Griefing is amazing!

Greetings, fellow humans!

I’ll admit, my title is a bit misleading—laden with a heavy dose of sarcasm—but hey, you’re here, so mission accomplished!

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of PvP whatsoever. However, I can understand the appeal of it and believe it can be made fun and fair for all.

Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:

Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.

The chance of corruption increases with each additional attack within a specific timeframe (reset after 10 minutes, for example).

This chance would also scale further based on the aggressor's level of Blight.

Intended Outcomes
[1] Reduced griefing of non-combatants.
[2] Increased risk for non-PK griefers.
[3] Encourages politically and resource-motivated PK/PvP. (Corrupted debuffs would require major reduction)
[4] Boosted value of bounty hunting: With more corrupted players around, bounty hunters have increased opportunities for action.

Balancing Adjustments
To maintain harmony with the game’s core principles, adjustments would be necessary for non-combatant vs. corrupted interactions. The penalties and rewards need to strike a fine balance to ensure the system feels fair and engaging for all players.

Additional Benefits
[-] Reduces reliance on Customer Support: Placing the onus on victims to report griefers (a double burden, in my opinion) could be minimized.
[-] Streamlined support needs: Fewer reports mean fewer Customer Service Reps required, saving resources for Intrepid.

An Alternate Angle
Perhaps instead of focusing solely on punishing corrupted players, we could explore increasing protections for non-combatants. This might achieve similar goals while offering a more positive approach to the issue.

What do you think? Win-win-win? Or is there another way we can refine this idea further?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!

Taleof2Cities

Since you’re not a PvP fan, it’s great that you’re stepping in with some proposed PvP design changes.

Including design changes to corruption systems that currently aren’t fully working as intended.

Kudos.

Oh, sorry … sarcasm overtook me there for a minute …

xthisu

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!

Isn't that partially the point of an Alpha and a General Discussion forum?

xthisu

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

Since you’re not a PvP fan, it’s great that you’re stepping in with some proposed PvP design changes.

Including design changes to corruption systems that currently aren’t fully working as intended.

Kudos.

Oh, sorry … sarcasm overtook me there for a minute …

I mean, they are actively making changes to the system that is partially implemented as a result of player feedback...if it was how you describe it, they would have just brushed all the feedback off and told everyone to just wait until all the pieces were in place.

Pyrolol

Too many people trying to change things that aren’t even fully developed yet

xthisu

Pyrolol wrote: »

Too many people trying to change things that aren’t even fully developed yet

lol, that's literally what development is.

Pyrolol

xthisu wrote: »

Pyrolol wrote: »

Too many people trying to change things that aren’t even fully developed yet

lol, that's literally what development is.

There’s a difference between saying ideas to tweak something compared to a full rework mate

Caeryl

Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.

Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.

RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.

CROW3

Caeryl wrote: »

Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.

RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.

Agreed. I still think corruption hammer needs to drop around the 3rd-ish green kill. We all know some greens just need to be squashed from time to time as a keen reminder of FAFO.

xthisu

Caeryl wrote: »

Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.

Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.

RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.

It's RNG, but it isn't. This roll would heavily skew towards "not being RNG"...initially...the idea here is just to try and mitigate a level 20 sitting on a level 10 just poking him for hours with no recourse except "call friends" or "call a DM". You could still poke someone to try and coax them into flagging or to push them out of a camp or insert your reason here without going corrupted, but prevent griefing. The RNG part is just so there's a bit of risk involved so you can't easily abuse it.

Probably a better way of implementing it, it was just an idea.

xthisu

Pyrolol wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Pyrolol wrote: »

Too many people trying to change things that aren’t even fully developed yet

lol, that's literally what development is.

There’s a difference between saying ideas to tweak something compared to a full rework mate

I'm not sure you read half of my post then because it is literally a tweak to one piece of the system.

Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:

xthisu

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.

RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.

Agreed. I still think corruption hammer needs to drop around the 3rd-ish green kill. We all know some greens just need to be squashed from time to time as a keen reminder of FAFO.

