The issue with Corruption - How to fix

Hi all,

So I'm new to Ashes of Corruption so forgive me if this is something that has already been pointed out, but the corruption system that has been suggested currently is routinely flawed and I felt it was necessary to point this out.

The idea of the system as I understand it is to prevent griefing, which in of itself is a great idea, however the way the system goes about it is not only flawed but also over-invested in.

Griefing (for example killing players who are non-combatants) makes you corrupt and gives huge negatives with petty much zero rewards. That in of itself makes sense, until you enter in bounty hunting, which gives the impression that being corrupted is more of a life choice than an against the rules type of thing. At that point you're not really saying "don't grief" but actually saying "don't kill people that don't want to be combatants". This is NOT the same thing.

I'll give you some examples that are common in other games I've played in the past. In the current system I could take someone down 90% of their hp and then walk away a combatant. I could then wait for them to heal up and do it again. This is still griefing. I could also just kill everything they try to kill faster thereby stopping or slowing their progression. This is also griefing. And whats the recourse? None really. I can just turn off combatant the second their friends turn up and laugh as they aren't allowed to kill me without being corrupted themselves.

If you think of killing non-combatants as inherently griefing and want to prevent it specifically then why not just make non-combantants unable to be killed by combatants? Why bother with Corrupted and Bounty Hunters at all? I can only assume it to give the CHOICE to be corrupted, but then where are the benefits of that choice? Why would someone choose to go down that route instead of griefing in the myriad of ways that circumvent the corruption system?

The best way to combat this would be to ensure a defined line between corrupted and non-corrupted gameplay and build this into your game. Someone who is corrupted may lose out of a lot of things, but there HAS to be some benefit or players will start finding other ways to do it that are far more toxic than just PK'ing. This will also add more to the fun of the game by people having to choose a criminal lifestyle or one of law and order. So here's what i suggest:

1) Corruption no longer makes you weaker in PvP - the idea that killing players makes you weaker makes little sense and takes away from the hardened criminal option of being corrupted

2) Corruption no longer get reduced drops from monsters. Again this makes no sense.

3) There will be special vendors/stalls that cater to all players regardless of their status - your classic seedy trader who is happy to buy stolen goods for a reduced price

4) A NPC guild that caters to them specifically as a kind of anti-bounty hunter group. They might even have secret ways into the cities where communities or "dens of corruption" (couldn't resist - sorry xD) of other corrupted can grow.

HOWEVER -

1) Corrupted players are always flagged for PvP. They can always be killed free of detriment - even granting benefits like the bounties on their heads, special coins for exclusive loot etc

2) Corrupted players can always be actively hunted whenever they are outside of their "den of corruption" - ranger tracking will show when there has been a corrupted player nearby and which way they went, clerics can sense their presence and direction, bounty hunters get a map update with their position etc

Being corrupted now means that while you might get some ill gotten gains from killing people, you are now a fugitive on the run. Anytime you're farming someone could turn up to claim the bounty on your head. You might be able to buy things from seedy shops in small villages or back alleys but the city proper is forever closed to you.

Working corruption into the game this way will limit corrupted players while still allowing a place in the game for them, and thereby allow a place for bounty hunters as well. Players won't go looking for toxic ways to grief, but will instead resort to good old fashioned bashing of heads and face the consequences of going down the "dodgy path" (Raymond E Fiest quote) later on.

Anyway that's just my two cents. Other than this the game looks pretty solid and I'm pretty interested to see where it goes

--Loki--

P.S. I'd be a bounty hunter not a PK'er for those that were wondering

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

TheGoodzilla

Not gonna lie. Didn't read all that. So guilty as charged for missing the finer points. But you said:

LowQuey wrote: »

I can just turn off combatant the second their friends turn up and laugh as they aren't allowed to kill me without being corrupted themselves.

If you think of killing non-combatants as inherently griefing and want to prevent it specifically then why not just make non-combantants unable to be killed by combatants?

First, no. You don't just turn off combatant state. It's something that you have for a period of time until you go without killk g a player (90% sure) before you lose. So that's not correct.

Second, they didn't want to make a danger free game. While it's true everyone can go Yolo and kill everything in sight, the fact is that most of a population will react aggressively to a player killing others that are purely focused on pve. So going corrupted will be a risk vs the thrill of not getting caught thing.

I have noticed elements of the game which *could hypothetically* be exploited for griefing. But I think the pvp foundation that has been set will go far towards making a dangerous game thay will not require pvp from all its players.

Great Brae

LowQuey wrote: »

Hi all,

So I'm new to Ashes of Corruption so forgive me if this is something that has already been pointed out, but the corruption system that has been suggested currently is routinely flawed and I felt it was necessary to point this out.

