Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan.
One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
Hahaha, bring it on!
I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing.
Yeah - it would be interesting to see if you could organize a small squad for exactly this kind of incursion and escape for a handy profit.
Definitely planning to test out going corrupt and jumping on a friends ship to go work off corruption.
Careful, your corruption may become a key part of my gear acquisition plan.
One of the things I do like about the ocean being a lawless zone is that it gives bandits a place to run to. Like Charlie and Michael hoofing it to the sea in Beirut 'They won't fuck with us in the water.' Gold star to anyone who get's that reference.
Hahaha, bring it on!
I more or less want to see how it feels if a corrupted player is able to jump onto a guildies ship and sail away tucked away in the haul until they find a nice spot to grind xp. If I can get away with it 9 times out of 10, I feel like it may need a bit of a barrier to that sort of thing.
Yeah - it would be interesting to see if you could organize a small squad for exactly this kind of incursion and escape for a handy profit.
I already have a squad willing to do it haha. But we are going to do it to make sure it doesnt feel like crap. Otherwise coasts may as well also be lawless zones ya know?
I wasn't able to find the answer to this on the wiki. Anyone know?
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I heal myself in attempt to avoid death, but do not fight back. Do I flag for healing myself?
Another one:
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I cc the purple in attempt to escape, but do not do any damage. Do I flag for the cc?
as far as I can tell if you heal greens you do not flag. If you use any form of beneficial or harmful action on a purple player you become flagged as purple.
I wasn't able to find the answer to this on the wiki. Anyone know?
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I heal myself in attempt to avoid death, but do not fight back. Do I flag for healing myself?
Another one:
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I cc the purple in attempt to escape, but do not do any damage. Do I flag for the cc?
Scenario 1: No, you don't flag by healing/buffing green players (including yourself), but you will if healing/buffing purples or reds
Scenario 2: Yes, you flag when you use an ability on a purple or another green. As of yet there isn't any stark separation of 'CC ability' and 'damage ability'.
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect.
Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
"Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion.
Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all.
Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided.
Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with.
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect.
Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
"Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion.
Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all.
Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided.
Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
And I am defining PKs by Stevens own definition. The ONLY time you are griefing (in PvP*), is when PKing to negatively affect another players gameplay. YOUR definition of griefing is just a gank in general.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
I really want to assume this is exaggeration, but you phrased it so specifically I'm not sure.
There's certainly a meaningful chance that they will be pursued if they attempt to escape, but how can we assume that they can't escape at all? It's not like stealth/movement abilities/various ways of manipulating combat scenarios with mobs all vanish.
While a player doesn't automatically hit other players when using an AoE against mobs, for example, there's a meaningful chance that it goes the other way.
What scenario are you seeing where a Corrupted player has none of their escape tools or strategies available? (I fully accept that, depending on their build, they might have considerably less of them available).
Or is this just 'someone has spotted you and now everyone will hunt you down'?
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
I really want to assume this is exaggeration, but you phrased it so specifically I'm not sure.
There's certainly a meaningful chance that they will be pursued if they attempt to escape, but how can we assume that they can't escape at all? It's not like stealth/movement abilities/various ways of manipulating combat scenarios with mobs all vanish.
While a player doesn't automatically hit other players when using an AoE against mobs, for example, there's a meaningful chance that it goes the other way.
What scenario are you seeing where a Corrupted player has none of their escape tools or strategies available? (I fully accept that, depending on their build, they might have considerably less of them available).
Or is this just 'someone has spotted you and now everyone will hunt you down'?
I would simply point out that because greens are cc immune you are now incapable of using tools your archetype would normally use to get away from someone. Not every archetype will have a speed boost or teleport from what I can see. Now if slows are still applicable it might not be so bad, but I fully expect needing some form of cc to actually get away from people.
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant.
Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this.
Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill.
Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes.
Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you.
They fundamentally are, at least they are close enough that it matters until they purify it. That's why they can't trade or access storage and have other limitations. Corruption isn't just some arbitrary karma mechanic, but is a mechanic derived in lore.
You said "There's no mind games at all in this interaction."
And we talk about the game design not how players can use it.
You can do what you want but others will not read your thoughts and guess your intentions.
That's why you have to decide for yourself if the gains are going to be worth going red over. If you decide they are, and end up wrong, that's not 'mind games', you were just incorrect.
