Non combatant attacks corrupted ( Flaw in the System)

As it stands now if a non combatant attacks a corrupted they don't flag.
Resulting in a situations where the corrupted cannot defend himself without getting more corruption.

I personally don't get the reasoning, nor do I think this is the correct approach.
Corrupted already have massive death penalty, statdampening(which also is arguable but NOT the point of the post), and potential gear loss. I think that's enough alrdy.

Don't come at me with "you shouldn't have killed someone in the first place as reasoning" just imagine I killed a bot. And now ran into a random green that attacks me and I have to pray he doesn't attack me, or if he does I have to pray I'm faster than him?

I don't see how this aspect makes sense. Pls enlighten me!

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Khana wrote: »

What's the fun in having top end game gear if you run around in garbage gear 95% of the time?

With both the ability to lose gear in PvP, and the need to repair gear using materials, equipping lower quality (and thus, less of an issue to lose, and easier to repair) gear will be common place in Ashes.

In terms of PvE, the point to better gear is that it enables you to take on harder content. The fact that it makes lower content easier is a byproduct (originally unintentional but unavoidable) of this design.

People that look at the gear as the reward for PvP are immature in regards to their view of how MMO's work. The gear is the key to the reward, the next piece of content is the actual reward.

Noaani

Professor Posh wrote: »

They should have designated areas in which are corruption free just to please the PKers.

They do, and those designated areas even move around the game world.

Noaani

Beekeeper wrote: »

Basically, we first have to wait and see HOW people can troll. Is tagging mobs annoying? Puling dangerous stuff to you? We can't say yet. Changing the system that has its legitimate use-cases without seeing it in action first is super premature. Maybe there's any number of tools to disparage trolls that don't involve straight up homicide.

This is why Intrepid haven't actually finished the corruption system as yet.

ThePurplePerp

Despite your concerns, there is literally never a situation where your only option is to murder someone who isn't fighting back. Claiming there are situations where you need to do that is nonsense.

Even so, the system is fine, if you're corrupted and encounter a hostile green and you want to avoid more corruption your options are - run away or take the death. Eventually you will find the time/space to clear your corruption. I can't imagine it's that hard to clear your name of one "unintentional" or "forced" PK...as if those things exist...

From what I understand about the corruption system you won't be losing items on death unless you are heavily corrupted, which requires murdering many people consecutively...and if you are heavily corrupted then you deserve to be killed. and camped.

King Fool

You know, when your argument could literally be an argument for disabling world pvp and not about making it right u know you dont care about that stuff at all. (or implementing pvp toggle on/off)
You know, you could remove that and balance it with more deathpenalty or statdampening or sth else.

But you argue that killing ppl is bad, and therefor it would make everything that happens to corrupted being ok. Its like saying if a corrupted dies he should go back to lvl one and your arguments are still solid...

And we try to find a way to allow killing a green for reason with negatives that are somewhat reasonable and not stupid. Btw, that is the idea behind the whole corruption system, while simultaneously disabling griefing-

Noaani

King Fool wrote: »

You know, when your argument could literally be an argument for disabling world pvp and not about making it right u know you dont care about that stuff at all. (or implementing pvp toggle on/off)
You know, you could remove that and balance it with more deathpenalty or statdampening or sth else.

But you argue that killing ppl is bad, and therefor it would make everything that happens to corrupted is ok. Its like saying if a corrupted dies he should go back to lvl one and your arguments are still solid...

I mean, if that is the system a game has, and a player plays that game and then kills someone gains corruption and is then killed, that is what should happen.

They knew that a risk of corruption in that game was the potential to delevel, and they still went out and gained some.

It's fair, because they knew.

King Fool

noaani wrote: »

King Fool wrote: »

You know, when your argument could literally be an argument for disabling world pvp and not about making it right u know you dont care about that stuff at all. (or implementing pvp toggle on/off)
You know, you could remove that and balance it with more deathpenalty or statdampening or sth else.

But you argue that killing ppl is bad, and therefor it would make everything that happens to corrupted is ok. Its like saying if a corrupted dies he should go back to lvl one and your arguments are still solid...

I mean, if that is the system a game has, and a player plays that game and then kills someone gains corruption and is then killed, that is what should happen.

