively not retaliate, as to cause corruption, flag as a bounty hunter (Or hit up a guildie who is one or have an alt account already flagged as one so I could find them on the map ASAP) and hunt them down for 4 times the reward every single time. With that strictness, you are making a faux opt-out/opt-in PVP system.
    Yes, you're thinking about it from the pov of a pvper, while I'm thinking about it from the pov of how the game will be seen by everyone. 100 PKers at any given time is not just "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, and are now just existing in the world". It's "100 dudes killed 100 dudes, then cleared their corruption because they were at <3 PK count, then another 100 dudes kill another 100 dudes because the world is huge and there's a ton of content to fight over".

    It can be the same dudes that cleared their corruption after the first kill, or it could be their partymates to share the corruption rather than stack it, or it could be someone across the world. But this would still be quite a lot of murdering.

    But to make it clear once more, cause I don't remember if I've said this in this thread. PKING IS NOT PVPING. When you PK someone - you're hitting a passive target. There's no "versus" there. All the pvp for all the hardcore pvpers will be happening in nearly a dozen different avenues for proper pvp where both sides are fully aware of it and are prepared for it. This is one of the main reasons why I desperately want more info aboute guild wars, because their balance will be one of the main things to support my suggested corruption balancing.

    As for "most people just wouldn't fight back" - that's exactly what I want. That's exactly how those "100 dudes" would come to be. As I said in that quote, I expect majority of PKs to happen around valuable locations, which means that it's either a deep dungeon that takes quite a bit of time/effort to get to and/or a place that has great loot, so the victim would also think twice about dying with green penalties.

    But if they do - they'd need to be sure that they can get revenge on the PKer or at the very least that the PKer would get scared by the danger of being Red and leave that valuable location. Except, as I stated in other explanations of my preference for the system, I want first PKs to be cleansable within the rough amount of time required for the victim to return to the same spot. In other words, the PKer wouldn't be as scared about the situation, if they believe that they can cleanse their corruption fast enough.

    And if the victim doesn't come back fast enough, and/or if no one else has enough time to catch the PKer - we come to a mirror situation where the initial victim now has to decide whether the location is worth them going corrupt. Of course there's a chance that the PKer believes in their power strongly enough to just fight back, but that's a whole separate discussion.

    And if the location IS valuable enough - we have ourselves the second wave of the "PKer dude" that comprises my suggested <=1%.

    And if the initial victim simply tries to outfarm the PKer - it might lead to a second count for that PKer, which means a longer timer on the corruption cleansing, at which point there's a much higher chance for BHs to catch him and/or for the victim to get revenge (or for an opportunist to come along).

    But if the PKer is now scared enough to earn a new PK count - they gotta either outfarm the victim or spend their time carefully bringing down the victim's hp, to put pressure on them. This would then tie back to my insistence on invisible hp values, because visible ones make this approach dumb fucking easy, and I got no damn clue why Steven decided to go with them. But that is also a separate discussion.

    And so, if the PKer is not strong enough of a PvX player (i.e. can't outfarm someone in pve) and is scared of going too deep into Redness - they'll leave the location and the victim will keep farming. And imo that's how it should be, because I want pvxers to be the main playerbase. If someone can only do one thing - they should lose. This also applies to the victim, cause if they lose on the outfarm stage of the interaction - they'd need to either engage in pvp or move on.

    Also, if the PKer does only sit there constantly flagged by trying to keep the victim at low hp - the victim should call for help against a harasser and any pvp-enjoyer around can come kick the attacker's ass.

    What I've just described is pretty much any given day in L2 in any given semi-valuable location. Except more often than not people would simply fight each other for the spot, rather than toy around with the corruption system. But I've heard waaaaaay too many people claim that everyone's a fucking pussy now and would not fight back. Even your assumption that "it's better to just give them corruption" goes towards supporting that claim.

    I hope that losing more loot on green death will push people to fight back and that corruption does enough being balanced towards quick cleansing at < 3 PK count, but, as I said at the start of this comment - Steven has already said that their current plan is to have that cleanse time to be reaaaaaaal fucking long (cause even L2's was quite long, and my suggestion is more based on private server interactions where it was quite faster). So it's Steven that wants the system to be really harsh towards PKers - not me.