Then you go cleanse it off with your group and consider that a learning experience for the next time.
I have no problem with greens jumping onto a red who killed their friend. If one makes a mistake and becomes red while surrounded by greens, even if they hide in bushes, so be it. That is fair game.
I am against greens who by chance see a red and spontaneously decide to start hunting him.
There is zero mechanical difference between these two scenarios.
Like I said before, it's all cases or no cases. It's not possible to code based on player intent, only player actions.
Player action is that they engage in combat.
They PvP.
It is clearly a big difference if you attack first or you defend yourself after you was attacked.
Except the game doesn't know if the green attacking a red is reacting to a PK on their buddy right next to them, or someone they didn't even know.
You claimed it was fine for the cascading consequences in scenario one, but not ok in scenario two, but they're mechanically identical scenarios. A green is hitting a red.
Either there is a cascade effect if you choose to continue killing greens, or there isn't. There's no halfsies subjective way to handle it.
The concept is...if you keep killing people who dont fight back you should gain more corruption...but if people are fighting back, those kills in defense shouldnt cause corruption... how is that hard to grasp? The only thing that should be different is you shouldnt punish the "non-combatants" engaging a corrupted player, so they dont flag to other players as combatants, that way they can freely engage a corrupted player without worry of interference. That engagement therefore should forfeit causing more corruption, because the ENTIRE point of it is to punish you for griefing, which would be excessively killing players WHO DONT FIGHT BACK AT ALL. Punishment for combating people who are voluntarily fighting is counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of corruption.
Because there is zero mechanical difference between 'a green hunted you down' and 'a green turned around to hit you after you killed their group mate'.
So youre saying that the friend of the green who was right there waited for them to die to specifically exploit the corruption system like I would instead of initiating combat while it was happening?
Mind you, TTK is said to not be short in ashes so there would be time if theyre near by
You're projecting heavily. Why would they be doing it to 'exploit' you specifically? Why would you be foolish enough to go red solo while looking down the eye of an uneven fight in the first place?
Thats the exact scenario you should be punished most heavily.
Don't leap into a crowd of people, punch one over, then cry foul when the crowd turns and beat you over the head for it.
thats the thing though...why wouldnt you both fight back in that case? The only reason to not react would more or less be to take advantage of making me go corrupt to gain an edge due to the extreme punishments. I agree that in the scenario, the single player engaging 2 should expect a fight against 2 players, not being allowed to kill one only to be weakened for the other literally watching it all happen.
Because they don't like PvP? Because they didn't have anything on hand worth more than inflicting corruption? Because they didn't think someone would be dumb enough to actually follow through when there's other players right there?
Take your pick. 'To spite you' is hardly the only reason someone might not choose to fight.
The real question is why do you want to escape consequences of a stupid decision? If they're letting you kill them in their face, that oughta be a real big indicator to you that it isn't gonna be worth the immediate consequences. That's some Leroy Jenkins antics.
Consequences of corruption are meant for griefing. Thats why lmao. If I am camping a duo over and over, sure I should get corruption and be punished accordingly as I acquire more and more. But having corruption act as a shield to general PvP is not the intention of the system. So if I run up and kill you and your friend without you fighting back "Because you dont like to PvP" then I run off and leave yall alone, no harm no foul. I have to go work my shit off accordingly, and you dont need to worry about me until that corruption debt is paid. However, if I stick around and keep killing you despite you not fighting back, I will compound more and more. Once any other player decides to attack me, thats voluntary PvP, and it shouldnt cause MORE corruption if the corrupted player comes out on top. Its a PvP engagement regardless of flagged status. Dont punish PvP. Only punish griefing.
Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP.
We have robust PvP options available with nearly no negative consequences for engaging in that'll pop up all over with much better payouts and progression systems than what you can loot off some player out in the wilds.
PKing is not a high-gains playstyle, hence why I call it 'meaningless PvP'. It amounts to killing people over crumbs when the feast exists in caravans throughout the world where there are no penalties at all for killing someone.
You keep making up these scenarios where in that case it's fine to add corruption but in this case it's not fine but they're mechanically identical. How do you intend to justify 'self-defense' when you hit their group mate first? Do you expect there to be a timer on the backend that says 'after this much time being red' it's all 'self-defense' if you get hit? A red PKing for fun and a red player PKing to eliminate competition for their guild are no different in the ones and zeros of the game.
