Much of the push back above is about individuals griefing greens as a ‘bad guy.’ I’m more concerned about large guilds just mopping the field of any greens not in their guild. That scale of griefing will cause mass attrition of the pve player segment, and Ashes will be relegated to an MO2-esque existence.
The corruption system is the weight bearing beam holding up the PvX house. You may not get to live your best life as an rp criminal, but that may come at trade-off of hundreds of players sticking around. I can’t even guess how many subsystems will need to be in place to constantly adjust the pendulum of corruption over time.
Steven's gamble is that there is a middle way between PvP and PvE and many players will like it.
With the MO2 player count, a singe server with 85 nodes cannot function.
Balancing will be decided by the data gathered during Alpha 2.
Much of the push back above is about individuals griefing greens as a ‘bad guy.’ I’m more concerned about large guilds just mopping the field of any greens not in their guild. That scale of griefing will cause mass attrition of the pve player segment, and Ashes will be relegated to an MO2-esque existence.
The corruption system is the weight bearing beam holding up the PvX house. You may not get to live your best life as an rp criminal, but that may come at trade-off of hundreds of players sticking around. I can’t even guess how many subsystems will need to be in place to constantly adjust the pendulum of corruption over time.
This sounds more like a Zerg problems. Not corruption problems.
There are many other threads about zergs. Some of the idea to fight against them are to:
* dont allow more than 8 members per party group, 40 for raid, but raid groups cant get any rewards from neither pvp nor pvp except raid bosses/quests. AND any player outside your group suffers from friendly fire and is considered enemy. This means if you have 300 players at 1 place you will have 8 different groups each hitting the other
* Making AOE spells that scale with targets. Meaning if you land good aoe you may oneshot 80 players, or AOE spells like the LIVING BOMB for Fre Mage from WOW. WHere after it detonates it attaches to all targets hit, and then they explode and this continues infinity amount of times.
* The unit collision may help little with disorienting the Zerg, since players will be body blocked .
* The big size of the map can help also since you can farm elsewhere, BUT if zerg are not dealt with there will be many zerg groups everywhere, so no where to escape to.
* There can be terrain advantage, where the zone is tight space.
* The loot system will disadvantage Big zerg groups, SInce if you kill a boss with 8 players you may get an item each, and with 300 members you will still get 8 items total for example. This means there will be INFighting in the zerg groups when leaders take the items for themselves and ect.
* Some people think that the Zerg groups will have bad organization since there are too many players, but i think there will be a lot zerg groups with insanely good organization.
* From the look from previous showcases, The dragon mounts will be really good vs zerg groups with the splash dmg
* Craftable siege machines like Catapults from a profession that have movement similar to the caravans, but are anti zerg artillery. Meaning they dont have accuracy and cant hit single targets, but can shoot from big range, and would demolish zergs.
* More dangerous Terrain hazards, like the Lightning, Earthquakes and such, with bigger AOE. with the body block from the collision may prove to be good anti zerg tool.
* Corruption spreading to the whole group when a person from the group kill green player. With this even if the zerg group kills green players countless times, If another zerg group kills them while they are all red, The corrupted zerg group will lose probably loot worth years of farming.
This sounds more like a Zerg problems. Not corruption problems.
I don't agree that it's an either/or aspect - the corruption system will govern how zergs zerg. That system will also determine the viability of an individual player to 'play as a red.'
This sounds more like a Zerg problems. Not corruption problems.
I don't agree that it's an either/or aspect - the corruption system will govern how zergs zerg. That system will also determine the viability of an individual player to 'play as a red.'
Seems everyone does agree that the stat dampening is a bit iffy and that red playstyle should be viable.
How to achieve that with a system punishing enough to discourage rampant ganking by groups is a difficult matter.
Personally don’t have the answers.
Just wish it was possible to be full criminal. But perhaps there is enough pvp gameplay loops where you can be the antagonist to fulfill that need. Tho killing some peoples and taking their goodies to than freely march into town might break that immersion a little.
This sounds more like a Zerg problems. Not corruption problems.
I don't agree that it's an either/or aspect - the corruption system will govern how zergs zerg. That system will also determine the viability of an individual player to 'play as a red.'
Seems everyone does agree that the stat dampening is a bit iffy and that red playstyle should be viable.
No, very few people actually take issue with the stat dampening for consecutive kills, and not even Steven wants a persistent red state to be viable or desirable. That's the whole reason it has scaling penalties for continuing to PK.