    With everything you have just said. Why even allow the option to PK in the first place? Everything you are claiming to be so against is completely solved by allowing for players to simply opt-out of ever being attacked in the first place. If its already so punished and abhorrent to ever do such a terrible thing as PKing, why not only allow players to opt-in for PvP, and otherwise not be able to be killed? Everything you are suggesting just screams "The only time a player should be attacked is if they consent to it". Which is a terrible idea. And again, there is literally no point in having bounty hunters with your suggestion since if you only have 3% of players being hunted by 97% or hell even 25% of the ENTIRE server participating in that if we go by amount of military nodes, then only a percentage of a percentage of players participating will ever even be able to participate in that system, and that wouldnt even be consistently participating. And of course I am looking at it as a PvPer, it directly affects PvP, and PKing IS PvP. Its a player killing a player. Sure its one sided and boring, but youre still engaging another player. The only focus should be PKs under the definition of griefing. Which is repetitive with the intention to harass players. If you eliminate all forms of PKing, you are effectively eliminating incentive to EVER engage in PvP (not even PKing) due to the extreme punishments of engaging anyone with the chance of them not fighting back. The way youre proposing to handle it is likely going to result in little to no actual world PVP considering the only benefits you have are some resources, AND the work around of not even actually killing noncombatants, but bringing their HP down to a general threshold safe enough to not accidentally kill them and following them doing so until they leave because they cant fight mobs, or even use train tactics to potentially wipe them with mobs. Too strict of a system is just going to result in non-participation outright, which is bad for many of the systems and designs, and work arounds that could potentially feel even worse than what that system is actually trying to prevent.

    This is what the corruption system is for. Steven has indeed voiced his disdain for PKing, but if it wasnt clear to you that he was referring to PKing in relation to his definition of griefing, then I would argue that is clearly what he meant.
    The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[8][9]
    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.[9] – Steven Sharif
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    This is what the corruption system is for. Steven has indeed voiced his disdain for PKing, but if it wasnt clear to you that he was referring to PKing in relation to his definition of griefing, then I would argue that is clearly what he meant.
    You ask me "why even have owpvp", then you link Steven saying "it's there to keep risk alive", while I literally told you that Steven's own current design is way harsher than what I'm suggesting :D

    I think your issue is not with my suggestion, but with Steven's own design.

    p.s. I also just said that I want majority of pvp to happen in wars (mainly guild ones), but there's also another almost dozen ways where it'll happen. And none of that pvp has death penalties, while all of it is in fact opt-in and both sides consenting to it.

    If you want to go around PKing people and then freely killing anyone who attacks you for PKing - this is not a game for you.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    This is what the corruption system is for. Steven has indeed voiced his disdain for PKing, but if it wasnt clear to you that he was referring to PKing in relation to his definition of griefing, then I would argue that is clearly what he meant.
    You ask me "why even have owpvp", then you link Steven saying "it's there to keep risk alive", while I literally told you that Steven's own current design is way harsher than what I'm suggesting :D

    I think your issue is not with my suggestion, but with Steven's own design.

    p.s. I also just said that I want majority of pvp to happen in wars (mainly guild ones), but there's also another almost dozen ways where it'll happen. And none of that pvp has death penalties, while all of it is in fact opt-in and both sides consenting to it.

    If you want to go around PKing people and then freely killing anyone who attacks you for PKing - this is not a game for you.

    Stevens own design is to focus griefing, by his own words. By the current design, he has even suggested getting 10 PKs before even getting seriously affected by corruption, though that is just spitballing on his part. Even in that ranger video it suggests they are considering allowing some PKs to happen with little repercussions. You say its harsher than your suggestions yet you are saying you want none of that? Are we even following the same information?