There's no way to make one 'ok' and another 'not ok'
Thats your opinion, and holds no objectivity. We go by Stevens provided definition for griefing, which comes down to intent behind the PK. Killing you once for some resources and then leaving you alone is no worse than killing you for any zone control/content. Its only bad when I am intentionally trying to ruin your gameplay experience.
For one, you dont know what payouts will be better or not, nor if the risks are greater or less. Largescale PvP events are much different than 1v1 or 8v8. They tend to require much more planning and arent necessarily spontaneous.
PKing absolutely can be a high gains playstyle if it comes to resource control. Otherwise youll have nothing to worry about as there would be no point to fight for said resources. And while there is no corruption for Caravan PvP, there are still some death penalties. Including gear degradation and material drops.
And like I said several times already, it comes down to punishing griefing rather than punishing PvP. If people are actively fighting against eachother, thats PvP regardless of anyones flagged status, which should mean a corrupted player shouldnt be punished for any of those kills, because its not able to be defined as griefing in this case..... BUT, if its a corrupted player killing someone who doesnt fight back, that player should absolutely gain more corruption because enough of these kills in a short enough time could absolutely be defined as griefing.
All you want is to continue to punish anyone who turns red for fighting back regardless of if it is a grief or not. This deters both PvP AND Griefing, instead of just Griefing. And thats bad design for what corruption is intended as far as what Stevens stated Corruption design is
In what way is it opinion to say "code can't read players' minds" but not "this will scare away PvPers"? Why would Corruption scare away PvPers when the most important and impactful PvP systems don't have Corruption at all?
It'll make people think twice about ganking as their main playstyle, which is working exactly as intended. Corruption starting and ending at one kill is perfectly doable, if you choose to stop killing greens. If you are smart and don't hang around hotspots after a PK while red. If you don't PK solo around groups.
There are sooooo many ways to avoid these penalties you're scared of just by playing smart and making plans ahead of time, especially if you work within an group as it's intended, but even if you do choose to try it solo it's possible.
You are never required to kill another green. If you wanna avoid your death penalties by fighting back, keep doing so at your own risk, or lean on allies, learn how to evade people, or just eat the single round of penalties by letting this imaginary 'mob of greens' kill you and you'll no longer be red. One PK isn't zero %, but it's still a minuscule chance of dropping gear at one kill unless you are chronically ganking and have a deep corruption score for the character.
If you don't wanna play smart to avoid situations where you'll have other greens on you for a PK, you don't want to group up with people who will have your back and keep you alive through whatever conflict happens, and you don't want to eat the consequences of death while corrupted but you also don't want the consequences of avoiding it, and you still want the game to coddles reds for 'self defense', then this game might not be for you.
"Random open world ganking is the absolute bottom of the barrel of what could be called PvP." This is what I was referring to as an opinion.
Corruption, as is, will deter open world PvP. Thats what corruption is effecting. Its goal is to deter griefing, not open world PvP engagement. You constantly directing PvP players to PvP events makes it seem like you dont want any open world PvP at all.
Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP.
"just give up if you are corrupted" is a wild suggestion, but as is, thats pretty much all one will likely be able to do once engaged. Even without gaining corruption for defending oneself, every corrupted player with even a single kill is incentivized to be very careful while they work it off due to the death penalties.
If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked.
I honestly want to know how I am suggesting corrupted players be coddled with all of the death penalties they recieve, along with the disadvantages that defending themselves against a non-combatant already gives. This is purely a suggestion based on the intent of the system. Dont deter PvP, focus on the actual griefing. I get it, if you get killed once randomly, you think whoever did that is the worst person in the world even if you never see them again so you think they should burn in hell.
The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided.
Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
And I am defining PKs by Stevens own definition. The ONLY time you are griefing (in PvP*), is when PKing to negatively affect another players gameplay. YOUR definition of griefing is just a gank in general.
Like the others here have said. If you put yourself in such a bad spot that you won't have an option to book it after a PK, that's entirely your own damn fault for having awful planning.
That definition of 'griefing' is also laughably useless in the terms of this conversation especially. PvP in Ashes will always negatively affect someone else's gameplay. That's the entire point if you want PvP to matter. You steal from someone's caravan, you swipe the boss someone was after, you take their castle, target-kill a rival guild, etc etc.
