I think your problem is the belief that there is a unflagging system. You cannot unflag yourself on a whim. You have to wait.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
I think your problem is the belief that there is a unflagging system. You cannot unflag yourself on a whim. You have to wait.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
And?
If you get jumped in the wilderness by a bandit and no one is there to save you then you fucked up by not using the buddy system.
Ultima online. I'm sure there is others, but as soon as games that didn't allow player theft (I am gonna keep using it sorry, it's basically what this is) Those games was abandoned and guess what game came on top afterwards?
Feel free to keep using the terms/words you want, I'm also free to say it makes no sense and it makes you sound stupid - syntactically and semantically speaking.
I'm sorry but if you think Ultima Online was shutdown because of loot on death or the game being too hardcore, you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were so many factors involved with the demise of UO that your argument is almost laughable.
If someone spent hours trying to get something, it's to them as real as a real life item. You kill them and take the item, how does that feel to the player that you mugged them of? It'd feel more then "not fair".
I'm surprised I was right on my first reply and maybe you didn't read it. Allow me to repeat myself:
"Ashes won't have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of your 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, however 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?"
So let me be honest: I get your point, I understand your concerns, I understand your moral argument and you're not necessarily wrong. However, and this is very important, the person who created and owns Ashes of Creation wants this game to have immoral PvP, he wants players to never be safe from getting killed, he wants actions to have consequences. I believe this is an example of something that won't be changed, unless absolutely necessary. And if this necessity ever becomes a reality, it probably won't happen until the game is released.
bolded part here, been seeing this allot, that needs to stop, it's just as bad as "This game sucks! I'mma gonna quit!" lines. And does not add to the conversation except to insult the reader.
I agree with you that the argument "this game isn't for you" can be used wrongly, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used when it makes sense. I also never meant it as an insult, I'm trying to be very respectful, sorry if I sounded like that. Instead of playing games I dislike or trying to change them into something I like, I try to find games I enjoy. It can be tough, but it's the reality of life.
I believe that for me to like a game, someone has to dislike it, and vice-versa. What makes me want to play Ashes is something that makes you not want to play it. If you change that which makes you dislike the game, then you will now want to play it and I won't. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I want to play games which have meaningful PvP and loot on death. Ashes of Creation has meaningful PvP and loot on death, therefore I will play Ashes of Creation. That's the same reason I play (or mostly played) games such as Rust, ARK, PUBG, OSRS, MU, Silkroad, Tibia, etc.
You do not want to play games which have meaningful PvP and/or loot on death, therefore you play games without that such as WoW, FFXIV, ESO, etc.
Last but not least, you could be right. Maybe every game with loot on death disappears because of that. Even though I think you're wrong, you could be right. That doesn't change the fact that Ashes of Creation will have meaningful PvP and if you can't stand that, then maybe this isn't the game for you.
If you get jumped in the wilderness by a bandit and no one is there to save you then you fucked up by not using the buddy system.
I feel like you're deliberately missing the point here.... maybe re-read the posts
No, I've been following this thread since it was started. I definitely get the impression that you're using hyperbolic examples and edge cases to argue why it's a completely terrible system.
This game is about risks. If you take the risk of going out alone, and you get griefed far from town that's on you. It's your fault for not realizing there's danger the further from civilization you are. So what if people get minor loot for killing you. That just adds to the risk.
The whole "brings you down to 5% hp thing is a valid concern sure", but I very highly doubt that's going to go unaddressed.
Edit: Honestly yall sound like people who go into Sea of Thieves and complain that people stole their loot.
No, I've been following this thread since it was started. I definitely get the impression that you're using hyperbolic examples and edge cases to argue why it's a completely terrible system.
No not terrible. Flawed. Not flawed in a hypothetical sense. Its flawed in a definition of insanity sense. It's been tried. Not just once but many times. It didnt work. It's what led to the "them vs us" style that came to dominate the mmorpg genre.
This game is about risks. If you take the risk of going out alone, and you get griefed far from town that's on you. It's your fault for not realizing there's danger the further from civilization you are. So what if people get minor loot for killing you. That just adds to the risk.
The corruption system is designed to stop GRIEFING. My point is this won't succeed. Who says being in a group will necessarily help you? The people most likely to do this will be higher level kids with nothing better to do anyway so taking on 2 or 3 noobs will just be even better.
The whole "brings you down to 5% hp thing is a valid concern sure", but I very highly doubt that's going to go unaddressed.
Edit: Honestly yall sound like people who go into Sea of Thieves and complain that people stole their loot.
This is the bit you seem to not be getting about my thread mate: I'm not saying "stop the killing and looting" I'm saying "make it part of the game experience".
It's not going to fix the problem it was designed for but it is still an idea with huge potential for the game as a whole. People will WANT to be corrupted and people will WANT to be bounty hunters hunting them down. The system is already there, so why pretend it's going to fix a problem it's not going to fix and instead make it a viable rpg choice?
While were along the lines of the subject mass. I would just like to point out that in every MMORPG I've played, you don't have to worry about grieving until the latter stages of the game when group PvP can be bottle-necked. Besides games like Last Oasis, in that every corner may be an obstacle; the majority of the time you're looking for group PvP. In retrospect people that ultimately quit because of the rules never see the end game and it can be sad for a community to see so many people go.
With that being said, perhaps the developers can take in account the other people that may simply not have the time for the solo struggle. Since they are set on the rules, I would suggest waiting until a solution after release if grieving becomes an issue.
A "smart" suggestion would be taxing the individual or perhaps in this instance the Guild for morally influencing the social-commerce or "Market" with horded strongholds.
Ultima online. I'm sure there is others, but as soon as games that didn't allow player theft (I am gonna keep using it sorry, it's basically what this is) Those games was abandoned and guess what game came on top afterwards?