    As far as my desire to PK goes, I only wish to have the option to PK outside of Stevens definition of griefing, and solely to deal with reasonable situations such as fighting for content with reasonable risk for the action, not a basically instant death sentence. The extreme punishment should be reserved for outright griefing activities, while PKing a reasonable amount of times within a reasonable amount of time should only be treated as a precursor to that sentence, still punished mind you, but reasonably as opposed to going from 0 to 100.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Stevens own design is to focus griefing, by his own words. By the current design, he has even suggested getting 10 PKs before even getting seriously affected by corruption, though that is just spitballing on his part. Even in that ranger video it suggests they are considering allowing some PKs to happen with little repercussions. You say its harsher than your suggestions yet you are saying you want none of that? Are we even following the same information?
    "10 PKs" was in the context of "you'll start feeling stat dampening in a significant way, not about anything else.

    And as I've been saying, there hasn't been a word about first kill not giving corruption.

    There has been this though
    A player's corruption score (corruption value) increases with each non-combatant player killed.[8][10][11][12]
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption

    I can't watch all the references from that list cause my electricity is about to go out, but I'd imagine none of those even imply "your first kill is free".

    And as I've said already, even at base lvl AoC's corruption balancing is more punishing than L2's, while what I'm suggesting is slightly less punishing than L2's balancing. This is why I'm saying that Steven's design is way harsher.

    You simply want way more PKing than either me or Steven want.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Stevens own design is to focus griefing, by his own words. By the current design, he has even suggested getting 10 PKs before even getting seriously affected by corruption, though that is just spitballing on his part. Even in that ranger video it suggests they are considering allowing some PKs to happen with little repercussions. You say its harsher than your suggestions yet you are saying you want none of that? Are we even following the same information?
    "10 PKs" was in the context of "you'll start feeling stat dampening in a significant way, not about anything else.

    And as I've been saying, there hasn't been a word about first kill not giving corruption.

    There has been this though
    A player's corruption score (corruption value) increases with each non-combatant player killed.[8][10][11][12]
    https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption

    I can't watch all the references from that list cause my electricity is about to go out, but I'd imagine none of those even imply "your first kill is free".

    And as I've said already, even at base lvl AoC's corruption balancing is more punishing than L2's, while what I'm suggesting is slightly less punishing than L2's balancing. This is why I'm saying that Steven's design is way harsher.

    You simply want way more PKing than either me or Steven want.

    Neither of us can say exaclty how much PKing steven wants. We just know he doesnt want griefing by his own definiton of it, which is EXCESSIVE PKing with intent to harass a player. So he may very well accept a singular PK or 2 or however many he sees fit under certain variables as less punishable.

    And yes, corruption increases with each non-combatant kill.

    It also says this
    Corruption penalties occur as the corruption is gained.
    Which could imply miniscule penalties for early corruption vs extreme penalties for higher corruption.

    And I never said a first kill shouldnt give corruption, I said it should be less extreme punishment at a low level of corruption, such as 1 or 2 kills. And we have literally just watched a video showing such a case. Its not written in stone of course, but to sit there and act like its meaningless just because you dont agree with it is being disingenuous about the design possibilities.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Neither of us can say exaclty how much PKing steven wants.
    We have to keep reminding him about the risk vs reward he promised.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    And I never said a first kill shouldnt give corruption, I said it should be less extreme punishment at a low level of corruption, such as 1 or 2 kills. And we have literally just watched a video showing such a case. Its not written in stone of course, but to sit there and act like its meaningless just because you dont agree with it is being disingenuous about the design possibilities.
    By "punishment", do you mean "corruption-based stat dampening" or "corruption-based death penalties"?

    Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is? I'm talking about death penalties. As long as you have even a single point of corruption - you're Red and you get full Red death penalties.

    If you disagree with that position then we simply disagree on how the system should work.

    As for the video we saw. Every damn video Steven says "this is not final product, not final pass, not final application, not final visual, not final bugs". We've also seen other videos where some skill wasn't working for some reason or where Steven had to use the admin cheats to enable smth. So no, I will not rely on what we saw there, when I've listened to Steven explain the corruption system for years and nothing has indicated to me that it's in any way different from L2's system, aside from the corruption-based stat dampening which is there EXACTLY to prevent the kind of griefing Steven is talking about.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    https://youtu.be/d_P7AK22_18
    24:30 until 29:30
    Listen to him and tell me where he says "PKing will have small enough of a punishment for people to PK more often". He directly states "PKing will be rare and here's a shitton of reasons why. We will also test the system to fine tune it towards that exact balancing".