I was just thinking about this, and honestly, there needs to be a bit of nuance here. I'm wondering if it might be better for the game if green players flag purple when they initiate an attack on a red player, but if they're attacked first, they can fight back without going purple.
What this does is loosen up the restrictions on red players a bit and discourages greens from turning around to kill reds just because a swarm of other players rolled by.
If you don’t want to PvP, then you can’t be the one making the first move. You already have CC immunity, so having the risk of losing that in order to attack reds on sight seems like a better system.
The reason I suggest this is that I don’t like the idea that, to clear someone from a farming spot, you might go red, and then an army of greens throws themselves at you, either killing you or increasing your corruption, when your only aggression was against the initial party.
If Steven wants players to have a way to express their frustration or contend with others, he needs to avoid forcing us to dig a hole to our doom every time we engage with it.
Anyway, what do y’all think? Stupid? (It's only alpha, hurr durr?) Let me know regardless. I’ll be fishing in Throne and chillin’.
Forgive my ignorance, but how DOES the flagging system work? Is there a link? I didn’t find one but didn’t search very hard yet. I assumed it would work the same in most pvp games where the aggressor flags, and you don’t suffer for defending oneself?
Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption
yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune?
I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area.
This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red.
So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
I have an idea why don’t we just make the whole map a lawless zone? Hear me out this would solve all problems and we can all have one massive battle royale and I also think we should make it full loot
Now this I can get behind. Safe zones are for chumps.
Forgive my ignorance, but how DOES the flagging system work? Is there a link? I didn’t find one but didn’t search very hard yet. I assumed it would work the same in most pvp games where the aggressor flags, and you don’t suffer for defending oneself?
So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
Intrepid wants reds to get attacked on sight, and given its more penalizing to die green than purple, the base mechanisms of it are fine. As a red you should just run off and grind off the corruption
yes, but how do you think someone can run from a green thats cc immune?
I personally dont like it when protected players roam around using that protection as a weapon to further punish someone whos already going to lose a good amount of stuff when they die. If the red defends themselves they lose even more. It would be less of an issue if greens were not cc immune. Then you could pull some tricks to try and get away but as it stands if you happen to be the unlucky guy in your group to get a last hit you become the juicy piece of meat to everyone within that area.
This change is for those kinds of players just trying to contend for a farming spot or drive someone off and happen to go red. Since there is no option to choose non-lethal attacks the least that could be done is making greens flag as purple if they initiate against a red.
So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards.
The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid.
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
I have some news for you:
"there might not be any content that is guaranteed to have no PvP at it"
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
Sure, in the game with several sources of direct pvp (wars, EotS, open seas) and Steven desire to prevent repeated PKing (which he considers griefing) we'll somehow have hundreds of PKs on our chars
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
Sure, in the game with several sources of direct pvp (wars, EotS, open seas) and Steven desire to prevent repeated PKing (which he considers griefing) we'll somehow have hundreds of PKs on our chars
That will definitely happen
Then the PvP part is how to annoy the others to make them leave.
Especially if they use trackers
Then the PvP part is how to annoy the others to make them leave.
And I fully support that I've been against all "gain corruption for attacks" suggestions, so if anyone wants to remain permanently purple by attacking others - I'm all for it.
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
I have some news for you:
"there might not be any content that is guaranteed to have no PvP at it"
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
Oh you are so beyond out of scope here it's starting to be less funny, and more sad.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
every single green? Great PvP-ers.
You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
every single green? Great PvP-ers.
You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
every single green? Great PvP-ers.
You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there
Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
every single green? Great PvP-ers.
You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there
Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other
Lakes, rivers, ponds, and sea. Only one of which is directly part of lawless territory. But again, it's plainly obvious your imaginary scenario wasn't about the lawless sea at all.
Just this same strange, recurring entitlement mentality to harvesting areas.
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant.
Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this.
Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill.
Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes.
Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you.
Its not about either of our opinions about PKers. You can think PKing is despicable. I can think its just normal PvP. What matters is what corruption is meant to accomplish, and Steven has already told us it is to deter griefing. And as he defines it, PKing isnt griefing. You can certainly grief via PKing, but they are not the same. Its not supposed to stop players from PKing, as you say. It is to stop players from griefing.