The idea of the system as I understand it is to prevent griefing, which in of itself is a great idea, however the way the system goes about it is not only flawed but also over-invested in.

Griefing (for example killing players who are non-combatants) makes you corrupt and gives huge negatives with petty much zero rewards. That in of itself makes sense, until you enter in bounty hunting, which gives the impression that being corrupted is more of a life choice than an against the rules type of thing. At that point you're not really saying "don't grief" but actually saying "don't kill people that don't want to be combatants". This is NOT the same thing.

I'll give you some examples that are common in other games I've played in the past. In the current system I could take someone down 90% of their hp and then walk away a combatant. I could then wait for them to heal up and do it again. This is still griefing. I could also just kill everything they try to kill faster thereby stopping or slowing their progression. This is also griefing. And whats the recourse? None really. I can just turn off combatant the second their friends turn up and laugh as they aren't allowed to kill me without being corrupted themselves.

If you think of killing non-combatants as inherently griefing and want to prevent it specifically then why not just make non-combantants unable to be killed by combatants? Why bother with Corrupted and Bounty Hunters at all? I can only assume it to give the CHOICE to be corrupted, but then where are the benefits of that choice? Why would someone choose to go down that route instead of griefing in the myriad of ways that circumvent the corruption system?

The best way to combat this would be to ensure a defined line between corrupted and non-corrupted gameplay and build this into your game. Someone who is corrupted may lose out of a lot of things, but there HAS to be some benefit or players will start finding other ways to do it that are far more toxic than just PK'ing. This will also add more to the fun of the game by people having to choose a criminal lifestyle or one of law and order. So here's what i suggest:

1) Corruption no longer makes you weaker in PvP - the idea that killing players makes you weaker makes little sense and takes away from the hardened criminal option of being corrupted

2) Corruption no longer get reduced drops from monsters. Again this makes no sense.

3) There will be special vendors/stalls that cater to all players regardless of their status - your classic seedy trader who is happy to buy stolen goods for a reduced price

4) A NPC guild that caters to them specifically as a kind of anti-bounty hunter group. They might even have secret ways into the cities where communities or "dens of corruption" (couldn't resist - sorry xD) of other corrupted can grow.

HOWEVER -

1) Corrupted players are always flagged for PvP. They can always be killed free of detriment - even granting benefits like the bounties on their heads, special coins for exclusive loot etc

2) Corrupted players can always be actively hunted whenever they are outside of their "den of corruption" - ranger tracking will show when there has been a corrupted player nearby and which way they went, clerics can sense their presence and direction, bounty hunters get a map update with their position etc

Being corrupted now means that while you might get some ill gotten gains from killing people, you are now a fugitive on the run. Anytime you're farming someone could turn up to claim the bounty on your head. You might be able to buy things from seedy shops in small villages or back alleys but the city proper is forever closed to you.

Working corruption into the game this way will limit corrupted players while still allowing a place in the game for them, and thereby allow a place for bounty hunters as well. Players won't go looking for toxic ways to grief, but will instead resort to good old fashioned bashing of heads and face the consequences of going down the "dodgy path" (Raymond E Fiest quote) later on.

Anyway that's just my two cents. Other than this the game looks pretty solid and I'm pretty interested to see where it goes

--Loki--

P.S. I'd be a bounty hunter not a PK'er for those that were wondering

Actually killing players and going currupt does have rewards, which I stand against. If the player has gatherables/certificates (think WoW grey items that is just there for gold) They can loot them off the corpse of the player and then try to go incongnito.

Since this is the case, and you lose less when you fight back, it's more likely the player will fight back to protect his goods, which will result that the attacker will not corrupt. This is a major flaw in that system in my opinion, it encourages greifing in fact. I think more rules needs to be applied to prevent this and include in other places where player theft can occur. I beleive the game would be more enjoyable without possible theft of items.

To answer your list;

heck no! Pker's need not be rewarded for ruining another players day!

TheGoodzilla

But you just said they are grey items.

So you are out.... A few silver?

Agoan there other systems in place that could be potentially worse for griefing. The pvp system isn't that bad. I think it's kind of brilliant.

LowQuey

That's fine - I tend to be rather thorough which can bore some people

You can switch between combatant and non-combatant without penalty - so there is really nothing to stop this from happening. You might have to run away for a bit, say a couple of minutes, to turn it back off again but when you're talking about a map that's over 400km in size you could spend an hour or so doing this before anyone turned up to help your victim.

With regards to it not being risk free - the current system allows for griefing, but not for killing. That's like saying sticks and stones mate - griefing doesn't work that way. I played League of Legends for a few years and I can tell you now toxic behaviour isn't limited to killing someone, people will ALWAYS find a way to be toxic. A game creators job is to give direction to that toxic behaviour. Take WoW for example. In the old days alliance and horde were the lines ( I don't know anymore as I haven't played it in YEARS). You couldn't fight your own kind, but the other side were all horrible and deserved to die. You worst nature was directed by the game creators into something that aided you being immersed of the game. It helped create that feeling of two nations at war.