Feel free to keep using the terms/words you want, I'm also free to say it makes no sense and it makes you sound stupid - syntactically and semantically speaking.
I'm sorry but if you think Ultima Online was shutdown because of loot on death or the game being too hardcore, you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were so many factors involved with the demise of UO that your argument is almost laughable.
If someone spent hours trying to get something, it's to them as real as a real life item. You kill them and take the item, how does that feel to the player that you mugged them of? It'd feel more then "not fair".
I'm surprised I was right on my first reply and maybe you didn't read it. Allow me to repeat myself:
"Ashes won't have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of your 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, however 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?"
So let me be honest: I get your point, I understand your concerns, I understand your moral argument and you're not necessarily wrong. However, and this is very important, the person who created and owns Ashes of Creation wants this game to have immoral PvP, he wants players to never be safe from getting killed, he wants actions to have consequences. I believe this is an example of something that won't be changed, unless absolutely necessary. And if this necessity ever becomes a reality, it probably won't happen until the game is released.
bolded part here, been seeing this allot, that needs to stop, it's just as bad as "This game sucks! I'mma gonna quit!" lines. And does not add to the conversation except to insult the reader.
I agree with you that the argument "this game isn't for you" can be used wrongly, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used when it makes sense. I also never meant it as an insult, I'm trying to be very respectful, sorry if I sounded like that. Instead of playing games I dislike or trying to change them into something I like, I try to find games I enjoy. It can be tough, but it's the reality of life.
I believe that for me to like a game, someone has to dislike it, and vice-versa. What makes me want to play Ashes is something that makes you not want to play it. If you change that which makes you dislike the game, then you will now want to play it and I won't. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I want to play games which have meaningful PvP and loot on death. Ashes of Creation has meaningful PvP and loot on death, therefore I will play Ashes of Creation. That's the same reason I play (or mostly played) games such as Rust, ARK, PUBG, OSRS, MU, Silkroad, Tibia, etc.
You do not want to play games which have meaningful PvP and/or loot on death, therefore you play games without that such as WoW, FFXIV, ESO, etc.
Last but not least, you could be right. Maybe every game with loot on death disappears because of that. Even though I think you're wrong, you could be right. That doesn't change the fact that Ashes of Creation will have meaningful PvP and if you can't stand that, then maybe this isn't the game for you.
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded. Nor will your pointless one point paragraphs will change that fact.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do. If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded. Nor will your pointless one point paragraphs will change that fact.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do. If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
I mean it's not player theft but in any case it happens in a lot of games like rust and ark but hey nobody is hiding it nor are they forcing you to play. Don't you worry about the decline in players, that's Intrepid's problem not yours. They are building a game and describing it as is, if you invested in an unfinished product and decide later that you don't like it that's your problem unfortunately, be wiser with your money but I think this has been been a design philosophy and clearly stated from day 1. Perhaps you didn't do enough research.
3
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My concern is harnessing peoples natural desire to do the wrong thing. Currently the system is very much a "you can make someone's life hell, just dont kill them"
The corruption system is designed to address killing many of those who do not fight back. If you want it to address other forms of griefing, either expand the system (that doesn't require removing the current system); or, add a new system
While I appreciate the idea that people fighting back will happen and this is natural world pvp, consider the rogue that can quickly burst a mage; hes not going to be able to do this without being punished. The mage might have happily considered combat and fighting back if given half a chance but a rogue cant exactly walk up, poke him with a dagger, then wait for him to hit him before initiating combat: his entire focus on combat is surprise and burst.
Perhaps. Time to kill is targeted at 30 seconds with zero 1-hit kills. However, if a glass cannon attacks a glass cannon, fast time to kill will happen. However, dying so fast would be the fault of the defender.
Another thing to consider: dying has a rather extensive list of penalties that grow as you die more times. https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/248136#Comment_248136
Considering the high penalties + time required to travel without fast travel, I think we may see a lot more players using more defensive stats than the damage focus many previous MMO's have favored.
I'll give another example: I'm a level 50 rogue and my friend is level 20. He needs a resource that other players are gathering so he walks over and hits them. They hit him back and both are now combatants and my level 50 rogue appears and kills them for him.
Correct and it may not be preventable. However, is it worth keeping a high level character around to attack for low level resources? The high level character should be able to generate gold very quickly to pay for such resources. It seems like the time spent getting there and back may be more profitable if the high level literally buys the resources instead.
...it's often better to just get into the cab and direct it to the place of least harm.
Ashes is heading to risk vs. reward and meaningful PVP through the risk of loss. Players will fight harder to protect what is theirs. I'm not seeing the place of least harm anywhere around
1
Options
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Ultima online. I'm sure there is others, but as soon as games that didn't allow player theft (I am gonna keep using it sorry, it's basically what this is) Those games was abandoned and guess what game came on top afterwards?
Feel free to keep using the terms/words you want, I'm also free to say it makes no sense and it makes you sound stupid - syntactically and semantically speaking.
I'm sorry but if you think Ultima Online was shutdown because of loot on death or the game being too hardcore, you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were so many factors involved with the demise of UO that your argument is almost laughable.
If someone spent hours trying to get something, it's to them as real as a real life item. You kill them and take the item, how does that feel to the player that you mugged them of? It'd feel more then "not fair".
I'm surprised I was right on my first reply and maybe you didn't read it. Allow me to repeat myself:
"Ashes won't have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of your 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, however 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?"
So let me be honest: I get your point, I understand your concerns, I understand your moral argument and you're not necessarily wrong. However, and this is very important, the person who created and owns Ashes of Creation wants this game to have immoral PvP, he wants players to never be safe from getting killed, he wants actions to have consequences. I believe this is an example of something that won't be changed, unless absolutely necessary. And if this necessity ever becomes a reality, it probably won't happen until the game is released.
bolded part here, been seeing this allot, that needs to stop, it's just as bad as "This game sucks! I'mma gonna quit!" lines. And does not add to the conversation except to insult the reader.