They knew that a risk of corruption in that game was the potential to delevel, and they still went out and gained some.

It's fair, because they knew.

It's fair because they knew right. But why not tweak a bit and ppl still know. Only what they knew is something else.

King Fool

@noaani
I dont get how you can agree with having world pvp at all while simultaneously saying that no matter how extreme the downsides of corruption are you dont care. Then I'd ask myself the question why you are here talking about something you literally dont care about.

Noaani

King Fool wrote: »

@noaani
I dont get how you can agree with having world pvp at all while simultaneously saying that no matter how extreme the downsides of corruption are you dont care. Then I'd ask myself the question why you are here talking about something you literally dont care about.

I'm not saying I want a penalty like that - not at all. But if there is an option to do a thing, and the consequences of it (or potential consequences) are known, then a person that does that thing and faces those consequences has nothing to complain about.

King Fool

noaani wrote: »

King Fool wrote: »

@noaani
I dont get how you can agree with having world pvp at all while simultaneously saying that no matter how extreme the downsides of corruption are you dont care. Then I'd ask myself the question why you are here talking about something you literally dont care about.

I'm not saying I want a penalty like that - not at all. But if there is an option to do a thing, and the consequences of it (or potential consequences) are known, then a person that does that thing and faces those consequences has nothing to complain about.

you know that this whole thread is about changing the consequences right? In what way does adding if they know its okay no matter what it is add anything to discussion on the consequences and how you could change or improve them?

Assiniboia

King Fool wrote: »

But you argue that killing ppl is bad, and therefor it would make everything that happens to corrupted being ok. Its like saying if a corrupted dies he should go back to lvl one and your arguments are still solid...

And we try to find a way to allow killing a green for reason with negatives that are somewhat reasonable and not stupid. Btw, that is the idea behind the whole corruption system, while simultaneously disabling griefing-

But, there is a difference between earning a little corruption here and there with strategic PKing, where it may matter, and corrupt players having killed often and indiscriminately. In no way is anyone saying a corrupt player should suffer so greatly as to be beggared forever. But there are mechanisms for corruption to be liquidated and a Red to revert to being Green.

But this is a real world analogy for how the system should work, because killing people is bad: a mugger assaults your spouse, steals their backpack and runs.

The mugger becomes a red player, the spouse is a green player, and the pack is the resource incentive.

Now, if the mugger decided to mug with few people around, they will probably escape. But your spouse will have a description, and in a sense the neighbourhood may be more aware of that person. (Now, because this is a hypothetical analogy we aren’t arguing about socio-political reasons for dangerous neighbourhoods or other political issues therein).

However, if the mugger chose a real bad place and time to assault a person, a few people might step in to inhibit the mugger’s escape or stop the mugger entirely, and maybe retrieve the backpack (at least cause it to become worth less than it was at first).

In this case, you argument that inhibiting the Red player is not valid is flawed because this analogy allows the mugger to continue to choose to use force (up-to deadly force) without recourse.

Which doesn’t make sense. If the mugger goes: goddamnit, I screwed up here’s the bag (and die to a Green), they accept the consequence of their choice (for whatever reason). But, if they fight back and harm others from stepping in they absolutely escalate and continue to deserve greater recrimination. And, this player has chosen intentionally not to leave and work off the corruption, ignoring a powerful mechanism that, essentially, protects the PK-er.

This is the idea. If that Red player chooses to continue to escalate at every situation, they deserve to continue to gather further inhibitive effects (statdamp, performance reduction, gear drops, etc...).

Within a game world, you don’t have the same consequences as a mugger may incur in the real world, so you can continue to gain corruption (and, for a while, those consequences are relatively mild). But the game world allows you to repay that corruption over time in ways that don’t inhibit freedom too much, because consequences in-game are mild. And this allows for wide-spread and healthy PKing for strategic reasons, but not for griefing often and regularly.

King Fool

Assiniboia wrote: »

King Fool wrote: »

But you argue that killing ppl is bad, and therefor it would make everything that happens to corrupted being ok. Its like saying if a corrupted dies he should go back to lvl one and your arguments are still solid...