To argue that PKing has no place in ashes and should not have a healthy, keyword here is healthy, amount of it, is to argue to remove that entire aspect of risk when seeking rewards in the game. PKers and griefers alike would still be dealing with a substantial amount of risk. This whole argument is pointing out the very real possibility that corruption will have vastly disproportionate risk to any incentive of attacking other players. Objectively, using Stevens definitions, corruption will need to be balanced to mainly deter griefing, as opposed to deter griefing AND PvP, regardless of your or my own opinion of that PvP.
The reason there is no option for escape, is because you cant utilize any CC against non-combatants who engage you. You are being very disingenuous if you are saying a corrupted player has a chance to get away from CC immune players while also being able to get CCed themselves. I will give you some benefit of the doubt and say rogues may be able to pull it off, but I am willing to bet 99 times out of 100, any corrupted player trying to avoid conflict and evade hostile players will be guaranteed to die. That being said, I plan to test this. Both in 1v1 and 8v8 scenarios. Corrupted players purely focusing on escape and evasion against multiple planned groups and any unplanned groups they run into. Going to track which classes succeed if any, and how many successfully escape with cleared corruption vs how many attempts it takes. Assuming bounty hunter systems get included at some point, those will be utilized by at least 1 player or group that the corrupted killed.
Do you also feel that this is a game type where CC will be so common and integral that classes without it will be unable to escape or create distance?
Because "I can't CC because the enemy is green" is the same as "I can't CC because my CC isn't helpful/I don't have any".
If the game is CC heavy, I agree with you somewhat, because the Green will also be likely to have a lot of it, but this disparity you're discussing gets larger when the game doesn't have much.
I'd hope that at least the 1v1 TTK would offer some options for a player who is trying to escape, to actually do so, regardless of their state.
And for fun, I just spontaneously asked 5 Players in the discord I am in who intend to PvP how they plan to deal with corruption as it currently is. And every single one of them either said they are avoiding engaging fights altogether, or they will utilize methods of being a nuisance via PvE, keeping opponents at a lower percentage of health if they are fighting NPCs (likely around 25% so they dont accidently kill them is what they said), and flat out body blocking or following/impeding the players such as racing them to whatever nodes they are gathering repeatedly to claim the area resources, even in groups so there is always someone of the others tail. Theyd be happy to utilize a kill or 2 to get the point across instead, but as is, they are planning to resort to different methods to get the same point across. And these are players who fully agree with Stevens definition of Griefing, and dont intend to ever camp players or grief with PKs.
Do with that what you will, its not exactly a large census
Do you also feel that this is a game type where CC will be so common and integral that classes without it will be unable to escape or create distance?
Because "I can't CC because the enemy is green" is the same as "I can't CC because my CC isn't helpful/I don't have any".
If the game is CC heavy, I agree with you somewhat, because the Green will also be likely to have a lot of it, but this disparity you're discussing gets larger when the game doesn't have much.
I'd hope that at least the 1v1 TTK would offer some options for a player who is trying to escape, to actually do so, regardless of their state.
I get what youre saying here and I hope so too. But from experience through many MMOs, I would say its likely going to be the case that if a class has no CCs, the likelihood of escape someone who can CC them is slim to zero.
This is also why I plan to test it though. So hopefully youre correct, but also hopefully not at the cost of gameplay since CCs tend to be important abilities, especially in large scale PvP
"last resort in a PvP competition" See right here...this is a desire to punish PvP in a more general sense. The goal is to deter griefing. There is no reason to deter mutual combat such as a green attacking a red without being penalized, nor a red defending themself simply because nobody is being griefed in this scenario.
We just have too differing of an opinion on what Reds are. To me - they're the weakest player in the game, who deserve what they get. Their victims didn't fight back, so the Red shouldn't be able to fight back either.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
The only concern that you would need to argue with that is sufficient time to work off corruption to maintain enough time between PKs to not be considered griefing, and this would include keeping a player with enough corruption to be considered already griefing sufficiently locked into working off that corruption for a time justified for however much they earned.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant.
Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this.
Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill.
Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes.
Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you.
Its not about either of our opinions about PKers. You can think PKing is despicable. I can think its just normal PvP. What matters is what corruption is meant to accomplish, and Steven has already told us it is to deter griefing. And as he defines it, PKing isnt griefing. You can certainly grief via PKing, but they are not the same. Its not supposed to stop players from PKing, as you say. It is to stop players from griefing.