I agree with you that the argument "this game isn't for you" can be used wrongly, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used when it makes sense. I also never meant it as an insult, I'm trying to be very respectful, sorry if I sounded like that. Instead of playing games I dislike or trying to change them into something I like, I try to find games I enjoy. It can be tough, but it's the reality of life.
I believe that for me to like a game, someone has to dislike it, and vice-versa. What makes me want to play Ashes is something that makes you not want to play it. If you change that which makes you dislike the game, then you will now want to play it and I won't. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I want to play games which have meaningful PvP and loot on death. Ashes of Creation has meaningful PvP and loot on death, therefore I will play Ashes of Creation. That's the same reason I play (or mostly played) games such as Rust, ARK, PUBG, OSRS, MU, Silkroad, Tibia, etc.
You do not want to play games which have meaningful PvP and/or loot on death, therefore you play games without that such as WoW, FFXIV, ESO, etc.
Last but not least, you could be right. Maybe every game with loot on death disappears because of that. Even though I think you're wrong, you could be right. That doesn't change the fact that Ashes of Creation will have meaningful PvP and if you can't stand that, then maybe this isn't the game for you.
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded. Nor will your pointless one point paragraphs will change that fact.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do. If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
Yes, meaningful pvp does not need to mean player theft but doesn't mean it can't be a part of it.
This system was known months before the kickstarter. We have known it for years at this point. I don't think player theft box is a genre but I could be wrong. There are many sandbox games that have had similar or harsher death mechanics. So many sandbox games have mechanics like this that it's almost part of the genre.
I'm sure there are players who don't want to a play an MMO where the can lose stuff but there are also players who could enjoy that gameplay.
2
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I think your problem is the belief that there is a unflagging system. You cannot unflag yourself on a whim. You have to wait.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
Steven did mention in one of the recent interviews that your character (and mule if you have one out) will remain in the world for some time (I think it was 5 minutes) after you log out. Doing so will make you a free target.
Also, I don't think that flagging is removed in town. You can attack people in town. There is no safe area. The wiki doesn't mention the guards attacking flagged players, just corrupted. However, players that you were fighting could continue to attack you without gaining corruption if your still a combatant in town.
I think your problem is the belief that there is a unflagging system. You cannot unflag yourself on a whim. You have to wait.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
I guess I’m misunderstanding your term for griefed here. If I get killed by a higher level and he logs off, goes elsewhere, etc. wouldn’t I not get griefed by him again? If he’s no longer in the area then there’s a low chance I’ll get griefed again.
Now, if there is a serial griefer, then he will start dropping loot, bounty hunters will be after him for a higher reward, etc.
I’m actually afraid that corruption will be too powerful and persuade people not to PvP.
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded. Nor will your pointless one point paragraphs will change that fact.
That's your opinion, not a fact. You need to learn to differentiate them. In my opinion, a way to make PvP meaningful is by giving loot to the winner but also putting the attacker at risk of turning red. Is my opinion a fact? If not, why is yours?
I don't think I follow your argument here. Are you saying that loot on death was never present in any successful MMORPG? Or are you saying that only other genres can have loot on death and be successful? In either case, there have been successful MMORPGs with loot on death.
Please don't call my paragraphs pointless, they only exist to refute your presumptuous endeavor of changing a fundamental part of the game which happens to go against your preferences.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
Simply because it wasn't stated "there will be loot on death", it doesn't mean that there wouldn't. I doubt they ever said this game would only have safe PvP and I'd also be willing to bet that the first time Steven decided on loot on death was in 2017.
In any case, I couldn't find anything on their Kickstarter page that would make your sentence true or false, so at least try to be fair and provide proof or don't distort things to make your argument sound.
If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
Once again, that's only your opinion. What if I want to play a game where I can kill people for their loot or die trying? What if there are enough people who also enjoy this to maintain the game? What if, God forbid, but what if you're wrong and Ashes is able to make it work?
It almost feels like I'm simping for Ashes but apparently it's difficult for you to allow for the possibility that losing your precious loot when you die can be a good thing in the game, especially if you're on the winning side of a fight. Like I've said before, a lot of systems are still subject to change, but I hope PvP will always be meaningful and people who absolutely despise loot on death fortunately have many other options available and can choose not to play this game.
🎶Galo é Galo o resto é bosta🎶
3
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded.
Meaningful PVP in Ashes is being driven by the risk of loss. Loss of cities, loss of possessions, loss of ships or mounts (for a period of time). Probably other loss. That loss could just disappear from your inventory. It makes no difference as you will still be motivated to protect what is yours. The only difference is that in Ashes, the loss will be the attackers gain; and, this will be one factor that motivates PVP to occur.
Losing things (or gaining) things due to PVP is core to Ashes. Is losing something from your inventory due to PVP all that different from PVP while killing a world boss, dying and losing the loot that you would have gotten? In some instances, the only difference is that you died just before picking up loot rather than just after. Does there really need to be a line for whether loot can be taken in such a world?
PVP will be everywhere with a focus on fighting over resources, dungeons, world bosses, territory, the ability to move resources, and the list will go on. PVP is over resources. Whether they are in your inventory or not.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do. If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
I don't know exactly when they detailed how destroying caravans would give player loot to the attackers, but it has at least been for years. Claiming that they hide the fact that you will get robbed is just not true.
Saying that there will be a sharp decline of players is a hard to verify fact. Some people will leave because they don't like the PVP system or how it is rewarded. Ashes of Creation is not being made for everyone. Some people will leave because the game is not being made for them. Ashes is for the rest of the people.