The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.
The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.
Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...
Seems everyone does agree that the stat dampening is a bit iffy and that red playstyle should be viable.
No, Red playstyle should not be a thing.
Why do you have this opinion?
This is the stance Steven has taken in every question about 'perks for Corruption'. He doesn't want to support going red. It's an option, not a play style
Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.
I want those weakest players to still have a way to win against a stronger opponent, but I do not want those actions to spread outside of that interaction w/o ever-increasing penalties for the PKer, because I don't want this weakling to make people's lives worse.
I think it will not be profitable in any Area where many Bounter Hunters are around, if you understand what i mean.
Sure - You can occasionally murderhobo* someone and steal Ressources from them, if they are Competition in Ressource gathering.
But then it is on. People can kill You without Punishment if You are corrupted. Run -> and try to escape long enough until you can enter your Node again to store in the stolen Ressources.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.
As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.
But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.
Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.
Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.
I think it will not be profitable in any Area where many Bounter Hunters are around, if you understand what i mean.
Sure - You can occasionally murderhobo* someone and steal Ressources from them, if they are Competition in Ressource gathering.
But then it is on. People can kill You without Punishment if You are corrupted. Run -> and try to escape long enough until you can enter your Node again to store in the stolen Ressources.
From what i gather so far from wiki and posts here.
What you described is a choice you make when red and kinda why you do it. Exactly for those reasons.
The main reason its not viable is the stat dampening. Making you weaker against players and mobs, increasingly over each consecutive kill.
But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Singular PKs are not griefing, which is why I said that I support players having those PKs as the last resort. And Steven supports that too, which is why the design allows people to murder someone.
Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
Defending against a flagged person (and the to-be-PKer would be purple instead of red) means opening up yourself to other pvpers, because you'd become purple as well. And some people do not want to open themselves up to pvp every time someone attacks them.
But yes, once someone is Red - they're a ffa kill, which is why I'm sure greens will try and kill them if they see them.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.
I also always fight back when attacked and I like pvp overall. And I've been a PKer countless times. But none of that removes the fact that PKing is literally the way of the weakest players. PKing someone means that you couldn't do ANYTHING ELSE to win against that target and had to then stoop down to attacking them while they do nothing in return.
Hitting trees will most likely require more skill (especially in high lvl locations) than PKing someone.
Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
If you want to play this way - you still can. You'll just have to reduce your PK count after every single kill, so that you do not get the amounts of corruption that would dampen your stats.
But outside of that, PK playstyle is not intended because it literally means "a player is murdering passive players and can keep going on like this w/o any problems". Steven implemented this change to the L2's pvp system exactly because he disliked that in L2 someone could be a permanent PKer and just go around slaughtering newbies for free.
The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.
Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...
Was a thread about permanent purple state.
Would be similar to a node or guild declaring war to everyone else and being able to maintain that.
Large guilds split into many small ones can maybe maintain war state with a specific small guild.
The permanent flagged state will exist in the deep ocean and people can be pirates there.
I’ve been thinking about the risks with the open-world PvP and corruption system Ashes of Creation is planning, and I wanted to throw an idea out there: what if the devs created a “ripcord” basically, a backup plan in case the current PvP system becomes too polarizing or problematic?
Here's why I think this could be a good move:
Preventing Player Frustration: While the PvP system sounds great on paper, we all know how things can go once a game goes live. If forced PvP leads to griefing or turns off a chunk of the player base, a ripcord could give the devs a way to scale things back without losing players. For example, adding more consensual PvP options or safe zones could help keep both PvP and PvE players happy.
Listening to Feedback: No matter how much testing they do, player feedback will be crucial once the game is out. If the PvP system doesn’t hit the right balance, having a fallback plan shows that the devs are prepared to adapt based on how the community reacts. It could be as simple as tweaking corruption penalties or adding features that make PvP less invasive for players who aren’t interested in it.
Keeping the Game Inclusive: I love the ambitious PvP ideas, but I also know Ashes is attracting both PvP and PvE players. If things lean too heavily into forced PvP, it could push away those who prefer a more PvE-oriented experience. A ripcord could help the devs pivot if needed, so the game doesn’t become too niche and alienate a part of its player base.
Avoiding Long-Term Issues: If forced PvP doesn’t work out and they don’t have a plan in place, it could damage the game’s reputation in the long run. Having a ripcord ready to go would give the devs the ability to quickly adjust and preserve the health of the game before things get too far out of hand.