To argue that PKing has no place in ashes and should not have a healthy, keyword here is healthy, amount of it, is to argue to remove that entire aspect of risk when seeking rewards in the game. PKers and griefers alike would still be dealing with a substantial amount of risk. This whole argument is pointing out the very real possibility that corruption will have vastly disproportionate risk to any incentive of attacking other players. Objectively, using Stevens definitions, corruption will need to be balanced to mainly deter griefing, as opposed to deter griefing AND PvP, regardless of your or my own opinion of that PvP.
Exactly, PKing must exist for the element of risk.
If I have to choose, I would make cleaning the corruption fast at the detriment of Bounty Hunters, who then become useless as they have no time to reach the red.
But even more levels of corruption are planned to be viable. At least theoretically on wiki.
Didn't the Phoenix Initiative players tested such things?
Comments
Yeah - it would be interesting to see if you could organize a small squad for exactly this kind of incursion and escape for a handy profit.
I already have a squad willing to do it haha. But we are going to do it to make sure it doesnt feel like crap. Otherwise coasts may as well also be lawless zones ya know?
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I heal myself in attempt to avoid death, but do not fight back. Do I flag for healing myself?
Another one:
I am green. I get attacked by a purple. I cc the purple in attempt to escape, but do not do any damage. Do I flag for the cc?
as far as I can tell if you heal greens you do not flag. If you use any form of beneficial or harmful action on a purple player you become flagged as purple.
Scenario 1: No, you don't flag by healing/buffing green players (including yourself), but you will if healing/buffing purples or reds
Scenario 2: Yes, you flag when you use an ability on a purple or another green. As of yet there isn't any stark separation of 'CC ability' and 'damage ability'.
Sure, an opinion based in observable facts. If you're fighting over things that do not matter, the crumbs of resources in common areas that people regularly will not defend to the point of dying green and taking extra penalties, then that is bottom of the barrel. It has the lowest impact of any kind of PvP. Contested valuable spots in open sea or other lawless zones (should land based ones make itto launch), world events with rare drops and irregular spawn rates, or dungeons all open to PvP are what the open world PvP is here for. It's for making an impact on the world, the pointless 1v1 scuffling over crumbs of resources is not meaningful PvP.
If you're too scared to fight back and eat more corruption, too foolish to have planned an escape route, and too haughty to have group mates around, then yes, minimize your losses instead of whining about how unfair it is that you can be attacked.
The only one equating open world meaningful PvP in the open world to ganking is you. If you and your group fight over things that matter, you will rarely ever be dealing with Corruption. If you're lone-wolf killing greens in populated areas, you're an idiot, first off, and secondly, it's exactly the sort of behavior that's trying to be avoided.
Like Lud already said, reds should not be the ones getting to decide how severe their penalties become, which is all your suggestion would do. Use your brain, disengage, and run if you are so stubbornly against having a group to do your open world PvP with.
All of your argument implies the corrupted players have the ability run away from fights. But they cant. Now if you argue that instead of avoiding corruption when defending oneself, a red can CC non-combatants fighting them so they can attempt to CC and disengage instead of committing to the kill, mind you getting away is not guaranteed since the corrupted players could be CCed as well. Thatd be a reasonable argument on your part. But as it currently is, a corrupted player is doomed the second they get spotted by anyone willing to attack them. Their only options as is are to die, or to fight back and fall further into corruption. There is zero option to disengage.
And I am defining PKs by Stevens own definition. The ONLY time you are griefing (in PvP*), is when PKing to negatively affect another players gameplay. YOUR definition of griefing is just a gank in general.
I really want to assume this is exaggeration, but you phrased it so specifically I'm not sure.
There's certainly a meaningful chance that they will be pursued if they attempt to escape, but how can we assume that they can't escape at all? It's not like stealth/movement abilities/various ways of manipulating combat scenarios with mobs all vanish.
While a player doesn't automatically hit other players when using an AoE against mobs, for example, there's a meaningful chance that it goes the other way.
What scenario are you seeing where a Corrupted player has none of their escape tools or strategies available? (I fully accept that, depending on their build, they might have considerably less of them available).
Or is this just 'someone has spotted you and now everyone will hunt you down'?
