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.

Questions about hunting Corrupted players

blatblat Member
edited October 6 in General Discussion
Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).

srtgh1g3prd0.jpg
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:
Players are not able to manually set their flagging status to combatant
...so they could only achieve this by briefly attacking someone else (not corrupted) instead.

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?

Comments

  • PendragxnPendragxn Member
    I’m a big fan of the lawless zone concept. I don’t like systems like WoW’s, where you can toggle war mode on and off. I prefer how Ashes incentivizes players to flag for combat; otherwise, they face harsher penalties on death. After all, this is a PvP/PvX game. There’s really no point in avoiding combat, especially with how the node system works. Without PvP, the entire system wouldn’t function properly or would feel broken.
  • blatblat Member
    edited October 6
    Just one proposal, which I've kept separate from the questions above as it's the questions I'm more interested in. This is just one idea I'm throwing out.

    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?
  • blatblat Member
    Pendragxn wrote: »
    I’m a big fan of the lawless zone concept. I don’t like systems like WoW’s, where you can toggle war mode on and off. I prefer how Ashes incentivizes players to flag for combat; otherwise, they face harsher penalties on death. After all, this is a PvP/PvX game. There’s really no point in avoiding combat, especially with how the node system works. Without PvP, the entire system wouldn’t function properly or would feel broken.

    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.
  • PendragxnPendragxn Member
    I think the goal is to encourage players to engage in combat and PvP, even if it feels organically forced—that’s the whole point. There’s no real incentive to become corrupted by attacking a non-combatant, but at the same time, there’s no reason not to be flagged for combat. It’s like a self-balancing system. The game revolves around PvX, node systems, and conflicting interests, so PvP is integral to its design.

    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.
  • Taleof2CitiesTaleof2Cities Member, Alpha Two
    There will be full PvP areas in Ashes, blat … such as the open seas areas.

    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.
  • blatblat Member
    edited October 6
    Pendragxn wrote: »
    I think the goal is to encourage players to engage in combat and PvP, even if it feels organically forced—that’s the whole point. There’s no real incentive to become corrupted by attacking a non-combatant, but at the same time, there’s no reason not to be flagged for combat. It’s like a self-balancing system. The game revolves around PvX, node systems, and conflicting interests, so PvP is integral to its design.

    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.

    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.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 6
    blat wrote: »
    Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).

    srtgh1g3prd0.jpg
    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:
    Players are not able to manually set their flagging status to combatant
    ...so they could only achieve this by briefly attacking someone else (not corrupted) instead.

    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?

    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?
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Killing PKer is the same as killing a mob. It's just a loot pinata. And your state will not change due to that kill.

    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".
  • FlankerFlanker Member, Alpha Two
    blat wrote: »
    I'm talking more about specific scenarios than the general PvP/corruption system.
    I wouldn't expect a decent answer from someone who spams his AI-generated comments across multiple threads. Just a side note
    n8ohfjz3mtqg.png
  • FlankerFlanker Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 6
    blat wrote: »
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).
    It's in the chart actually. Yes, NC can kill a corrupted player and remain NC. You actually highlighted it yourself.
    blat wrote: »
    Q2) Would players hunting corrupted choose to deliberately flag themselves (as combatant) beforehand to minimise the impact of death?
    It depends on a particular situation. Flagging leads to a risk of being attacked by a third party. If it is 100% fight against a corrupted player, then yeah, it might make sense.

    When it comes to bountry hunters, activation of "Pathfinding" ability automatically flags them for Corrupted players only.

    Source:
    tlacj0snbakt.png
    blat wrote: »
    Q3) Is this cheesing the system?
    No, because as I said above, doing so leads to a risk of being attacked by a third party
    n8ohfjz3mtqg.png
  • blatblat Member
    Depraved wrote: »
    blat wrote: »
    Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).

    srtgh1g3prd0.jpg
    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:
    Players are not able to manually set their flagging status to combatant
    ...so they could only achieve this by briefly attacking someone else (not corrupted) instead.

    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?

    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?

    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).
  • blatblat Member
    Flanker wrote: »
    blat wrote: »
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).
    It's in the chart actually. Yes, NC can kill a corrupted player and remain NC. You actually highlighted it yourself.
    blat wrote: »
    Q2) Would players hunting corrupted choose to deliberately flag themselves (as combatant) beforehand to minimise the impact of death?
    It depends on a particular situation. Flagging leads to a risk of being attacked by a third party. If it is 100% fight against a corrupted player, then yeah, it might make sense.

    When it comes to bountry hunters, activation of "Pathfinding" ability automatically flags them for Corrupted players only.

    Source:
    tlacj0snbakt.png
    blat wrote: »
    Q3) Is this cheesing the system?
    No, because as I said above, doing so leads to a risk of being attacked by a third party

    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).
    When it comes to bountry hunters, activation of "Pathfinding" ability automatically flags them for Corrupted players only.

    This is interesting, thanks. This sounds sensible to me (for both parties).
  • ShivaFangShivaFang Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 7
    blat wrote: »
    Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).

    Lore wise corrupted players are just like monsters in the wild. Killing corrupted players wouldn't be any different from killing a corrupted minotaur.
    Q2) Would players hunting corrupted choose to deliberately flag themselves (as combatant) beforehand to minimise the impact of death?
    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?
  • ShivaFangShivaFang Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 7
    Flanker wrote: »
    blat wrote: »
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).
    It's in the chart actually. Yes, NC can kill a corrupted player and remain NC. You actually highlighted it yourself.

    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.

  • FlankerFlanker Member, Alpha Two
    ShivaFang wrote: »
    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.
    Yeah, fair enough
    n8ohfjz3mtqg.png
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 7
    blat wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    blat wrote: »
    Non-combatants can attack corrupted players, and remain non-combatant (NC).
    Q1) Can non-combatants kill corrupted players and remain NC? (missing from chart).

    srtgh1g3prd0.jpg
    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:
    Players are not able to manually set their flagging status to combatant
    ...so they could only achieve this by briefly attacking someone else (not corrupted) instead.

    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?

    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?

    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).

    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
  • ShivaFangShivaFang Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 13
    Depraved wrote: »
    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.
  • RedLeader1RedLeader1 Member, Alpha Two
    edited October 21
    I'd like to see corruption player driven. If a Node wants to have a non default version of the system, let them build a building that triggers that higher (or lower I guess) level of the corruption system. I love the idea that a node has to make choices for limited building slots.

    You can then have the citizens of a node decide on whether their node is a lawless or lawful zone.
Sign In or Register to comment.