It seems like having this kind of fallback option could be a smart, proactive move. What do you all think? Better to have it in the toolbox in case the current system doesn’t hit the right balance, right?
I’ve been thinking about the risks with the open-world PvP and corruption system Ashes of Creation is planning, and I wanted to throw an idea out there: what if the devs created a “ripcord” basically, a backup plan in case the current PvP system becomes too polarizing or problematic?
...
What do you all think? Better to have it in the toolbox in case the current system doesn’t hit the right balance, right?
I think they have a lot of freedom to balance things.
For example they can make it so that if you become red, the very first corruption penalty will already reduce your output damage to 1%. Then nobody will PvP.
And loot tables can also be changed to make drops in metro dungeons more valuable, to a point that the deep ocean is just an alternate option for whoever enjoys being there.
Alpha 2 will show what the majority wants just by what they do if they login.
The odd thing about corruption is that on one hand, its not meant to be a viable state of existence, is extremely punishing, and is designed to deter griefing specifically. HOWEVER, the Bounty System implies there will be a steady and healthy population of corrupted players if the bounty system is going to have any real viability in Ashes. Its a bit of a contradiction.
Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...
The BH system on some levels doesnt make sense. They are designed to be able to track red players, but they are a purple state combatant who will not affect the corruption level of a red or have the stat reduction, making it actively worse to punish a corrupted player than the average green. Then you consider this feature is supposed to match teleportation points, auction houses, or a grand PvX crypt. Feels like it was an idea before every other node got fleshed out.
The BH system on some levels doesnt make sense. They are designed to be able to track red players, but they are a purple state combatant who will not affect the corruption level of a red or have the stat reduction, making it actively worse to punish a corrupted player than the average green. Then you consider this feature is supposed to match teleportation points, auction houses, or a grand PvX crypt. Feels like it was an idea before every other node got fleshed out.
Certainly seems that way. I'm confident that the BH system will go through some major iterations as the corruption system finds its sea legs, but I'm guessing it's fairly far down the backlog ranking (relative to critical, core functions).
I think the high-level idea is still solid: Wouldn't it be cool if players - that may be node-agnostic - be rewarded for hunting down villainous players that are causing trouble for a node & its citizens?
I'm guessing the details are going to flail until the underpinning systems are nailed down and calibrated.
Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.
As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.
But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.
Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.
Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.
PKs arent bad. Corruption is designed for deterring griefing. And as Steven defines it, griefing is intentionally causing negative gameplay for another player. So if you are Pking to maintain control over a resource or even just want to smack someone for a quick loot, those arent griefing.
That being said, there are aspects of corruption design that punish both PKing and griefing as if they are the same thing. Which I believe will negatively impact Open World PvP.
But in your case, corruption itself shouldnt be your goal of what to maintain. Corruption is designed to need to be removed ASAP. Your playstyle of PKing/ganking/even potentially griefing constantly is either going to be extremely hardcore, or outright impossible. The upkeep of removing corruption and gaining it over and over will likely prevent you from ever actually progressing your character in any other aspects, which in turn would also make you weaker than other players from lack of gear and resources alone.
Because PKers only exist because they killed someone who was doing nothing in response. PKers are literally THE weakest type of players in the game, while also making life worse for others.
As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.
But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.
Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.
Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.
PKs arent bad. Corruption is designed for deterring griefing. And as Steven defines it, griefing is intentionally causing negative gameplay for another player. So if you are Pking to maintain control over a resource or even just want to smack someone for a quick loot, those arent griefing.
That being said, there are aspects of corruption design that punish both PKing and griefing as if they are the same thing. Which I believe will negatively impact Open World PvP.
But in your case, corruption itself shouldnt be your goal of what to maintain. Corruption is designed to need to be removed ASAP. Your playstyle of PKing/ganking/even potentially griefing constantly is either going to be extremely hardcore, or outright impossible. The upkeep of removing corruption and gaining it over and over will likely prevent you from ever actually progressing your character in any other aspects, which in turn would also make you weaker than other players from lack of gear and resources alone.
Yeah,
After reading everyone’s thoughts and input I understand the system intention at least.
I even agree with it.
Being red in other games usually be tied to a playstyle. Ashes uses the ‘red’ system to deter griefing but has other ways to entertain a more pvp focussed antagonist playstyle.