And we try to find a way to allow killing a green for reason with negatives that are somewhat reasonable and not stupid. Btw, that is the idea behind the whole corruption system, while simultaneously disabling griefing-

But, there is a difference between earning a little corruption here and there with strategic PKing, where it may matter, and corrupt players having killed often and indiscriminately. In no way is anyone saying a corrupt player should suffer so greatly as to be beggared forever. But there are mechanisms for corruption to be liquidated and a Red to revert to being Green.

But this is a real world analogy for how the system should work, because killing people is bad: a mugger assaults your spouse, steals their backpack and runs.

The mugger becomes a red player, the spouse is a green player, and the pack is the resource incentive.

Now, if the mugger decided to mug with few people around, they will probably escape. But your spouse will have a description, and in a sense the neighbourhood may be more aware of that person. (Now, because this is a hypothetical analogy we aren’t arguing about socio-political reasons for dangerous neighbourhoods or other political issues therein).

However, if the mugger chose a real bad place and time to assault a person, a few people might step in to inhibit the mugger’s escape or stop the mugger entirely, and maybe retrieve the backpack (at least cause it to become worth less than it was at first).

In this case, you argument that inhibiting the Red player is not valid is flawed because this analogy allows the mugger to continue to choose to use force (up-to deadly force) without recourse.

Which doesn’t make sense. If the mugger goes: goddamnit, I screwed up here’s the bag (and die to a Green), they accept the consequence of their choice (for whatever reason). But, if they fight back and harm others from stepping in they absolutely escalate and continue to deserve greater recrimination. And, this player has chosen intentionally not to leave and work off the corruption, ignoring a powerful mechanism that, essentially, protects the PK-er.

This is the idea. If that Red player chooses to continue to escalate at every situation, they deserve to continue to gather further inhibitive effects (statdamp, performance reduction, gear drops, etc...).

Within a game world, you don’t have the same consequences as a mugger may incur in the real world, so you can continue to gain corruption (and, for a while, those consequences are relatively mild). But the game world allows you to repay that corruption over time in ways that don’t inhibit freedom too much, because consequences in-game are mild. And this allows for wide-spread and healthy PKing for strategic reasons, but not for griefing often and regularly.

I 100% agree, but why does this reason that greens should be allowed to attack red without flagging?

ElGordoGuido

This system is based on L2, and it's probably present in some other MMOs aswell. Probably L2 got it from some other before.

And it's like that. Once you are Red, you can keep killing to defend yourself for more corruption, ergo, more "red". Unless who you are killing is a purple. In that scenario the purple doesn't add more corruption. characters not flagged get to kill you without penalties. They are the heroes of the situation. Becoming a PK carries big penalties, and there's no way around it. It's intended to be that way.

Assiniboia

@King Fool

To continue with the analogy, in a healthy society it is expected that people would try and stop the mugger (and, additionally, that the mugger wouldn’t go all out when caught, but rather lean towards responsibility at the end and give up). This benefits everyone and society as a whole: people are safer, local businesses worry less, parents don’t need to carry weapons to get their children to school and back (because justifications via fear often far exceed the practical and the realistic). The real world has many reasons why people don’t try and help in modern society (wealth, fear of injury, callousness, cowardice, etc...)

In effect, the game world doesn’t have any of those consequences or justifications. Because everyone will simply respawn and everyone will, eventually, swap out gear for better stuff gained via adventuring or crafting, so the cost of repair is often negligible (at least until end-gameish).

However, the expectation that people step in to help is the justification for why a Green doesn’t need to flag to attack a Red. It is expected that they would help the society by self-policing against griefers, and thus don’t require the flag while the Red continues to choose to dig a deeper pit, rather than giving up when caught. You can PK for a while without becoming inhibited, unlike the mugger who succeeds either by choosing a better time/place or by the inactivity of other people, thus it enforces a stricter position on griefing, because the mugger (in the game) is monitored by the game itself.

An idea for game design might be that a Green still doesn’t require flagging to attack a Red, but if they kill a Red that/those Green(s) should gain corruption but at a slower rate.

This means that Bounty Hunters would become more important, in the sense of policing Reds, but also in the sense of in-game legitimacy to the fictional status quo. It also means that griefing the griefer (sic: trolls) would incur penalties for engaging in indiscriminate retribution, rather than occasional self-policing; and, it blurs the ethical position between Greens and Reds, while also complicating the choice to PK on both sides. Therefore facilitating an easement on open world PvP.