I think the worst you'll see from corrupted is a few people who every now and again kill someone. It will likely be out of frustration (likely the person doing the griefing) or for the sheer hell of it or because they are going to cancel their account or have hacked an account. The rest of the time the whole idea of Bounty Hunters will be like a worse version of fishing in other games.

TheGoodzilla

I mean if you want to talk about griefing....

Can we talk about body blocking and idiocy in large groups?

Pvp, not so much

Great Brae

TheGoodzilla wrote: »

But you just said they are grey items.

So you are out.... A few silver?

Agoan there other systems in place that could be potentially worse for griefing. The pvp system isn't that bad. I think it's kind of brilliant.

Some "grey" items in WoW actually give decent gold, I was just using them as an example.

NelsonRebel

You want benifits for attacking non combatants.

Choices have consequences which is the entire premise of AoC.

Bounty hunting is the player driven system to stop griefing because lets face it, just getting corruption isnt going to daunt people its just a mechanic they ARE going to work around somehow.

Bounty Hunting is a tool for players given by the devs to alleviate people who figure out obscure ways to get around or who just flat out ignore corruptions consequences to grief.

Hence bounty hunting.

Corruption is NOT MEANT to be a reward system. Its a punishment that has consequences for being a shitty player. Its fine you want to kill someone but once you do and they dont want to fight thats on you for going through with it.

You want a free for all pvp game with no consequences and that is not the intent nor desire or focus of Ashes.

If you want to pvp here then do so but dont think your way of indiscriminate pvp is what the devs or players want. I mean HELL open world PvP alone with no way to turn it off is already a power move by Intrepid.

There will be other ways to be and play as a Bad guy in this game via the other systems but corruption is not it. Its Intrepids in-game mechanic to curb rampant pvpers who dont understand or care about boundries and take their time and gameplay to ruin others.

Seriously, I only play PvP in many of my games and this is just a no brainer. The corruption in Ashes is by far one of the best mechanic designs for open world pvp and bounty hunting as a safeguard and Rp that I've ever seen.

I dont understand why people dont see this lol

Great Brae

I do like curruption as an concept, but I think it needs more work, as with player slaying letting ppl loot the corpse for a few items needs to not exist. I like pvp as well, but I don't consider player theft/greifing as meaningful pvp.

Merek

In theory the system is good, like most things. Until we see it in practice we won't know for sure. I expect a lot of corrupted alts flying around, nobody will tarnish their main character to grief a low level player. Spending a few hours to boost a new character for it though, no skin off their teeth really.

Great Brae

indeed, I think a account bound player history list could expose some players of that somewhat.

LowQuey

Great Brae wrote: »

heck no! Pker's need not be rewarded for ruining another players day!

So would you prefer a random player coming by and killing you to steal a little of your loot/resources and moving on or a guy sitting there chunking your hp bar repeatedly every time you go heal up or killing monsters that you attack to stop you from farming for half an hour? In a game with this kind of map size and lack of NPC driven travel options this is something that WILL happen. Ask anyone who played Legends of Mir back when MMORPG's were a new thing and systems like this were first attempted. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

PK'ing has a place in games, especially ones that has a focus on PvP. Griefing is when you deliberately take it upon yourself to consistently ruin the game for someone else for your own enjoyment. This doesn't necessarily mean Pk'ing. There are far worse ways to grief someone than killing them.

Great Brae

Pkin does have a place, player theft don't. I like battlefeild action, defending land that your nation has, I don't enjoy ppl being douchebags. player theft is greifing, whether ppl on this forums agrees or not.

Noaani

The only thing you have suggested (that I read) is that you could attack and not kill a player, and do this repeatedly. If you have any other "flaws", feel free to let me know and I'll give them similar treatment to the following.

First of all, you can't take a player down to 90% - we will not have that much information on player health unless we are grouped up with them. This means that in your effort to take a player down to 90%, there is a damn good chance you may accidently kill them.

Have fun with that.

Additionally, if this kind of thing becomes a problem, all Intrepid need to do is add a timer to the PvP system whereby if a player dies n seconds after being attacked by another, that attacker gains corruption. This means that if you come along and attack me but don't kill me, I could then just run over to the nearest mob, let it kill me and you gain corruption.

Twang

Having corrupted not be an absolute state of the enmy in every way possible with weaknesses and limitations but instead a hardcore mode could work better. Corruption could be seen as a setback rather than a complete disadvantage. Providing world interaction limations but not cutting off from player interaction could lead to corruption groups which grief for a time and then grind the rest off reaping the benefits from time spent and diligence instead. There's a lotta possibilities, if u remove the disenctive/disadvantage.