    Yall PKers really don't listen to Steven, even when there was an entire damn part of the showcase about this shit.
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    PKing players for pleasure only can be rare.
    But if they have loot on them? Will dungeons feel like PvE areas?
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Otr wrote: »
    PKing players for pleasure only can be rare.
    But if they have loot on them? Will dungeons feel like PvE areas?
    As I've been saying - guild wars. Node wars will work as well.

    We will literally have unlimited PKing during both of those "events". And that PKing will be over the locations themselves rather than player loot, which is how it was in L2.

    PKing is still not going anywhere, but it will simply be really rare.
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two

    cupi wrote: »
    If you ask almost any pver, they'll tell you that they don't want to be attacked in the open world.
    It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP

    Ill comment on this part here.

    One would argue thats would be consider risk vs reward you made a choice to optimised your PvE farming and getting more loot with a higher risk of being weaken in being attacked by a player
    Where somone who PvE with a spec optimal for PvP is gonna be farming less mobs in the same time but there more capable at fighting back if attacked.

    So there a trade off there
  • VeeshanVeeshan Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Corruption system is there to punish non consential PvP

    if a red player is attacked by a green player then the green player is participating in consensual PvP agaist the red player there for the corruption hit should not occur,

    Also some more points
    - 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.[9] – Steven Sharif

    If the corruption system is to harsh then there no risk in open world due to no one will be willing to go red at all. Corruption is there to curtail griefig other players and killing a single person around ur level would not be considered griefing in most people eyes (repetaivly or ganking lowbies however would be)
    Now i would consider it griefing if green players can just throw themself repetaivly at a red player dieing over and over compounding the corruption penalty on the player, when the only option is to die or make things worst its a bad system.
    So overall the system need a buffer zone where there can be threat of killing somone green to add risk to the world but the buffer cant be to big that it allows for constant ganking before triggering corruption ststus

    So it needs to have atleast the ability to kill 1 person (your level or above) without going red to maintain that risk in the world.
    Or
    If you go corrupt on 1 kill you need the ability to defend yourself without making your corruption penalty worst from greens throwing themselfs at you. Stage 1 corruption shouldnt be to harsh of a penalty and the x4 death penalty should suffice here, with gear drops and stat dampering playing a roll in deeper stages of corruption if that player chooses to kill more greens (Or lowbie) without working off the corruption from the kill first. The system realy comes down to how long it takes to work off per kill and when the more painful death penalty take into account which will probaly be a big part of A2 dialling in those numbers.




  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    from greens throwing themselfs at you.
    Once again
    The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[46][27]

    This has been said since 2017. There's no "greens throwing themselves at you". There's only "you're pretty much a mob and don't deserve to defend yourself, so either die at the hands of people or avoid them and kill mobs".

    Yes, PKing will be rare. That's the entire point. It'll always be there as a choice, but it's the last resort, because the potential punishment is high.

    More and damn more I'm lead to believe that "pvpers" are just PKers and couldn't care less about good pvp where their target wants to fight back.

    The risk in event-based pvp will come from losing time and losing out on content (which is ultimately also time). And if those even-based pvp is properly balanced to make up for the rarity of PKing - you'll be losing a tooon of time to it, just as it was the case in L2.

    Yall really need to stop thinking about PKing as the only way to pvp.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Yes, PKing will be rare. That's the entire point. It'll always be there as a choice, but it's the last resort, because the potential punishment is high.
    From the perspective of a PvE player, this is kind of the worst case scenario.

    If such a player is out hunting random mobs, running dungeons and all that kind of stuff - the kind of stuff where they perhaps don't so much mind an interruption - no one will consider it worth it.

    As soon as they get to a boss - the kind of content that PvE players actually want - that is when the PvP starts.