As for me, the system with corruption is the most controversial decision of the developers. It looks like the hand of God meddling into the affairs of mortals, as if it is not the game that punishes you for your transgressions, not the laws of the world, but the developers themselves. Yes, griefing should be punishable, bounties on heads, increased fines for death - yes. forced reduction of characteristics - no.
Why? Why should killing my victim, a merchant, a grender, an adventurer, make me weaker? I'm a criminal, not a weakling.
I think griefers should be a problem of a node, in whose jurisdiction the land on which the crime is being committed is located. In this node of measures from the budget, the node must assign a reward for the heads of griefers, thereby ensuring security and attracting honest artisans to their lands. Those nodes that skimp on security will create lawlessness around themselves and gather a certain contingent, and this is normal. kind of a pirate bay)
balance > rp
I think the best way is when RP=BALANCE. Again, balance for whom? for collectors? for griefers? for adventurers? A very subjective concept. Here is an example of games that put balance at the forefront. Modern WoW - everything for everyone - Healing for wars and rogs, invisibility in half of the classes, they gave literally everything to everyone - for balance. But the classic version, in which there is no balance, but is based primarily on the RP, plays much more interestingly, immerses you in the world more. And is it really a balance when a developer underestimates the characteristics of your character? It looks more like a patch on the balance sheet.[/quote]
no. balance > rp. you can have immersive and balanced games without the rp/acting part.
balance isn't subjective. balance is I don't press 1 and 1 shot you, or you don't press e and gather 3000 flowers at once. everything for everyone doesn't mean balance.
The design behind the corruption is that you get reward from killing a green guy that you know he has a lot materials for example which you can steal. and the risk is becoming red.
It is not designed to live as a red player. There is no reward in staying red all the time. Staying red is the risk.
Losing your gear, harsher death punishment i agree with it all.
Do you agree however that you also should be nerfed combat wise?
I feel like that is a bit lame.
this is to avoid abuse with pk alts. killing one person wont probs nerf you to the point you cant kill someone your level. but killing a lowbie will, or multiple people your own level.
'Red life' Probably won't work. Remember you can't trade or access storage while red, so to have any meaningful play you'll have to be working off your corruption constantly.
For the 'Outlaw' style gameplay, you are better off focusing on caravan raids and naval combat - both of which are open pvp 'outlaw' raiding modes that do not incur corruption.
Comments
Steven's gamble is that there is a middle way between PvP and PvE and many players will like it.
With the MO2 player count, a singe server with 85 nodes cannot function.
Balancing will be decided by the data gathered during Alpha 2.
This sounds more like a Zerg problems. Not corruption problems.
There are many other threads about zergs. Some of the idea to fight against them are to:
* dont allow more than 8 members per party group, 40 for raid, but raid groups cant get any rewards from neither pvp nor pvp except raid bosses/quests. AND any player outside your group suffers from friendly fire and is considered enemy. This means if you have 300 players at 1 place you will have 8 different groups each hitting the other
* Making AOE spells that scale with targets. Meaning if you land good aoe you may oneshot 80 players, or AOE spells like the LIVING BOMB for Fre Mage from WOW. WHere after it detonates it attaches to all targets hit, and then they explode and this continues infinity amount of times.
* The unit collision may help little with disorienting the Zerg, since players will be body blocked .
* The big size of the map can help also since you can farm elsewhere, BUT if zerg are not dealt with there will be many zerg groups everywhere, so no where to escape to.
* There can be terrain advantage, where the zone is tight space.
* The loot system will disadvantage Big zerg groups, SInce if you kill a boss with 8 players you may get an item each, and with 300 members you will still get 8 items total for example. This means there will be INFighting in the zerg groups when leaders take the items for themselves and ect.
* Some people think that the Zerg groups will have bad organization since there are too many players, but i think there will be a lot zerg groups with insanely good organization.
* From the look from previous showcases, The dragon mounts will be really good vs zerg groups with the splash dmg
* Craftable siege machines like Catapults from a profession that have movement similar to the caravans, but are anti zerg artillery. Meaning they dont have accuracy and cant hit single targets, but can shoot from big range, and would demolish zergs.
* More dangerous Terrain hazards, like the Lightning, Earthquakes and such, with bigger AOE. with the body block from the collision may prove to be good anti zerg tool.
* Corruption spreading to the whole group when a person from the group kill green player. With this even if the zerg group kills green players countless times, If another zerg group kills them while they are all red, The corrupted zerg group will lose probably loot worth years of farming.
