Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Corruption System: Feedback & How it is Abused
greek
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
The recent changes to the corruption system made it much more punishing. Specifically the Corruption I change that added: You drop 1 to 3 equipped items randomly upon death.
While I agree the corruption system system needs to be harsh, I feel that dropping equipped items for killing a single play is a bit too harsh and that dropping equipped items should start at Corruption II.
Currently Corruption Baiting is very popular among certain guilds. Corruption baiting works like so:
This can only be combated by using ONLY single target abilities/(ranged)auto attacks, but that puts any group not using corruption baiting at a severe disadvantage. The better option is too either also use this tactic or run away.
While you could remove item drops at Corruption I, this doesn't fix the inherit issue, as it only takes you 3 kills to hit Corruption II.
My suggestions to fix this problem are the following:
Some other more minor things that inflate this issue are the following:
While I agree the corruption system system needs to be harsh, I feel that dropping equipped items for killing a single play is a bit too harsh and that dropping equipped items should start at Corruption II.
Currently Corruption Baiting is very popular among certain guilds. Corruption baiting works like so:
- Build a raid/party with intent on PvP. Tell members who are too weak/low level to be effective in a fight to not flag/fight.
- These members stack on flagged friendlies so they will die to AoE of the opposing combatants. Thus giving the opposing combatants to last hit them Corruption I.
- After, the entire raid, flagged or not, can focus down the corrupted player(s) and loot the bodies, taking gear.
This can only be combated by using ONLY single target abilities/(ranged)auto attacks, but that puts any group not using corruption baiting at a severe disadvantage. The better option is too either also use this tactic or run away.
While you could remove item drops at Corruption I, this doesn't fix the inherit issue, as it only takes you 3 kills to hit Corruption II.
My suggestions to fix this problem are the following:
- Have a toggled setting that keep you from hitting Non-Combatants from being hit by you while you are flagged.
- Make that if anyone in your party/raid flags, that your entire group/raid is put into a flagged state. (This is already the case if you are a support class, as Bards melody and any Healing from Clerics will flag you).
- Add another flagging state which allows the player to hit Non-Combatants & Combatants.
- Making it so you cannot un-flag while in combat and a short time after(30s).
Some other more minor things that inflate this issue are the following:
- Players who are combatant to you sometimes show up as white named, not purple, even when actively attacking. This causes confusion on who I can and cannot attack.
- You can un-flagged mid combat, dropping the crossed swords off your name plate. This makes the issue above even worse. Once the enemy is low and running away they can un-flag making it hard to tell if you can commit to the kill w/o getting corrupted.
- Flagging up doesn't change your name to purple until you have attacked, this makes it hard to tell who is flagged, w/o clicking through every player.
18
Comments
The single simplest solution to corruption baiting would be to make AoE abilities not hit non-flagged people unless they are specifically targeted or struck by a single target skill first. This should include auto-attacks.
I'm fine with corruption 1 causing item loss, there should be penalties and they should be meaningful. Xp debt alone isn't enough, it's easy enough to gank an un-flagged person, then have your buddies kill you to clear out corruption. If the only thing you're risking is XP debt at that point, then there is no true penalty.
I won't die on the hill for this change, and I don't believe corruption should be cleared by guildies/alliance member or PvE deaths. Still can be abused but making it more inconvenient to clear. I also believe higher tiers (3+) of corruption should just delete items, that way there is no chance of recovery.
I agree with you that, if you aren't flagged, your AoE abilities shouldn't affect flagged people (and vice versa). This should work for healing, buff, debuff, and damaging abilities. That said, I *do* think that your raid leader should have the ability to flag your entire group with a separate keybind to their individual flag. This can even come with a "Press Enter" confirmation for people who are scared to get flagged, but this is a pvx game and you shouldn't be in a group if you don't trust your group leader to be an effective pvp shotcaller.
I also think the points @greek made about a 3rd flag state where you can only attack other combatants vs attacking anyone is the most important suggestion on their list. huge upvotes to that!
Basically if you unchecked any of those ratio's, if you was to go in a flagged state what ever was unchecked you would be attack-able. It made it so if you did AOE your intended targets would be hurt only! No white named character(Civilians in this image.)
I think it shouldn't even be visible at all, even by inspecting a player.
Not knowing the intention of a player is a very good design in my opinion.
In regards to being struck by a single target ability/basic attack first. Wouldn’t work for basic attacks(melee) due to cleave. Especially fighters, all they’d have to do is walk in front of an ally being swung at by a fighter.
Targetting and toggles
I like @Rhuric 's idea about restricting AoEs and cleaves to only damage a green if it is the active target.
Adding more flag toggle states would work, but additional toggles increase clutter in the UI and should be done only if there are no other solutions. When my group is getting jumped, the last thing I want to think about is juggling my PvP states.
Penalties This is actually one of the best ideas I've heard on how to handle big guilds mitigating the risks of corruption by teamkilling. Other restrictions, like preventing guildies/allies from killing their own reds, can be circumvented with alts or extra accounts.
However, I do think stacking many different types of restrictions together with item destruction is worthwhile, because hopefully at some point exploiting the edge cases will become too tedious for too little value, and players are incentivized to just play "normally".