Personally, I have never played under such hardcore rules regarding death and loss (aside from a little bit of playing permanent death in Diablo 2) and I am really looking forward to playing under this more hardcore system. I know that nothing motivates me to stay alive in MMO's like facing loss from dying.
I guess I’m misunderstanding your term for griefed here. If I get killed by a higher level and he logs off, goes elsewhere, etc. wouldn’t I not get griefed by him again? If he’s no longer in the area then there’s a low chance I’ll get griefed again.
Not killed, chucked. Or have then kill anything near you that you're trying to farm. Griefing is doing someone to someone that is designed to ruin their game experience. In old WoW that might have been running around STV repeat ganking noobs, or in Aion where people would aggro loads of monsters and then run up to you and watch them kill you, or Rift where someone could just do more damage to the creature you're killing and get the loot, or even as far back as legend's of mir 20 years ago where getting the last hit meant you got the loot.
Griefing in league of legends is running it down midlane or troll picking a champion because you didnt get the champion you wanted. In counterstrike its flashbanging your teammate as they rush as position to get them killed.
In a million different ways someone can grief you that doesnt involve pk'ing: in fact in my experience being pked is the least toxic thing you're likely to come across.
Now, if there is a serial griefer, then he will start dropping loot, bounty hunters will be after him for a higher reward, etc.
I’m actually afraid that corruption will be too powerful and persuade people not to PvP.
Using the above definition of griefing you can easily see the corruption system wont actually prevent any of this. Instead as you say it will hugely limit PvP which is why I suggest what I do in the OP: make unlawful PvP part of the game.
1
Options
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This has been in the documentation from the very start.
Great Brae
Sieges are PvP and a successful siege basiclly kills the city and the winner get loot(you know theft) should this also be removed? Killing a caravan is PvP and the killers get loot(more theft). Where should the changes end.
During the Lich King expansion I decided to try a rouge. Was on Burning Blade(PvP server) at the time. Got out to Taren Mill and was questing. A max level Ally rogue was running around the zone one shoting lowbies. Did this for a while and started camping me and another player. We switched to our max level toons with full arena gear and stood on his head. Gathered more people he PO'd in the zone and we owned South shore for couple hours. Horde everywhere was awesome.
For LowQuey
There were 0 repercussions for the Ally rouge. None. nada zilch. Nothing gained nothing lost not even gaining Honorable kills. The whole point of the corruption system is to curb this behavior. The Idea griefers gonna grief is true. But they are trying to slow it down. You run past a level 20 at 50 and decide to slap him it might cost you some gear.
Sieges are mentioned here in the Nodes one video March 2017
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
1: The point of making you weaker in PvP is that eventually your killing spree has to come to an end.
2: If you don't want the penalty, don't murder people
3: No, the point is NOBODY wants to deal with the corrupted. You are the reason the planet needed to be abandoned
4: No. This would be rewarding you for ganking. The entire point of the system is to punish you for ganking
As far as your however
1: Corrupted players are already always flagged for PvP.
2: No, you are trying to be rewarded for being a ganker so your rules set this up as a disadvantage.
Personally, the corruption rules are fine with the one piece that non-combatants can hunt them needs to be tested, which we already know Steven will test in Alpha
Yes you could let the mob kill you, giving them corruption, but then you also lose you stuff, durability etc and walk away feeling annoyed anyway as in a few hours that person can do it again. If anything you've punished yourself rather than them.
This is all just what happens if you lose at PvP in the game.
If the idea of the attacker is to annoy someone without getting corruption, and they suddenly find themselves with corruption, then they have obviously failed.
The penalty that the player got for dying to the mobs is exactly the same as the penalty they would get for dying in PvP - a penalty they resigned themselves to when they decided to not fight back.
Put another way, since the player that was attacked decided to take the death and give the player corruption, but the attacker was trying to not gain corruption, the decision of the player that was attacked to allow a mob to finish them off in order to give the attacker corruptions a total win for them. The penalty is one they have already accepted, but the attacker did not want that corruption.
They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
It is worth noting that there is no such town in Ashes.
If you are flagged, you are flagged.
If you are in town and flagged, people in town can attack you. Exactly what the guards will do in that situation is yet to be seen.
The only place we know of where you can't be attacked or flagged is if you are manning a player stall - everywhere else you are a target if you are PvP flagged.
Steven did mention in one of the recent interviews that your character (and mule if you have one out) will remain in the world for some time (I think it was 5 minutes) after you log out. Doing so will make you a free target.
Also, I don't think that flagging is removed in town. You can attack people in town. There is no safe area. The wiki doesn't mention the guards attacking flagged players, just corrupted. However, players that you were fighting could continue to attack you without gaining corruption if your still a combatant in town.
PvP in cities sounds like a bit of a free for all but ok lol. I'd imagine they'll have the guards attack though to maintain the peace.
The 5 minutes thing is good to know though, thanks for the info. Can you link where he said that?
This is all just what happens if you lose at PvP in the game.
If the idea of the attacker is to annoy someone without getting corruption, and they suddenly find themselves with corruption, then they have obviously failed.
The penalty that the player got for dying to the mobs is exactly the same as the penalty they would get for dying in PvP - a penalty they resigned themselves to when they decided to not fight back.
Put another way, since the player that was attacked decided to take the death and give the player corruption, but the attacker was trying to not gain corruption, the decision of the player that was attacked to allow a mob to finish them off in order to give the attacker corruptions a total win for them. The penalty is one they have already accepted, but the attacker did not want that corruption.
But the attacking player wont get corrupted if the monster finishes them off. And if you fight back when chunked low to reduce your death penalty then the other player can just do it again and again. This is just one example mind. Griefing is far more creative than "me kill" sadly.