I would simply point out that because greens are cc immune you are now incapable of using tools your archetype would normally use to get away from someone. Not every archetype will have a speed boost or teleport from what I can see. Now if slows are still applicable it might not be so bad, but I fully expect needing some form of cc to actually get away from people.
The only pvp this will stop is for those weak players who cannot figure out another way of winning an interaction. And this includes the "visible hp problem" that I've brought up in the past. If you don't have enough skill to avoid corruption while removing a competitor from a spot - you neither deserved that spot nor do you deserve to freely fight back anyone who comes to punish you for what you've done.
And here we simply disagree on the balancing of corruption gain.
As I've said in the past, I want the first few PKs to be cleansable within slightly higher amount of time than what the victim would need to return to the same location (given that the location has best possible mobs for the PKer's lvl). The first PK might even be a fair bit shorter, cause this would give the weaker player 2-3 chances to take the spot away from the competitor w/o utterly destroying themselves with corruption.
This way the best course of action for the PKer is to immediately utilize the content that they just secured by removing a competitor.
If there were a ton of other people in the vicinity (and those people are for some reason not preoccupied with their own content), yet the PKer still decided to go through with the kill - that's on the PKer's poor decision making skills, at which point we come back to "a PKer is the weakest player and they deserve what they get".
And even if you do clear your corruption within enough time - the victim could still come back and compete with you through other means, by which they'd win once again, cause you were weak in the first place.
Same as Azherae, I'm not sure why you so staunchly believe this.
Not 100% of Greens will immediately jump on a Red. And even then, you'd still need those Greens to be in the immediate vicinity to even attempt said jump. AND EVEN THEN, depending on your class you'd have tools that let you escape. And you always have mounts that would make it way easier to create immediate distance from the PK spot, if you fear for your life right after the kill.
Imo, this is exactly why Steven even went with the "BHs see PKers on the map" design. Cause he probably experienced the same thing I did in L2. Which is - PKers kept running away a ton of times. Especially in situations where the victim couldn't shout far enough for others to learn about the PKer in a certain spot or if there simply weren't anyone around at all. And with how big AoC's map will be - I'd imagine we'll have quite a few situations where PKers will be in such a deep location that they'll easily clear their corruption before someone comes.
Well, unless what Steven said about the current plan for corruption clearing is truly as scary as I think it is, where clearing corruption even from your first PK will take good 30-50mins, where literally anyone on the map would have enough time to come kill you.
Like the others here have said. If you put yourself in such a bad spot that you won't have an option to book it after a PK, that's entirely your own damn fault for having awful planning.
That definition of 'griefing' is also laughably useless in the terms of this conversation especially. PvP in Ashes will always negatively affect someone else's gameplay. That's the entire point if you want PvP to matter. You steal from someone's caravan, you swipe the boss someone was after, you take their castle, target-kill a rival guild, etc etc.
Forgive my ignorance, but how DOES the flagging system work? Is there a link? I didn’t find one but didn’t search very hard yet. I assumed it would work the same in most pvp games where the aggressor flags, and you don’t suffer for defending oneself?
So you are penalized for defending yourself if you are red? It doesn’t pvp flag the aggressor? That’s….kind of lame. Especially since I see you say the green (I assume the traditional blue) is cc immune? Why would anyone ever be cc immune? That seems like bad design for a pvp focused game imo. I’m brand new here though so I don’t know the details and only going off what you guys are saying.
Now this I can get behind. Safe zones are for chumps.
normal state for a player is non-combatant(green) in this state you are immune to cc and take normal death penalties. Combatant state (purple) is when you attack another purple or green player and reducing your death penalty to half the normal rate. Corrupted (Red) is when you end up delivering the killing blow on a green player. In this state you take 6 times more death penalties, have reduced stats according to how much corruption they have, have a chance of dropping finished gear pieces that are equipped or in your bags, do not respawn at normal respawn locations rather in the wild, cannot trade with players, and are Kill on sight to city guards.
The problem we are wanting to get rid of/reduce is the fact that a green player attacking a red player does not flag them purple, causing them to retain their cc immunity and if the red player fights back and kills them the red player gains more corruption which increases the death penalties and stat dampening they receive while red. This effectively makes it so that if anyone ever goes red, there is a green horde of players hunting that person down. This will reduce the amount of people even trying to pvp in the open world as the risk of dying as a red player is way too high and too difficult to avoid.