Mass flagging
I'm still on the fence about mass flagging when it comes to raids and parties.
First, if mass flagging is a decision by the group leader, then it is almost always detrimental to use the feature:
Here Raid 1 has chosen to flag everyone in the party, while Raid 2 only initially flags their initiators(tanks).
- If AoEs can hit greens, then Raid 1 risks getting corruption baited as OP has illustrated.
- If AoEs can't hit greens, then Raid 1 can only initiate on the least valuable targets, while Raid 2 can pick any moment to dive in and CC, after which the DPS can flag up for a free engage.
So I think in practice manual group flagging would end up rarely used in serious PvP. If so, a big part of PvP becomes microing your flag status and as a design that sounds boring.Secondly, if parties/raids automatically flag up as soon as one of the players decide to flag up, then that enables bad actors to control the PvP status of their group.
Example: A goblin event is happening and the 40 random lowbies in the area form a raid to clear it. The [Asshats] send an infiltrator to the party, who then proceeds to flag the whole raid as combatants. The [Asshats] then swoop in and lawfully murder everyone.
For emergent socialization (which Intrepid is after), I think we can't have abuses that affect the flag status of others. If everyone needs to be vetted before grouping up, much of the old school mmo vibe of partying with new people is lost.
So automatic mass flagging makes group PvP more intuitive, but also opens up abuse. I don't have an elegant solution here.
One kill on a green is not intended to regularly drop equipment.
It's not intended that anyone can manually flag or unflag themselves, especially not while actively in combat.
It's not intended that damaging AoE hits greens unless you tick a setting box, or that support AoEs hit purples unless you tick a setting box.
I don't know what the best solution to fixing this is, but like some others have said, the option to "Turn On/Off" being able to target NPC/non-combatant targets seems like a good start to fix this issue. Others games have this feature implemented and it does solve several of these issues. As it currently stands, people are able to greatly inhibit their opponents like Greek stated in that the opposing force essentially pinholes you into utilizing single target abilities only. Then afterwards they reap the rewards of your dropped items without taking on any of the risk.
As for the idea of flagging/un-flagging while in combat, I did not test this, but I definitely think there needs to be some form of cd on unflagging or at least a system where you will be un-flagged after your next death.
other games have already fixed this issue and it's pretty simple. Just give us more flagging options. We should have at least 3 pvp flags: Offensive, defensive, pacific. In offensive, you would hit everyone including greens. On the defensive you would only hit purple and red players, making so you can pvp against consenting players without the risk of going corrupt from accidentally hitting greens. Pacific would be hit no one. There is also the possibility of splitting the defensive in 2, by adding a flag just to hit red players (so that way you can pvp red without the risk of going purple). An UI element choose display the 3/4 flag options and the one you have selected at the moment should be highlighted. You can see these flagging options properly implemented in past games like Tibia and most recently Ravendawn.
Example from Tibia:
In this example, you have pacific mode (attack no one), defensive mode (translated to ashes system would be attacking only purples and reds), defensive mode 2 (attacking anyone that attacked your party members, even if they are green, and also all purples and reds), offensive mode (attack everyone)
How would this "kill" open world PvP?
You can flag for PVP anywhere but to unflag you need to be in a city.
You make the choice.to PVP... you are going to pvp
Nah. It's going to be behavior based, aka you're purple when you attack someone and are stuck that way for a short while. No manual unflagging at all.
Because we unflagged for quite a bit and let people kill us and they never went red
discord.gg/lod
Its true that you could have bad actors that purposely flag their party.. but don’t forget.. they’ll only do this do many times before ppl spread the word and that person no longer gets invited to groups. If a player wants to ruin their in game reputation by doing things like this, I’m all for it. That’s the nice thing about a game focused on social interactions.. ppl can turn against the asshats and just not group up with them.
I think everyone should flag if 1 member flags. I know it can totally be abused, however this will make it so that ppl will be careful who they trust and group up with. If players want to ruin their in game reputation by being known to purposely flag their groups..so be it.
I do think that the raid should get a notification which will let them know who in the group initiated PvP.. so if they are unhappy they all got flagged, they can boot that player and immediately kill them.. lol
One solution would be only, raid/party leads can flag the raid.
Another system would be a voting system. Where the party/raid lead flags up prompting everyone in the raid with: Your raid/party leader has flagged for Combatant Status. Would you like to flag or leave the raid? This would have two options on a timer (20s?).
Option A: Flag as a Combatant
Option B: Leave the raid/party
This could be further expanded in settings by auto voting for one or the other.
First, Context and Setup. I am using Smite as reference. In Smite, a MOBA game, players are able to surrender a match after X amount of time passes. All it takes is 1 person to hit the F6 key. This will prompt the rest of his teammate an option:
F6 To Surrender
F7 to Cancel Vote
So let's play around with the F6/F7 function (obviously it will be a different key bind for Ashes)
========================================================================
Group A = Aggressors
Group B = Defenders
Group C = 3rd party
Format:
1) Scenario Given
2) How it is resolved
3) Outcome
========================================================================
Scenario 1:
Group A found Group B and wishes to PvP them. All it takes is 1 player to initiate combat. Instead of Alt-F to flag up, you must actually "Attack" the player you're looking to fight / kill. This hit will not go through but will now prompt everyone in Group A a UI.