Again I will stress though my aim is to prevent this kind of abuse, not partake in it. I want to be a Bounty Hunter xD
0
Options
FuryBladeborneMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
The 5 minutes thing is good to know though, thanks for the info. Can you link where he said that?
"Question: Have you decided what happens to a player caravan. Oh, actually I'll refresh after this so I can make sure that the top votes are counted. can you,[Coughs] excuse me. Have you decided yet what happens to a player caravan if they are in the middle of a trip and have to log off or get DC'd? Can I try to make it halfway to my destination one night, find a safe area and log out and then log in the next day to finish delivery?
Answer: No, so there will be a time delay that starts ticking when the caravan logs off and that time delay is probably going to be between 5 and 10 minutes so essentially what's going to happen is: First of all your well, I'm sorry hold on that's that's a different point, that's for the mule thing. For the caravan specifically: if you are disconnected or log off the caravan will persist in the world, so that's what's going to happen with the caravan that'll that will persist and exist still in the world."
Steven accidentally started to describe how long the mule will remain in the world after a logoff which would prevent escaping an attack. Steven is clearly intending to prevent players from escaping PVP with a log off.
But the attacking player wont get corrupted if the monster finishes them off.
The entire premise of the discussion you and I are having here is that if all of what others in this thread are saying doesn't come true, and if what you say does turn out to be an actual issue, Intrepid can very easily alter this one single aspect of the corruption mechanic in order to make this issue no longer an issue - and this is something they will keep an eye on in alpha/beta.
Honestly, over the last three months or so, we've had maybe a half dozen or so people come here and point out this exact same "flaw" in the corruption system.
It's a conversation we have all had before - and the person that thinks they came up with this "flaw" is never willing to listen to us when we say it is under control.
I think your problem is the belief that there is a unflagging system. You cannot unflag yourself on a whim. You have to wait.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
And?
If you get jumped in the wilderness by a bandit and no one is there to save you then you fucked up by not using the buddy system.
What if you can't play at the same times as your friends, if they even want to play this game. Or they can't play at the time you can. Not everybody works doing the same hourse, doing the day. Maybe they are a different level or want to go somewhere else. I hate that you have to rely on others. For me that ruins it. My experience tells me you can't rely on others being able to provide what you need or being there.
And as have been say in the previous topics about this. Lets wait and see. Though i do have a feeling that the testers won't abuse the system. Though some might do it just to test the system
This is all just what happens if you lose at PvP in the game.
If the idea of the attacker is to annoy someone without getting corruption, and they suddenly find themselves with corruption, then they have obviously failed.
The penalty that the player got for dying to the mobs is exactly the same as the penalty they would get for dying in PvP - a penalty they resigned themselves to when they decided to not fight back.
Put another way, since the player that was attacked decided to take the death and give the player corruption, but the attacker was trying to not gain corruption, the decision of the player that was attacked to allow a mob to finish them off in order to give the attacker corruptions a total win for them. The penalty is one they have already accepted, but the attacker did not want that corruption.
But the attacking player wont get corrupted if the monster finishes them off. And if you fight back when chunked low to reduce your death penalty then the other player can just do it again and again. This is just one example mind. Griefing is far more creative than "me kill" sadly.
Again I will stress though my aim is to prevent this kind of abuse, not partake in it. I want to be a Bounty Hunter xD
Where do you get the info that people wont get corruption if the other is finished off by a monster?
That would be terrible game design.
From what i got, you still get corruption as long as you did dmg to the player.
Any other kind of system doesn't make sense.
In the end AoC is going back to the social roots.
The devs will never be able to prevent all griefing.
Giving players the ability to get rid of griefers themselves is the far better option.
In this case the bounty hunter.
But there is also the Enemy of the State, guild wars or just griefing the griefer.
Someone keeps griefing you? Then ask for help in your node or your guild and have then kill the Griefer, steal his mobs, follow him around and report him to your major and local patron guilds.
Reputation will also be a thing as distance matters.
If a known griefer comes to me for repairs then i am not going to repair his stuff.
Lists will be made.
Griefers will find themself locked out of public raids and if they are part of a guild then that guild is going to get busted.
Hard to level and farm, if all the other guilds in the surroundings declared on you.
Worst case?
The local powerhouse is griefing all non guild member.
So what? Just take your stuff and leave.
Go to another node.
Big guilds will quickly learn that you need random players to succeed in AoC.
At least if they want to hold a castle / be a patron guild of a level 6 node.
Reputation will also be a thing as distance matters.
If a known griefer comes to me for repairs then i am not going to repair his stuff.
Lists will be made.
Griefers will find themself locked out of public raids and if they are part of a guild then that guild is going to get busted.
Hard to level and farm, if all the other guilds in the surroundings declared on you.
The problem with reputation is that a system like this can be abused and players can be punished for no reason. For example, someone is behaving like an idiot and farming for hours with a mule without offloading their mats periodically, a player notices this and makes the smart decision to kill the farmer and loots his mule and takes the corruption hit, then the farmer calls the attacker a 'griefer' simply for killing him once and now the attacker is banned from getting repairs from players.
Another scenario is if you were already farming a location, then a moron shows up 30 minutes later and starts farming on top of you, and he reports you for "stealing his mobs" even though you were there long before him. Now you are banned from getting repairs from players.
At least with the corruption system, you can verify that, yes, that player must have attacked a non-combatant. With some sort of reputation system there's a lot of gray area, people can intentionally or unintentionally false report, and it's not verifiable.
Comments
But thank you for informing me anyways.
Who said on a whim? I think people are forgetting the scale of this map. There is no fast travel. Calling for help will take people a fairly long time to reach you. In that time the person could have left. A rogue could be hidden. They could have logged off. They could have just gone to a town where they are no long flagged by default.
And?
If you get jumped in the wilderness by a bandit and no one is there to save you then you fucked up by not using the buddy system.
