Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Questions about hunting Corrupted players
blat
Member
Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
If the non-combatant dies to the corrupted player, the NC suffers a heavier death penalty than if he was flagged as a combatant instead.
The corrupted player is punished with more corruption, which the NC may or may not care about - will likely care more about his own death penalty.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties
Q2) Would players hunting corrupted choose to deliberately flag themselves (as combatant) beforehand to minimise the impact of death?
If so, we know that:
Q3) Is this cheesing the system?
Generic Disclaimer: yes we're approaching A2, and things will be figured out in time. Balance will happen later. All the usual stuff. Agreed.
I'm simply wondering out loud, and interested in what others think. Will these be a problem? What could the solution(s) be?
Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_flagging
If the non-combatant dies to the corrupted player, the NC suffers a heavier death penalty than if he was flagged as a combatant instead.
The corrupted player is punished with more corruption, which the NC may or may not care about - will likely care more about his own death penalty.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Death_penalties
Q2) Would players hunting corrupted choose to deliberately flag themselves (as combatant) beforehand to minimise the impact of death?
If so, we know that:
...so they could only achieve this by briefly attacking someone else (not corrupted) instead.Players are not able to manually set their flagging status to combatant
Q3) Is this cheesing the system?
Generic Disclaimer: yes we're approaching A2, and things will be figured out in time. Balance will happen later. All the usual stuff. Agreed.
I'm simply wondering out loud, and interested in what others think. Will these be a problem? What could the solution(s) be?
0
Comments
An option to semi-permanently toggle Combatant status on (until toggled off at the same NPC).
I think it could be quite immersive; a certain level of dedication perhaps only available to Military Nodes once you've showed sufficiently loyalty with rep, demonstrated experience via a quest, combat skills via PvP quests, then finally the ultimate hunt: going after the corrupted (Bounty Hunting).
There should be some kind of benefit of course; maybe in the form of PvP-relevant buffs/augments, which would only partly compensate for the additional hassle you'll receive everywhere you go.
The player is essentially consenting to be attacked at any time.
Choosing the life of a combatant, hunting the corrupted etc is a risky existence (like Omar from The Wire robbing drug dealers for a living!), so it should definitely be compensated - but not made OP.
Constructive thoughts?
This sounds balanced. Me too. I'm a big fan of what they're doing with the Corrupted system - I just suspect there will be certain niche situations where it feels a bit janky.
The example above (hunting the corrupted) feels like it could be one of those.
That said, I see the value in offering PvP rewards for combatants who take down corrupted players who have been causing trouble. Maybe these rewards could be turned in as part of a PvP quest or bounty system. Personally, I prefer the lawless zone concept, where there are rarer materials, items, or monsters in PvP-only zones. These areas could require players to team up and venture into dangerous territories. I’d rather participate in PvP in these lawless or auto-flagged zones than become corrupted by attacking random players. That kind of forced PvP feels more rewarding to me.
There you can participate in as much PvP as you wish without the risk of corruption.
For the regular zones, the current setup is fine.
Again I think I agree with all of that too.
I'm talking more about specific scenarios than the general PvP/corruption system.
The example here being non-corrupted fighting vs corrupted. The NC will remain green, and therefore risk harsher death penalties than if he were flagged as combatant.
Non-combatant (NC) is of course everyone's default state. And I believe combatant status will drop after 90 seconds - so you will lose your combatant flag very quickly and return to NC status.
remember that you cant cc non combatants, plus corrupted players get a stat penalty when fighting other players. it would be disadvantageous for the green player to flag and turn purple before engaging with the corrupted player, because he could get cc'ed. also, red players may opt to run instead of killing another green and get more corruption, but killing a purple player wouldn't increase their corruption.
there isn't any advantages in turning purple before fighting a red, other than less mats dropped on death(you might have none to begin with).
edit: also, people nearby are more likely to hit the red player too and not you. the chances of winning vs red are greater if you are green, not purple. why would you give that up?
Players can already flag themselves against corrupted players if they want to hunt them. It's called being a bounty hunter.
And there's no cheesing in this particular context. PKers who keep killing greens will dig themselves ever deeper into shit. As it should be. Green who attack and try to kill Reds could potentially suffer greater death penalties, but it's a counter balance to the freedom of attack/kill of said Reds.
All of this is "system working as intended".
When it comes to bountry hunters, activation of "Pathfinding" ability automatically flags them for Corrupted players only.
Source:
No, because as I said above, doing so leads to a risk of being attacked by a third party
Sensible answer - appreciated.
All good points. Someone may still wish to flag before dying to a corrupted player (but as we have no manual control over flagging, that wouldn't be possible unless there's someone nearby to hit).
But as you say, maybe all things considered this is less of a factor vs the other risks (CC / other players).
I don't think it is in the chart. The chart v specifically says "attack" on the left diagram, and "kill" on the other two.
Considering a non-combatant remains NC after attacking a corrupted player, it doesn't specify what happens when the NC kills the corrupted player. (Although - reasonably safe to assume that they remain NC).
This is interesting, thanks. This sounds sensible to me (for both parties).
Lore wise corrupted players are just like monsters in the wild. Killing corrupted players wouldn't be any different from killing a corrupted minotaur.
Most players hunting corrupted ought to be bounty hunters (when the system goes into place) so it' soft of a moot point. But yes, I guess a bunch of greens who see a corrupted player in their area and gang up to take it out might face some challenges here.
The only thing you control is a toggle that determines whether your attacks force attack (defaults to left-alt)
The same questions you have here also apply to other difficult PvE enemies. Is it work flagging purple when fighting a raid boss so you drop less stuff if you die?
No... the highlighted part is 'attacks', rather than 'kills' Compare to the other two trees.
It's a valid question, and is missing from the chart. However, lorewise corrupted enemies are not different from monsters so there's no reason why a green player killing a monster would change status.
if I was 100% going to die, id flag to lose less, depending on what I'm carrying. i don't mind dropping a few basic mats to give more corruption to someone 8D. but other than that, id fight as NC ;3
See I'm the opposite. I'm 100% giving you corruption unless I think I can beat you and I feel like the fight is worth it. If you attack me you better commit to the red penalties. I might even do a jig while you swing your sword.
And then your name is going in to book of grudges for future reference. Better hope you don't want to buy something from me directly or any other social favours.
You can then have the citizens of a node decide on whether their node is a lawless or lawful zone.