"Do you wish to flag for consensual pvp?"
Alt+F1 = yes
Alt+F2 = no
Group B - everyone associated with the player in the group that is being targeted will alos get a prompt.
"A player has threaten your group member, do you wish to fight back?
Alt+F1 = yes
Alt+F2 = no
Now let's resolve it.
For Group A, if they all hit Alt+F1, their name is still white for the time being.
For Group B, if they all hit Alt+F1, both group names changes to Blue/Cyan
For Group C, If both parties agreed to fight, their names stays white to Group C looking on.
========================================================================
Scenario 2:
As above but Group 2 decline the fight or is taking to long to decide.
Group A - can attempt to hit the player a second time after they pressed Alt+F1 on the first prompt. So roughly 3-5 seconds in between each condition to flag for PVP.
The second prompt is:
"This will flag you for world pvp and potentially risk getting corrupted, do you agree?"
Alt+F1 = yes
Alt+F2 = no
Group A now becomes Purple to everyone in the server EXCEPT TO GROUP B.
For Group B, they will get the warning prompt if they want to defend from a potential attack. After 5 seconds, the attackers can still attack them but won't turn purple for you unless you accept the F1, or risk losing larger drops if they decide to go red and PK you. We want to encourage PVP w/o cheese.
For Group C looking on - They will see Group A go purple and can Attack them. In Doing, they will also be given the "Do you wish to flag for "consensual pvp" prompt. If they accept, their names goes Purple too.
========================================================================
Now let's talk about Group 2 who hits Alt+F2 at any time.
Those who choose to be a pacifist are now given a debuff flag for 30 MINUTES!
This debuff means, you're unable to flag for pvp in any way, shape or form. You're unable to HEAL anyone who is purple. Your name is white, you do not see Blue/Cyan. You are effectively useless. You're unable to LOOT ANY FLAGGED PLAYERS BODIES. You're unable to loot or even INITAITE AN ATTACK ON A RED PLAYER.
You can still be attacked and killed. This is to prevent cheese, people jumping in fights a bit later. you decide right then and there, fight or flight.
NOW - you are able to remove your debuff in 1 scenario.
In scenario 1 - everyone turned cyan, for you, everyone name is white. If someone ends up still attacking you and turns purple, you'll have the option to hit Alt+F3 to join the fight.
But remember, let's say Group A mage hit Alt+F1 the first time and so did your party and he drops an AOE, you walking in will not flag him a 2nd prompt to jump in late. They need to go out of their way to hit you, accept the 2nd prompt to turn Purple. Only then, when a Purple name attacks you, can you remove ur debuff. Because they have accept the potential of going RED to kill you.
========================================================================
For Group C - If both Group A and B consented, Group C can't join the fight unless they go Purple to both Groups.
In Scenario 2 - Group C will see Group A go Purple and can attack openly. They will see Group B as white names. Group B will see Group A as white name and Group C as purple name.
========================================================================
I hope I did a solid job explaining. If not, let me know and I will do my best to clarify. If there are other scenarios, let me know and I will explain how it SHOULD work.
Again, this is NOT the intended final design in any way other than the three flag states.
AOE needs to hit unflagged, in the event that an AOE class is initiating combat vs an unflagged group.
If i wanna cone of cold a whole group initiating the combat, i dont need that being prohibited by some artificial system.
maybe an option i can select, to only allow me to hit flagged or hit all, so I can choose.
That's the method Intrepid are going to be using. It hasn't been implemented yet because that isn't what's being tested right now.
That's actually pretty good.
SOLUTION:
If you're flagged and you've TARGETED a white player, you'll be hitting everyone. White/Purple/Red.
If you're flagged and you've TARGETED a purple player, you'll be hitting PvPers. Purple/Red. Not whites unless you target one specifically.
I would also like to add I personally don't think there should be a mode to attack red players without risking hitting purple players and purpling yourself. E.g. If there's a full raid group with a couple reds because they've just PvPed, I don't think it's fair if an entire white raid can come along hitting the reds without risking purpling themselves. This is grief, they could keep coming back baiting the whole party into red.
Additionally, if you hit a mob which a red player has tagged (whether or not you are in their party), or a party which CONTAINS a red player has tagged, you should be purple. This will mean a raid with a couple red players will be full purple. This also means if you're trying to PK a red player trying to grind off his corruption be it solo or with a friend, you risk going purple if you don't do it properly (this will fully keep reds away from towns and gathering spaces, but allow them some relief in grinding mobs that attackers might go purple).
Just BEING RED is very difficult with status debuffs vs players and dropping items, I don't like the idea that anyone can come along and kill reds for a potentially high reward without the risk of flagging themselves. Everyone will be afraid to PvP and get lured into white griefers perma redding them.
It isn't going to be possible to make another player go red. They have to choose to commit to the kill.
The existing system is purely for testing baseline functionality of the flag states. It is NOT how the system is planned to function.
Please revisit the wiki for an understanding of the basics.