I feel like you're deliberately missing the point here.... maybe re-read the posts
Feel free to keep using the terms/words you want, I'm also free to say it makes no sense and it makes you sound stupid - syntactically and semantically speaking.
I'm sorry but if you think Ultima Online was shutdown because of loot on death or the game being too hardcore, you have no idea of what you're talking about. There were so many factors involved with the demise of UO that your argument is almost laughable.
I'm surprised I was right on my first reply and maybe you didn't read it. Allow me to repeat myself:
"Ashes won't have full loot on death, you can only lose a portion of your 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, however 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?"
So let me be honest: I get your point, I understand your concerns, I understand your moral argument and you're not necessarily wrong. However, and this is very important, the person who created and owns Ashes of Creation wants this game to have immoral PvP, he wants players to never be safe from getting killed, he wants actions to have consequences. I believe this is an example of something that won't be changed, unless absolutely necessary. And if this necessity ever becomes a reality, it probably won't happen until the game is released.
I agree with you that the argument "this game isn't for you" can be used wrongly, but it doesn't mean that it can't be used when it makes sense. I also never meant it as an insult, I'm trying to be very respectful, sorry if I sounded like that. Instead of playing games I dislike or trying to change them into something I like, I try to find games I enjoy. It can be tough, but it's the reality of life.
I believe that for me to like a game, someone has to dislike it, and vice-versa. What makes me want to play Ashes is something that makes you not want to play it. If you change that which makes you dislike the game, then you will now want to play it and I won't. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
I want to play games which have meaningful PvP and loot on death. Ashes of Creation has meaningful PvP and loot on death, therefore I will play Ashes of Creation. That's the same reason I play (or mostly played) games such as Rust, ARK, PUBG, OSRS, MU, Silkroad, Tibia, etc.
You do not want to play games which have meaningful PvP and/or loot on death, therefore you play games without that such as WoW, FFXIV, ESO, etc.
Last but not least, you could be right. Maybe every game with loot on death disappears because of that. Even though I think you're wrong, you could be right. That doesn't change the fact that Ashes of Creation will have meaningful PvP and if you can't stand that, then maybe this isn't the game for you.
No, I've been following this thread since it was started. I definitely get the impression that you're using hyperbolic examples and edge cases to argue why it's a completely terrible system.
This game is about risks. If you take the risk of going out alone, and you get griefed far from town that's on you. It's your fault for not realizing there's danger the further from civilization you are. So what if people get minor loot for killing you. That just adds to the risk.
The whole "brings you down to 5% hp thing is a valid concern sure", but I very highly doubt that's going to go unaddressed.
Edit: Honestly yall sound like people who go into Sea of Thieves and complain that people stole their loot.
No not terrible. Flawed. Not flawed in a hypothetical sense. Its flawed in a definition of insanity sense. It's been tried. Not just once but many times. It didnt work. It's what led to the "them vs us" style that came to dominate the mmorpg genre.
The corruption system is designed to stop GRIEFING. My point is this won't succeed. Who says being in a group will necessarily help you? The people most likely to do this will be higher level kids with nothing better to do anyway so taking on 2 or 3 noobs will just be even better.
This is the bit you seem to not be getting about my thread mate: I'm not saying "stop the killing and looting" I'm saying "make it part of the game experience".
It's not going to fix the problem it was designed for but it is still an idea with huge potential for the game as a whole. People will WANT to be corrupted and people will WANT to be bounty hunters hunting them down. The system is already there, so why pretend it's going to fix a problem it's not going to fix and instead make it a viable rpg choice?
With that being said, perhaps the developers can take in account the other people that may simply not have the time for the solo struggle. Since they are set on the rules, I would suggest waiting until a solution after release if grieving becomes an issue.
A "smart" suggestion would be taxing the individual or perhaps in this instance the Guild for morally influencing the social-commerce or "Market" with horded strongholds.
Meanful PvP =/= player theft. I am sorry, but this is the truth. If that was the case games from other genres would had never succeeded. Nor will your pointless one point paragraphs will change that fact.
The game was not advertised as a player theft box. It is advertised as a sand box game meant to allow you to play anything you want, live anywhere you want and choose what you want to do. If stealing from ppl is apart of that you will see a sharp decline of players straight off the bat. Ppl don't play mmo's for to get stolen from online or offline like you want it to.
The fact they hide the fact this game will mean you will be robbed from regularly instead of advertising it shows how bad an idea it is.
I mean it's not player theft but in any case it happens in a lot of games like rust and ark but hey nobody is hiding it nor are they forcing you to play. Don't you worry about the decline in players, that's Intrepid's problem not yours. They are building a game and describing it as is, if you invested in an unfinished product and decide later that you don't like it that's your problem unfortunately, be wiser with your money but I think this has been been a design philosophy and clearly stated from day 1. Perhaps you didn't do enough research.
The corruption system is designed to address killing many of those who do not fight back. If you want it to address other forms of griefing, either expand the system (that doesn't require removing the current system); or, add a new system
Perhaps. Time to kill is targeted at 30 seconds with zero 1-hit kills. However, if a glass cannon attacks a glass cannon, fast time to kill will happen. However, dying so fast would be the fault of the defender.
Another thing to consider: dying has a rather extensive list of penalties that grow as you die more times.
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/248136#Comment_248136
Considering the high penalties + time required to travel without fast travel, I think we may see a lot more players using more defensive stats than the damage focus many previous MMO's have favored.
Correct and it may not be preventable. However, is it worth keeping a high level character around to attack for low level resources? The high level character should be able to generate gold very quickly to pay for such resources. It seems like the time spent getting there and back may be more profitable if the high level literally buys the resources instead.