    If a PvE player is going to be attacked, they would rather it be while they are running content they don't care about than while they are running the content that is the reason they play MMORPG's at all.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Dolyem wrote: »
    And I never said a first kill shouldnt give corruption, I said it should be less extreme punishment at a low level of corruption, such as 1 or 2 kills. And we have literally just watched a video showing such a case. Its not written in stone of course, but to sit there and act like its meaningless just because you dont agree with it is being disingenuous about the design possibilities.
    By "punishment", do you mean "corruption-based stat dampening" or "corruption-based death penalties"?

    Maybe that's where the misunderstanding is? I'm talking about death penalties. As long as you have even a single point of corruption - you're Red and you get full Red death penalties.

    If you disagree with that position then we simply disagree on how the system should work.

    As for the video we saw. Every damn video Steven says "this is not final product, not final pass, not final application, not final visual, not final bugs". We've also seen other videos where some skill wasn't working for some reason or where Steven had to use the admin cheats to enable smth. So no, I will not rely on what we saw there, when I've listened to Steven explain the corruption system for years and nothing has indicated to me that it's in any way different from L2's system, aside from the corruption-based stat dampening which is there EXACTLY to prevent the kind of griefing Steven is talking about.


    I have no issues with death penalties that are 4x loot and the current chance to drop gear increasing as corruption increases. Those can start ASAP. Progressively dampening is fine too.

    I'd even consider the utility lock downs of a character fine to activate ASAP as it creates a sense of urgency to deal with and can't be put off. Though I wouldn't mind some of these features also being eased into as more corruption happens. But the ability to remove/trade items from your character should still absolutely be prohibited for obvious reasons. But perhaps with lower corruption players should be able to at least withdraw items from storage, and have limited access to cities, very limited access mind and I would want it tested to make sure it even felt right.

    I'd chalk the 60 minute log-out up to wherever the team considers the beginning of actual griefing.

    I'd also say punishments should not decrease as you cleanse it in a single instance of corruption. Whatever your top end of corruption for that single instance should remain as such until you cleanse it or die.

    My only real concerns are how the system is set up for exponential corruption growth after just a single engagement via simply defending oneself from attacks. I'd also argue that aside from those penalties I mentioned, other progressingly severe penalties such as permanent PK values should have a sort of threshold via reaching a specified number of PKs during any single instance of corruption or even throughout a day being added as a PK value to punish griefing(a spree) specifically as opposed to one off incidents not defined as griefing which wouldnt be added to a Total PK value because they wouldnt be defined as excessive PK griefing.

    Also. This system is not Lineage 2, nor do i recall Steven ever saying it will be exactly as such, just inspired by it. That does not mean anything I've been suggesting is off of the table. And I already said that what we saw in the video isn't set in stone, but the mere fact that it exists is cause to consider the direction of design isn't exactly what you think. It's not guaranteed of course, but it's still possible considering what we have seen so far.

    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    edited July 23
    Noaani wrote: »
    If a PvE player is going to be attacked, they would rather it be while they are running content they don't care about than while they are running the content that is the reason they play MMORPG's at all.
    I mean, I'm pretty sure you're the one who've been expecting pvp zones around bosses, right? I expect those zones to simply be always taken buy guilds and guilds will be at war, so those pvers will always be PKed one way or the other. That's the point of open world bosses and contesting them. And yes, I know all pvers want instanced content and all that stuff.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    My only real concerns are how the system is set up for exponential corruption growth after just a single engagement via simply defending oneself from attacks.
    As I've been saying, Red can't defend themselves, but I fully support them having a really small amount of corruption on their first 2-3 PKs, that they can clear within just a few minutes (but only on best mobs at their lvl of course). That's the counterbalance to Reds not being able to defend themselves.

    And yes, Reds can defend themselves against BHs, but it's on BHs to self-flag themselves to be able to track PKers, so it's still not a defense against a green.
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Also. This system is not Lineage 2, nor do i recall Steven ever saying it will be exactly as such, just inspired by it.
    I'm sure other games had smth similar, but I'd be very curious to see the similarities between AoC's system and those other games' systems. And then compare that level of similarity with L2's similarity.