BaSkA_9x2

Great Brae wrote: »

Pkin does have a place, player theft don't. I like battlefeild action, defending land that your nation has, I don't enjoy ppl being douchebags. player theft is greifing, whether ppl on this forums agrees or not.

Please refrain from saying "player theft": it makes no sense and it sounds dumb.

Have you never heard of or played a game with full loot non-consensual PvP? Ashes won't even have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of gatherables and processed (in some cases) items if you're not corrupted. It feels bad to be killed and lose loot, it's usually not "fair" and there's no denying that, still that's engraved onto the game's PvX core philosophy.

I have a feeling you're treating this game as if it was real life where stealing, looting and killing is obviously unacceptable. I'm happy to tell you Ashes will be a game in which you and your loot will never be safe, but it could be so much worse, you have no idea. If you have never played and if you don't like the older MMORPGs or current survival games, Ashes might not be for you unfortunately. Some people like hardcore (ish) games and some don't, but please stop trying to take that away from those who enjoy it. Almost every single MMORPG out there has safe PvP (no loot on death), aren't you tired of that already?

I'm not saying that Ashes' systems and ideas are flawless, that it won't be possible to abuse them, that they will completely prevent griefing or that PvP will mostly be an enjoyable experience. I'm very hopeful that the Alpha and Beta testing phases will show Intrepid the issues of the current PvP systems in place, which luckily will be fixed.

Jubilum

The only way to stop griefing/ganking (I'm not for this PC term of PK'ing) is to not allow open world/non consensual PVP. By the way I'm not buying the argument that you can grief without killing someone, that is just pure BS, just go do something else since you are still alive.

If you think that this or any "corruption' system is going to deter the underbelly of online gaming from showing up in mass, you are simply naive. These people do not care about any system that attempts to keep them from harvesting your tears. We have all seen the attempts by other developers and they have all failed or been completely ineffective.

They will come, they will kill everyone they find, they will destroy the game, then after all the targets are gone they will move to the next game until we decide that it may be safe to return, then they will come and start again.
'

neuroguy

Great Brae wrote: »

Pkin does have a place, player theft don't. I like battlefeild action, defending land that your nation has, I don't enjoy ppl being douchebags. player theft is greifing, whether ppl on this forums agrees or not.

There are lots of mechanisms in game where players can take resources you've acquired. Through sieges, caravans and PKing. It is an intended game mechanic and you can feel it's wrong but it will happen because it's sanctioned by Intrepid. It creates player driven friction and conflict, and they like it because it's memorable. Not all experiences are positive in the moment but they can be memorable and get you emotionally invested. It is what it is. Just be aware that this game intends for these things to happen.

maouw

I'm pretty sure the corruption system being focused on death is fine.

Your example of getting constantly poked by someone doesn't incur exp loss, and if you poke a victim to a dangerous health level and they die to mobs - I assume you still take responsibility for the death according to the game (?)

Like you said, you can't stop people from having internet fights and this system at least provides a channel for that negative energy to go somewhere - which is a great thing. You fix PKing, then it's player harrassment like you suggested. You make non-combatants invulnerable then it becomes mob stealing. You fix mob stealing, then it becomes something else.

People are allowed to be annoying, and it's normal for those people to not have friends.

Building community naturally creates a buffer for being a dick.

mcstackerson

maouw wrote: »

Your example of getting constantly poked by someone doesn't incur exp loss, and if you poke a victim to a dangerous health level and they die to mobs - I assume you still take responsibility for the death according to the game (?)

You only get corruption if you do the final blow. If you get someone low and they run into a mob or jump off a cliff, you don't get corruption.

If someone is poking you, you should probably either fight back or leave.

bigepeen

jubilum wrote: »

If you think that this or any "corruption' system is going to deter the underbelly of online gaming from showing up in mass, you are simply naive. These people do not care about any system that attempts to keep them from harvesting your tears. We have all seen the attempts by other developers and they have all failed or been completely ineffective.

They will come, they will kill everyone they find, they will destroy the game, then after all the targets are gone they will move to the next game until we decide that it may be safe to return, then they will come and start again.
'

A lot of those games don't offer many rewards for PvP or the limited PvP modes get stale, so people get bored and will do anything to try to bypass the safeguards that protect the carebears.

Meanwhile, AoC has so many different ways to PvP, and they can all be very lucrative and meaningful. With there being so many options, I doubt that many will go through the trouble to engage in much heavily disincentivized PvP unless you hate the person so much that you have to kill them, or the reward for killing them is greater than the corruption penalty (e.g. player has a full mule). This is a much better system in my opinion than banning open world PvP outright.

Child Item