I don't mind PKs at all honestly. At least you get the chance to go off into a separate direction if you wish after reviving at the spring.

kadimir

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Excellent, lets get started

xthisu wrote: »

Full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of PvP whatsoever

Excellent, the dis-closure worked, cause Dis-thread just Closed for me.

Pyrolol

I think corruption is over tuned at the moment, 1 gank and you risk losing 1-3 items is a bit extreme

Caeryl

Pyrolol wrote: »

I think corruption is over tuned at the moment, 1 gank and you risk losing 1-3 items is a bit extreme

It is significantly overtuned on purpose right now. The severity of consequences currently isn't reflective of the planned system.

10 PKs is the provided estimate of when combat stat dampening will be felt significantly. Consider the current system in that light, aka being 10X more severe than it's going to end up.

Noaani

xthisu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!

Isn't that partially the point of an Alpha and a General Discussion forum?

An alpha is not about suggesting anything. It is about finding problems, and then leaving the fix to those that actually know what they are doing.

You can't find problems in a system that is only 10% implemented.

I'm sure your intention was fine, but "feedback" doesn't mean they need suggestions.

GoldenAbsolute

Holy balls guys some of yall need to take a deep breath they just had an idea and wanted to express it to the community. If we thrash every person with an opinion then people are gonna be afraid to speak. If you take issue with what they are proposing then explain what you think it should or shouldn't be. This is doubly so if they start it with "Im not a big PVP fan" this is a great chance to talk to them and possibly make a pvp fan out of them. Xthisu your idea is cool for sure and please dont let the toxic people in the ashes community turn you off from thinking about how the game could be improved.

Noaani

GoldenAbsolute wrote: »

If you take issue with what they are proposing then explain what you think it should or shouldn't be.

We did.

Bluntness and sarcasm are allowed.

AidanKD

This community can be hard work at times. The very first comment is "someone thinks they can only improve a system that is partially in place".

EVERY SYSTEM IS ONLY PARTIALLY IN PLACE.

Combat - we only have lv 25 right? And only one archetype. Missing several skills, archetypes, skill trees are basic and well into early iterations.

Nodes - level 3?

Gathering and Crafting - minimal.

Corruption - exists but basic?

Isn't the whole point of open development, open feedback?

If you disagree with OP that's perfectly fine - lay down your reasoning and have a constructive discussion.

But the SHEER ELITISM of the community here saying you're not allowed to offer feedback or suggestions on x topic (a topic which is currently IN THE ALPHA) - blows my mind.

---

It's very clear what their proposed suggestions mainly tie towards:

- Increased corruption penalties.
- Increased bounty hunting rewards

So overall they would prefer less PvP outside of the designated consentual pvp activities like caravans, node wars etc.

I think they in the recent corruption iteration it was made even more punishing to player kill - I don't think i'd like to see too many more penalties - however I personally do like the idea of making bounty hunting very fruitful.

--

One last thing i'd add for OP is behind a lot of the design decisions is clearly a sense of community. If a PKer is going around killing people constantly - while they plan to have designs in place to inhibit this, it's clear Stephen/Intrepid want the community to manage it more. Getting PK'd a lot? Party up with other local players, or join a guild and implore for their help. Grouping being the way to offer a disincentive for the player PKer - either by leaving, going for other player/s, or grouping up themselves to increase the manpower. Tensions can diminish or escalate but it's very much intended to be part of the game.

I don't think you're going to get what you want and since the vocal lot of the community are all aboard this train, that's why you're getting shut down unfairly - but I think you're looking at it from the perspective of a solo player - and you might want to approach the situation more creatively with other players in mind.

Taleof2Cities

AidanKD wrote: »

But the SHEER ELITISM of the community here saying you're not allowed to offer feedback or suggestions on x topic (a topic which is currently IN THE ALPHA) - blows my mind.

And why should the community treat the topic seriously when:

1. The thread opens with a baited title and sarcasm.
2. Clearly they want to opt out of the risk of PvP on the main map (as you pointed out).
3. They aren’t a fan of PvP … nor listed any prior MMO experience to even have standing on the topic.

Feedback and suggestions are totally encouraged. Just not ones that fundamentally change the game’s core principals.

Child Item