I don't agree that it's an either/or aspect - the corruption system will govern how zergs zerg. That system will also determine the viability of an individual player to 'play as a red.'
Seems everyone does agree that the stat dampening is a bit iffy and that red playstyle should be viable.
How to achieve that with a system punishing enough to discourage rampant ganking by groups is a difficult matter.
Personally don’t have the answers.
Just wish it was possible to be full criminal. But perhaps there is enough pvp gameplay loops where you can be the antagonist to fulfill that need. Tho killing some peoples and taking their goodies to than freely march into town might break that immersion a little.
No, very few people actually take issue with the stat dampening for consecutive kills, and not even Steven wants a persistent red state to be viable or desirable. That's the whole reason it has scaling penalties for continuing to PK.
Agreed. It makes much more sense for lawful BHs to be pursuing an equally unlawful bandits. I'd much rather see bandits being related to anti-node behavior (like raiding caravans) instead of being solely defined by griefing other players. Someone brough the whole non-corrupt bandit life up recently, but I forget who...
Why do you have this opinion?
This is the stance Steven has taken in every question about 'perks for Corruption'. He doesn't want to support going red. It's an option, not a play style
In addition to the reply above, repeated PK'ing or ganking results in griefing. The Wiki has a good read on this (see below).
Going red once, twice, or thrice for some valuable loot? Totally fine.
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Definition:Griefing
I want those weakest players to still have a way to win against a stronger opponent, but I do not want those actions to spread outside of that interaction w/o ever-increasing penalties for the PKer, because I don't want this weakling to make people's lives worse.
I think it will not be profitable in any Area where many Bounter Hunters are around, if you understand what i mean.
Sure - You can occasionally murderhobo* someone and steal Ressources from them, if they are Competition in Ressource gathering.
But then it is on. People can kill You without Punishment if You are corrupted. Run -> and try to escape long enough until you can enter your Node again to store in the stolen Ressources.
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)
As commentor above states and the wiki reads.
I can respect Steven idea for his own game. He does not want griefing to be a thing.
But is a PK griefing? Repeatedly killing the same person granted. He in that wiki does not speak of PK’ing as griefing.
Or as the other commentor said going red once or twice is viable but not as a playstyle.
I can respect that vision. Even if I disagree.
Also find your logic somewhat flawed. If the pk’er is weak he should be easy to defend against. And to kill on sight when red.
I think your opinion is perhaps rooted in bad experiences? I always enjoyed even being ganked, or attempts there off rather.
Its a good test of PvP skill and more exciting than just a dual. Dying a motivation to get better.
Either way my main concern is the stat dampening. Feels odd that you must be killed when red. You eventually will playing that way but what if I like being hunted and tested. More risk like loosing gear upon death.
Dislike the idea that you can’t even defend yourself properly after a while.
Also feels like a hard punishment for removing a rival from a pve spot or harvest spot.
But 1 kill is probably easy to work off.
From what i gather so far from wiki and posts here.
What you described is a choice you make when red and kinda why you do it. Exactly for those reasons.
The main reason its not viable is the stat dampening. Making you weaker against players and mobs, increasingly over each consecutive kill.
Defending against a flagged person (and the to-be-PKer would be purple instead of red) means opening up yourself to other pvpers, because you'd become purple as well. And some people do not want to open themselves up to pvp every time someone attacks them.
But yes, once someone is Red - they're a ffa kill, which is why I'm sure greens will try and kill them if they see them.
I also always fight back when attacked and I like pvp overall. And I've been a PKer countless times. But none of that removes the fact that PKing is literally the way of the weakest players. PKing someone means that you couldn't do ANYTHING ELSE to win against that target and had to then stoop down to attacking them while they do nothing in return.
Hitting trees will most likely require more skill (especially in high lvl locations) than PKing someone.
If you want to play this way - you still can. You'll just have to reduce your PK count after every single kill, so that you do not get the amounts of corruption that would dampen your stats.
But outside of that, PK playstyle is not intended because it literally means "a player is murdering passive players and can keep going on like this w/o any problems". Steven implemented this change to the L2's pvp system exactly because he disliked that in L2 someone could be a permanent PKer and just go around slaughtering newbies for free.
Very good information thanks
Was a thread about permanent purple state.
Would be similar to a node or guild declaring war to everyone else and being able to maintain that.