Ashes is heading to risk vs. reward and meaningful PVP through the risk of loss. Players will fight harder to protect what is theirs. I'm not seeing the place of least harm anywhere around
Yes, meaningful pvp does not need to mean player theft but doesn't mean it can't be a part of it.
This system was known months before the kickstarter. We have known it for years at this point. I don't think player theft box is a genre but I could be wrong. There are many sandbox games that have had similar or harsher death mechanics. So many sandbox games have mechanics like this that it's almost part of the genre.
I'm sure there are players who don't want to a play an MMO where the can lose stuff but there are also players who could enjoy that gameplay.
Also, I don't think that flagging is removed in town. You can attack people in town. There is no safe area. The wiki doesn't mention the guards attacking flagged players, just corrupted. However, players that you were fighting could continue to attack you without gaining corruption if your still a combatant in town.
I guess I’m misunderstanding your term for griefed here. If I get killed by a higher level and he logs off, goes elsewhere, etc. wouldn’t I not get griefed by him again? If he’s no longer in the area then there’s a low chance I’ll get griefed again.
Now, if there is a serial griefer, then he will start dropping loot, bounty hunters will be after him for a higher reward, etc.
I’m actually afraid that corruption will be too powerful and persuade people not to PvP.
That's your opinion, not a fact. You need to learn to differentiate them. In my opinion, a way to make PvP meaningful is by giving loot to the winner but also putting the attacker at risk of turning red. Is my opinion a fact? If not, why is yours?
I don't think I follow your argument here. Are you saying that loot on death was never present in any successful MMORPG? Or are you saying that only other genres can have loot on death and be successful? In either case, there have been successful MMORPGs with loot on death.
Please don't call my paragraphs pointless, they only exist to refute your presumptuous endeavor of changing a fundamental part of the game which happens to go against your preferences.
Simply because it wasn't stated "there will be loot on death", it doesn't mean that there wouldn't. I doubt they ever said this game would only have safe PvP and I'd also be willing to bet that the first time Steven decided on loot on death was in 2017.
In any case, I couldn't find anything on their Kickstarter page that would make your sentence true or false, so at least try to be fair and provide proof or don't distort things to make your argument sound.
Once again, that's only your opinion. What if I want to play a game where I can kill people for their loot or die trying? What if there are enough people who also enjoy this to maintain the game? What if, God forbid, but what if you're wrong and Ashes is able to make it work?
It almost feels like I'm simping for Ashes but apparently it's difficult for you to allow for the possibility that losing your precious loot when you die can be a good thing in the game, especially if you're on the winning side of a fight. Like I've said before, a lot of systems are still subject to change, but I hope PvP will always be meaningful and people who absolutely despise loot on death fortunately have many other options available and can choose not to play this game.
Losing things (or gaining) things due to PVP is core to Ashes. Is losing something from your inventory due to PVP all that different from PVP while killing a world boss, dying and losing the loot that you would have gotten? In some instances, the only difference is that you died just before picking up loot rather than just after. Does there really need to be a line for whether loot can be taken in such a world?
PVP will be everywhere with a focus on fighting over resources, dungeons, world bosses, territory, the ability to move resources, and the list will go on. PVP is over resources. Whether they are in your inventory or not.
The caravan system was mentioned in the Kickstarter video:
https://kickstarter.com/projects/1791529601/ashes-of-creation-new-mmorpg-by-intrepid-studios/description
I don't know exactly when they detailed how destroying caravans would give player loot to the attackers, but it has at least been for years. Claiming that they hide the fact that you will get robbed is just not true.
Saying that there will be a sharp decline of players is a hard to verify fact. Some people will leave because they don't like the PVP system or how it is rewarded. Ashes of Creation is not being made for everyone. Some people will leave because the game is not being made for them. Ashes is for the rest of the people.
Personally, I have never played under such hardcore rules regarding death and loss (aside from a little bit of playing permanent death in Diablo 2) and I am really looking forward to playing under this more hardcore system. I know that nothing motivates me to stay alive in MMO's like facing loss from dying.
Not killed, chucked. Or have then kill anything near you that you're trying to farm. Griefing is doing someone to someone that is designed to ruin their game experience. In old WoW that might have been running around STV repeat ganking noobs, or in Aion where people would aggro loads of monsters and then run up to you and watch them kill you, or Rift where someone could just do more damage to the creature you're killing and get the loot, or even as far back as legend's of mir 20 years ago where getting the last hit meant you got the loot.
Griefing in league of legends is running it down midlane or troll picking a champion because you didnt get the champion you wanted. In counterstrike its flashbanging your teammate as they rush as position to get them killed.
In a million different ways someone can grief you that doesnt involve pk'ing: in fact in my experience being pked is the least toxic thing you're likely to come across.
Using the above definition of griefing you can easily see the corruption system wont actually prevent any of this. Instead as you say it will hugely limit PvP which is why I suggest what I do in the OP: make unlawful PvP part of the game.
From 11th January 2017 Talking about the corruption system and dropping stuff.
https://www.mmogames.com/gamearticles/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-bring-virtual-world-life/
This has been in the documentation from the very start.
Great Brae
Sieges are PvP and a successful siege basiclly kills the city and the winner get loot(you know theft) should this also be removed? Killing a caravan is PvP and the killers get loot(more theft). Where should the changes end.
During the Lich King expansion I decided to try a rouge. Was on Burning Blade(PvP server) at the time. Got out to Taren Mill and was questing. A max level Ally rogue was running around the zone one shoting lowbies. Did this for a while and started camping me and another player. We switched to our max level toons with full arena gear and stood on his head. Gathered more people he PO'd in the zone and we owned South shore for couple hours. Horde everywhere was awesome.
For LowQuey
There were 0 repercussions for the Ally rouge. None. nada zilch. Nothing gained nothing lost not even gaining Honorable kills. The whole point of the corruption system is to curb this behavior. The Idea griefers gonna grief is true. But they are trying to slow it down. You run past a level 20 at 50 and decide to slap him it might cost you some gear.