    The only change between L2's system and AoC's is the corruption-based stat dampening. That's it. Everything else is the exact same: flagging rules, greens not being CCable, corruption, corruption only going to one person out of a group and only if they made the killing blow, PK count, scaling of corruption gain with subsequent kills due to said PK count, heightened death penalties due to being corrupt, corruption going away by killing mobs and/or dying - literally all of that is 1-to-1 from L2.
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »
    Corruption system is there to punish non consential PvP

    if a red player is attacked by a green player then the green player is participating in consensual PvP agaist the red player there for the corruption hit should not occur,

    Also some more points
    - 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.[9] – Steven Sharif

    If the corruption system is to harsh then there no risk in open world due to no one will be willing to go red at all. Corruption is there to curtail griefig other players and killing a single person around ur level would not be considered griefing in most people eyes (repetaivly or ganking lowbies however would be)
    Now i would consider it griefing if green players can just throw themself repetaivly at a red player dieing over and over compounding the corruption penalty on the player, when the only option is to die or make things worst its a bad system.
    So overall the system need a buffer zone where there can be threat of killing somone green to add risk to the world but the buffer cant be to big that it allows for constant ganking before triggering corruption ststus

    So it needs to have atleast the ability to kill 1 person (your level or above) without going red to maintain that risk in the world.
    Or
    If you go corrupt on 1 kill you need the ability to defend yourself without making your corruption penalty worst from greens throwing themselfs at you. Stage 1 corruption shouldnt be to harsh of a penalty and the x4 death penalty should suffice here, with gear drops and stat dampering playing a roll in deeper stages of corruption if that player chooses to kill more greens (Or lowbie) without working off the corruption from the kill first. The system realy comes down to how long it takes to work off per kill and when the more painful death penalty take into account which will probaly be a big part of A2 dialling in those numbers.

    "If the corruption system is to harsh"

    Replace this with concrete numbers.
    I mean the threshold depends from player to player and even on same player it changes over time, as the player gets desensitized if he doesn't lose patience first.

    Can be that Steven sold us a dream.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Otr wrote: »
    Can be that Steven sold us a dream.
    He never did though. People, as always, chose to hear what they wanted and only believed that. And this has been true for pretty much everyone so far. If anything, there's been even more confusion because "pvpers" hear that PKing will allow them to kill greens, which then makes greens even more fearful of that threat, even though Steven's been saying "corruption is there to limit PKing as much as possible and we'll test the game to make it so", yet neither "pvpers" nor pvers hear him and just keep yelling at each other making things only worse for themselves :D

    All the while neither side realizes that absolute majority of PKing will be happening during wars, all of which will be infinitely worse than any PKing system out there (which is also literally what Steven has said several times before, and namely in the video I linked).
  • cupi wrote: »
    It depends, I would say what matters alot here are the builds. On even xp/gear grounds, someone specialized for Pve probably won't be able to hold it up against someone who's build is jacked towards consistent PVP
    Saabynator wrote: »
    One thing I do like about this, is that you cant spec for 100 % PvE, and still have an edge in PvP. To be competative, you need abilities up, that work well in PvP. I like that idea. It worked well in other games. You have a choice to make around your own security.
    There won't be a pvp/pve separation in gear. And we currently don't know what kind of mobs we'll have, so it's impossible to say if any of the skillset builds will be stronger in pve rather than in pvp, or the other way around.

    I personally expect mobs to have same defensive passives, stats, potentially even abilities as players do, so any given player would have builds that would work in the same manner against both/either.

    Obviously there's gonna be differences between any given mob or player, but this still doesn't mean that there's pvp builds and pve builds, it simply means that there's different builds to match different situations.

    There will always be abilities that are better for PvE and/or PvP - always.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Saabynator wrote: »
    There will always be abilities that are better for PvE and/or PvP - always.
    As a counter argument I can give the example of L2, where both gear and skills were the same in pvp and pve, and it was only in way later updates where NCsoft added the separation between the two.

    And with Ashes claiming to be a pvx game, I'd fully expect pve to require the same breadth of skill/gear usage as pvp will.
Sign In or Register to comment.