Jarial

Purple players consent to PvP. Green players do not consent to PvP, which is why there are penalties to killing them. However when a green player attacks a red player they are actively participating in PvP yet do not get flagged as one who consents to it. This is the flaw in the system that results in red players getting penalized, win or lose, to consensual PvP. If red wins they gain more corruption, if they lose they get the death penalty of a corrupted player.

Saying that the red player "deserves it" is not always right either. There are many reasons that a decent player might have killed a green. Maybe they were a bot, or the green was stealing loot/resources. Or maybe they were just standing in a doorway blocking your way in/out, generally just being a green dick. So now you're red and you don't want the red death penalty but green players are chasing you down before you can lose your wanted level. It's a no win situation.

Caeryl

Jarial wrote: »

Purple players consent to PvP. Green players do not consent to PvP, which is why there are penalties to killing them. However when a green player attacks a red player they are actively participating in PvP yet do not get flagged as one who consents to it. This is the flaw in the system that results in red players getting penalized, win or lose, to consensual PvP. If red wins they gain more corruption, if they lose they get the death penalty of a corrupted player.

Saying that the red player "deserves it" is not always right either. There are many reasons that a decent player might have killed a green. Maybe they were a bot, or the green was stealing loot/resources. Or maybe they were just standing in a doorway blocking your way in/out, generally just being a green dick. So now you're red and you don't want the red death penalty but green players are chasing you down before you can lose your wanted level. It's a no win situation.

The red player is free to run away when they’re attacked and pressured off an area.

They’re free to not PK a green in the first place. Your hypothetical scenario has no valid reason for doing so.

A group of greens probably isn’t going to run at you like red players, not to mention the red player gets more from green kills than purple kills so they can weigh in if they want to fight and take the corruption.

Ashes is a game of choices and consequences. Everything that comes from being corrupted is a direct consequence of PKing a green. There’s no good reason to lessen those consequences. So far it’s all boiled down to “I don’t like big penalties for being a murderhobo”

Noaani

King Fool wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

King Fool wrote: »

@noaani
I dont get how you can agree with having world pvp at all while simultaneously saying that no matter how extreme the downsides of corruption are you dont care. Then I'd ask myself the question why you are here talking about something you literally dont care about.

I'm not saying I want a penalty like that - not at all. But if there is an option to do a thing, and the consequences of it (or potential consequences) are known, then a person that does that thing and faces those consequences has nothing to complain about.

you know that this whole thread is about changing the consequences right? In what way does adding if they know its okay no matter what it is add anything to discussion on the consequences and how you could change or improve them?

Simple.

There are two factors that determine if the consequences are appropriate.

The first is the effect it has on how often people in game attack and kill each other and gain corruption. As we've established, Intrepid have all sorts of parameters they can alter with the current system to affect that, and only they know how much they want it to happen - as such, there is nothing to discuss here.

The second factor that determines if the consequences are appropriate, is how fair they are. My argument here is that as long as players know these consequences beforehand, they can't claim them to be unfair.

Yuyukoyay

I don't see it being a problem. There are multiple ways to get rid of it. The only complaint I have with it is high level players farming all of the materials off of low level players. I don't think you should get any materials from players who are too weak for you.

Noaani

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

I don't see it being a problem. There are multiple ways to get rid of it. The only complaint I have with it is high level players farming all of the materials off of low level players. I don't think you should get any materials from players who are too weak for you.

I think this would end up taking an order of magnitude longer to get those materials. By the time you factor in how long it will take to work off that experience debt, which based on new information from Steven in this thread, is something you would want to do before taking on any real PvE content.

Yuyukoyay

A big problem in pvp servers in WoW is that low level players would be spawn camped for days at a time by a single high level character. This was without a benefit to doing it. The current system is going to reward you for doing it. So I can see it completely removing growth of the game at some point if they do not address it now. People will definitely quit the game over being griefed to an extent that is too large. Even if the corruption system will eventually punish them you will not really be there to see it happen.

I don't think players going after the hardest content in the game should be rewarded in any way for griefing newer players.

Child Item