I have some news for you:
"there might not be any content that is guaranteed to have no PvP at it"
Source:
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxzVVVzcryVUpXupNHYVTwbf-4wuQlc0rn?si=DEM1z0OcvbjLDlxG
That can happen only if corruption is balanced so that you start feeling the pain after you killed 100 greens or so.
That means if you want your fishing spot, you kill the group which doesn't fight back but they come and they will not fight back 2nd time either and 3rd time either. Eventually they drive the fish away with so much blood in the water and you will be sad. That's griefing.
That will definitely happen
Then the PvP part is how to annoy the others to make them leave.
Especially if they use trackers
You're a few years too late on the 'news' there.
Oh you are so beyond out of scope here it's starting to be less funny, and more sad.
Not 'your' fishing spot. Not griefing to harvest in a harvesting spot. No way someone would be that stupid to rack up 10-15 PKs over some fish that these players clearly don't even care about. And every time they wouldn't attack you while green? Thats odd, given you were convinced and scared stiff that every single green would be hunting you down on sight.
every single green? Great PvP-ers.
You said Red can clean corruption in the deep ocean so killing the green close to the border seems viable.
It would, if that was what you meant, and not the 'those people didn't let me have a gathering spot all to myself so I kill them on repeat each time they come back' that you clearly set up there
Let's see where Steven put's the fishing spots in this PvX game which is unlike any other
Lakes, rivers, ponds, and sea. Only one of which is directly part of lawless territory. But again, it's plainly obvious your imaginary scenario wasn't about the lawless sea at all.
Just this same strange, recurring entitlement mentality to harvesting areas.
Its not about either of our opinions about PKers. You can think PKing is despicable. I can think its just normal PvP. What matters is what corruption is meant to accomplish, and Steven has already told us it is to deter griefing. And as he defines it, PKing isnt griefing. You can certainly grief via PKing, but they are not the same. Its not supposed to stop players from PKing, as you say. It is to stop players from griefing.
To argue that PKing has no place in ashes and should not have a healthy, keyword here is healthy, amount of it, is to argue to remove that entire aspect of risk when seeking rewards in the game. PKers and griefers alike would still be dealing with a substantial amount of risk. This whole argument is pointing out the very real possibility that corruption will have vastly disproportionate risk to any incentive of attacking other players. Objectively, using Stevens definitions, corruption will need to be balanced to mainly deter griefing, as opposed to deter griefing AND PvP, regardless of your or my own opinion of that PvP.
@Caeryl @Azherae This part of the response also goes to yall
The reason there is no option for escape, is because you cant utilize any CC against non-combatants who engage you. You are being very disingenuous if you are saying a corrupted player has a chance to get away from CC immune players while also being able to get CCed themselves. I will give you some benefit of the doubt and say rogues may be able to pull it off, but I am willing to bet 99 times out of 100, any corrupted player trying to avoid conflict and evade hostile players will be guaranteed to die. That being said, I plan to test this. Both in 1v1 and 8v8 scenarios. Corrupted players purely focusing on escape and evasion against multiple planned groups and any unplanned groups they run into. Going to track which classes succeed if any, and how many successfully escape with cleared corruption vs how many attempts it takes. Assuming bounty hunter systems get included at some point, those will be utilized by at least 1 player or group that the corrupted killed.
Because "I can't CC because the enemy is green" is the same as "I can't CC because my CC isn't helpful/I don't have any".
If the game is CC heavy, I agree with you somewhat, because the Green will also be likely to have a lot of it, but this disparity you're discussing gets larger when the game doesn't have much.
I'd hope that at least the 1v1 TTK would offer some options for a player who is trying to escape, to actually do so, regardless of their state.
Do with that what you will, its not exactly a large census
I get what youre saying here and I hope so too. But from experience through many MMOs, I would say its likely going to be the case that if a class has no CCs, the likelihood of escape someone who can CC them is slim to zero.
This is also why I plan to test it though. So hopefully youre correct, but also hopefully not at the cost of gameplay since CCs tend to be important abilities, especially in large scale PvP
Exactly, PKing must exist for the element of risk.
If I have to choose, I would make cleaning the corruption fast at the detriment of Bounty Hunters, who then become useless as they have no time to reach the red.
But even more levels of corruption are planned to be viable. At least theoretically on wiki.
Didn't the Phoenix Initiative players tested such things?