Large guilds split into many small ones can maybe maintain war state with a specific small guild.
The permanent flagged state will exist in the deep ocean and people can be pirates there.
Here's why I think this could be a good move:
Preventing Player Frustration: While the PvP system sounds great on paper, we all know how things can go once a game goes live. If forced PvP leads to griefing or turns off a chunk of the player base, a ripcord could give the devs a way to scale things back without losing players. For example, adding more consensual PvP options or safe zones could help keep both PvP and PvE players happy.
Listening to Feedback: No matter how much testing they do, player feedback will be crucial once the game is out. If the PvP system doesn’t hit the right balance, having a fallback plan shows that the devs are prepared to adapt based on how the community reacts. It could be as simple as tweaking corruption penalties or adding features that make PvP less invasive for players who aren’t interested in it.
Keeping the Game Inclusive: I love the ambitious PvP ideas, but I also know Ashes is attracting both PvP and PvE players. If things lean too heavily into forced PvP, it could push away those who prefer a more PvE-oriented experience. A ripcord could help the devs pivot if needed, so the game doesn’t become too niche and alienate a part of its player base.
Avoiding Long-Term Issues: If forced PvP doesn’t work out and they don’t have a plan in place, it could damage the game’s reputation in the long run. Having a ripcord ready to go would give the devs the ability to quickly adjust and preserve the health of the game before things get too far out of hand.
It seems like having this kind of fallback option could be a smart, proactive move. What do you all think? Better to have it in the toolbox in case the current system doesn’t hit the right balance, right?
I think they have a lot of freedom to balance things.
For example they can make it so that if you become red, the very first corruption penalty will already reduce your output damage to 1%. Then nobody will PvP.
And loot tables can also be changed to make drops in metro dungeons more valuable, to a point that the deep ocean is just an alternate option for whoever enjoys being there.
Alpha 2 will show what the majority wants just by what they do if they login.
The BH system on some levels doesnt make sense. They are designed to be able to track red players, but they are a purple state combatant who will not affect the corruption level of a red or have the stat reduction, making it actively worse to punish a corrupted player than the average green. Then you consider this feature is supposed to match teleportation points, auction houses, or a grand PvX crypt. Feels like it was an idea before every other node got fleshed out.
Certainly seems that way. I'm confident that the BH system will go through some major iterations as the corruption system finds its sea legs, but I'm guessing it's fairly far down the backlog ranking (relative to critical, core functions).
I think the high-level idea is still solid: Wouldn't it be cool if players - that may be node-agnostic - be rewarded for hunting down villainous players that are causing trouble for a node & its citizens?
I'm guessing the details are going to flail until the underpinning systems are nailed down and calibrated.
PKs arent bad. Corruption is designed for deterring griefing. And as Steven defines it, griefing is intentionally causing negative gameplay for another player. So if you are Pking to maintain control over a resource or even just want to smack someone for a quick loot, those arent griefing.
That being said, there are aspects of corruption design that punish both PKing and griefing as if they are the same thing. Which I believe will negatively impact Open World PvP.
But in your case, corruption itself shouldnt be your goal of what to maintain. Corruption is designed to need to be removed ASAP. Your playstyle of PKing/ganking/even potentially griefing constantly is either going to be extremely hardcore, or outright impossible. The upkeep of removing corruption and gaining it over and over will likely prevent you from ever actually progressing your character in any other aspects, which in turn would also make you weaker than other players from lack of gear and resources alone.
Yeah,
After reading everyone’s thoughts and input I understand the system intention at least.
I even agree with it.
Being red in other games usually be tied to a playstyle. Ashes uses the ‘red’ system to deter griefing but has other ways to entertain a more pvp focussed antagonist playstyle.
For my part this thread can close.
Appreciate everyone mostly cordial input.
no. balance > rp. you can have immersive and balanced games without the rp/acting part.
balance isn't subjective. balance is I don't press 1 and 1 shot you, or you don't press e and gather 3000 flowers at once. everything for everyone doesn't mean balance.
this is to avoid abuse with pk alts. killing one person wont probs nerf you to the point you cant kill someone your level. but killing a lowbie will, or multiple people your own level.
Lol, it's like you've not even read the thread or any of the other similar ones.
For the 'Outlaw' style gameplay, you are better off focusing on caravan raids and naval combat - both of which are open pvp 'outlaw' raiding modes that do not incur corruption.