Sieges are mentioned here in the Nodes one video March 2017
Wiki link
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/
1: The point of making you weaker in PvP is that eventually your killing spree has to come to an end.
2: If you don't want the penalty, don't murder people
3: No, the point is NOBODY wants to deal with the corrupted. You are the reason the planet needed to be abandoned
4: No. This would be rewarding you for ganking. The entire point of the system is to punish you for ganking
As far as your however
1: Corrupted players are already always flagged for PvP.
2: No, you are trying to be rewarded for being a ganker so your rules set this up as a disadvantage.
Personally, the corruption rules are fine with the one piece that non-combatants can hunt them needs to be tested, which we already know Steven will test in Alpha
If the idea of the attacker is to annoy someone without getting corruption, and they suddenly find themselves with corruption, then they have obviously failed.
The penalty that the player got for dying to the mobs is exactly the same as the penalty they would get for dying in PvP - a penalty they resigned themselves to when they decided to not fight back.
Put another way, since the player that was attacked decided to take the death and give the player corruption, but the attacker was trying to not gain corruption, the decision of the player that was attacked to allow a mob to finish them off in order to give the attacker corruptions a total win for them. The penalty is one they have already accepted, but the attacker did not want that corruption.
If you are flagged, you are flagged.
If you are in town and flagged, people in town can attack you. Exactly what the guards will do in that situation is yet to be seen.
The only place we know of where you can't be attacked or flagged is if you are manning a player stall - everywhere else you are a target if you are PvP flagged.
PvP in cities sounds like a bit of a free for all but ok lol. I'd imagine they'll have the guards attack though to maintain the peace.
The 5 minutes thing is good to know though, thanks for the info. Can you link where he said that?
But the attacking player wont get corrupted if the monster finishes them off. And if you fight back when chunked low to reduce your death penalty then the other player can just do it again and again. This is just one example mind. Griefing is far more creative than "me kill" sadly.
Again I will stress though my aim is to prevent this kind of abuse, not partake in it. I want to be a Bounty Hunter xD
"Question: Have you decided what happens to a player caravan. Oh, actually I'll refresh after this so I can make sure that the top votes are counted. can you,[Coughs] excuse me. Have you decided yet what happens to a player caravan if they are in the middle of a trip and have to log off or get DC'd? Can I try to make it halfway to my destination one night, find a safe area and log out and then log in the next day to finish delivery?
Answer: No, so there will be a time delay that starts ticking when the caravan logs off and that time delay is probably going to be between 5 and 10 minutes so essentially what's going to happen is: First of all your well, I'm sorry hold on that's that's a different point, that's for the mule thing. For the caravan specifically: if you are disconnected or log off the caravan will persist in the world, so that's what's going to happen with the caravan that'll that will persist and exist still in the world."
Steven accidentally started to describe how long the mule will remain in the world after a logoff which would prevent escaping an attack. Steven is clearly intending to prevent players from escaping PVP with a log off.
Transcript source: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Talk:2020-07-25_Live_AMA_with_Steven_Sharif
Original video: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/2020-07-25_Live_AMA_with_Steven_Sharif
Honestly, over the last three months or so, we've had maybe a half dozen or so people come here and point out this exact same "flaw" in the corruption system.
It's a conversation we have all had before - and the person that thinks they came up with this "flaw" is never willing to listen to us when we say it is under control.
What if you can't play at the same times as your friends, if they even want to play this game. Or they can't play at the time you can. Not everybody works doing the same hourse, doing the day. Maybe they are a different level or want to go somewhere else. I hate that you have to rely on others. For me that ruins it. My experience tells me you can't rely on others being able to provide what you need or being there.
And as have been say in the previous topics about this. Lets wait and see. Though i do have a feeling that the testers won't abuse the system. Though some might do it just to test the system
Where do you get the info that people wont get corruption if the other is finished off by a monster?
That would be terrible game design.
From what i got, you still get corruption as long as you did dmg to the player.
Any other kind of system doesn't make sense.
In the end AoC is going back to the social roots.
The devs will never be able to prevent all griefing.
Giving players the ability to get rid of griefers themselves is the far better option.
In this case the bounty hunter.
But there is also the Enemy of the State, guild wars or just griefing the griefer.
Someone keeps griefing you? Then ask for help in your node or your guild and have then kill the Griefer, steal his mobs, follow him around and report him to your major and local patron guilds.
Reputation will also be a thing as distance matters.
If a known griefer comes to me for repairs then i am not going to repair his stuff.
Lists will be made.
Griefers will find themself locked out of public raids and if they are part of a guild then that guild is going to get busted.
Hard to level and farm, if all the other guilds in the surroundings declared on you.
Worst case?
The local powerhouse is griefing all non guild member.
So what? Just take your stuff and leave.
Go to another node.
Big guilds will quickly learn that you need random players to succeed in AoC.
At least if they want to hold a castle / be a patron guild of a level 6 node.
The problem with reputation is that a system like this can be abused and players can be punished for no reason. For example, someone is behaving like an idiot and farming for hours with a mule without offloading their mats periodically, a player notices this and makes the smart decision to kill the farmer and loots his mule and takes the corruption hit, then the farmer calls the attacker a 'griefer' simply for killing him once and now the attacker is banned from getting repairs from players.
Another scenario is if you were already farming a location, then a moron shows up 30 minutes later and starts farming on top of you, and he reports you for "stealing his mobs" even though you were there long before him. Now you are banned from getting repairs from players.
At least with the corruption system, you can verify that, yes, that player must have attacked a non-combatant. With some sort of reputation system there's a lot of gray area, people can intentionally or unintentionally false report, and it's not verifiable.