Ganking shouldn't be punished with combat stat nerfs.

sometime we get gear to gank and have a little fun here and there.we like being bandits. bounty system is ok. but combat stat nerf is too much it makes the game no open world pvp.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

The goal of Corruption is to reduce griefing and give players an opt-in system if the player was first combatant. Why on earth would they not allow the green player to flag as combatant to protect themselves? Is this perhaps... a hidden incentive for corrupted players to farm out greens? No, it makes more sense that there is a toggle that allows the player to fight back like they would against a combatant if they choose to.

To my knowledge, it is there for the corrupted player, not the player being attacked. Rather than being an incentive to farm greens - it is so that corrupt players know that if they gain that first little bit of corruption, there is a high likelihood of it snowballing. It is a disincentive for getting that first piece of corruption, not an incentive for getting mroe corruption.

If Intrepid decided they didn't want players attacked by corrupt players to suffer the full penalty all the time, they would simply make it so that a non-combatant killed by a corrupt player gets the same penalties as if they were a combatant. This is a much simpler, more elegant solution to the problem (which isn't currently a problem) than adding in a game changing combatant toggle.

Wait so an official moderator for the AoC Discord is just "some guy" that said "some stuff"?

Yes.

As with the moderators here, they have no more access to Intrepid development staff than we do. They may have more access to Intrepids community team than the rest of us, but only in regards to moderating issues.

LOL you're suggesting the "fix" would be to make non-combatant death have less penalties if killed by corrupted automatically? If by elegant you mean broken. Sure.

Some of the moderators here are pre-alpha players, their feedback carries more weight than all of your posts combined.

Infamouse

Based on previous experience, a combat drop in stats will be absolutely necessary. Simply being at-risk to drop gear will not be a primary deterrent for PVP-focused players to stop them from PKing you and going corrupted when it suits them. People in L2 would make characters whos sole purpose was to constantly PK people (go corrupted) and never return to white (non-combatant in L2) state. If youre new/noob, running across these people who often outlevel you grossly is negative fun. Having someones stats drop means that this type of play wont be feasible (which is a good thing). The guilds/groups I played with in L2 would PK people regularly to take their EXP zone if it was the one we wanted. There were really no limiting factors in L2 for this, and as such it eventually turns/turned into a *the strong get stronger/the weak get weaker* scenario, which in an of itself is alot of fun to fight from an under-dog position and over-take the dominant guild, but the number of people who suffer as a result far exceeds the number of people who gain enjoyment. This is a balance element that will add a built in brake to slow down players from becoming overly dominant too quickly and help the playing field stay much more balanced. Nothing will suck more than getting denied an EXP zone from a character/guild who are all sweaty no-life chads who play 20 hours a day, and there being absolutely nothing stopping them from compounding that success with greater/more complete ones.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

it seems like Noaani has no real evidence to back up his claims like normal on the matter and is just out here trying to convince everyone that his opinion is the law.

I have shown you where Steven listed the complete list of ways to become a combatant.
I have told you that the pre-alpha version of the game has a toggle because the corruption system is not yet implemented.
I have told you that people are mistaking a comment about the force attack command to mean a combatant toggle command.

At this point, you are basically closing your eyes, holding your hands over your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!", and claiming I am not backing up what I am saying.

Fact is, a few of you have decided this is what you want, and so are taking the comments each other are saying about it as being the truth.

You are basically a circle of self-perpetuating self-affirmation.

Believe what you like.

An interview discussing the corruption system from 3 years ago is hardly proof. Everything that has been presented to you supersede that interview. Furthermore if the corruption system is not implemented why then would there even need to be a toggle for combatant flagging? If the system isn't in place yet it likely means there is no death penalties currently in the game either, so a toggle would have no purpose in itself.

Infamouse

Noaani wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

The goal of Corruption is to reduce griefing and give players an opt-in system if the player was first combatant. Why on earth would they not allow the green player to flag as combatant to protect themselves? Is this perhaps... a hidden incentive for corrupted players to farm out greens? No, it makes more sense that there is a toggle that allows the player to fight back like they would against a combatant if they choose to.

To my knowledge, it is there for the corrupted player, not the player being attacked. Rather than being an incentive to farm greens - it is so that corrupt players know that if they gain that first little bit of corruption, there is a high likelihood of it snowballing. It is a disincentive for getting that first piece of corruption, not an incentive for getting mroe corruption.

If Intrepid decided they didn't want players attacked by corrupt players to suffer the full penalty all the time, they would simply make it so that a non-combatant killed by a corrupt player gets the same penalties as if they were a combatant. This is a much simpler, more elegant solution to the problem (which isn't currently a problem) than adding in a game changing combatant toggle.

Wait so an official moderator for the AoC Discord is just "some guy" that said "some stuff"?

Yes.

As with the moderators here, they have no more access to Intrepid development staff than we do. They may have more access to Intrepids community team than the rest of us, but only in regards to moderating issues.

I dont understand what this arguement even is. A green (non-combatant) player being attacked by a red (corrupted) player basically gets a freebie to attack the red player, with the red player being unable to receive help from allies, and a chance for the red player to drop gear upon death. The green player in this scenario would never want to flag as a combatant, and open yourself up to being freely killed by anyone (namely the allies of the red player).
I am assuming none of you having this discussion have ever actually played Lineage 2, which this system is copied from (rules wise) exactly. This entire conversation is kind of comical if you understand the system.

bloodprophet

First welcome to the community.
Second never played L2 but the way you described it in both threads makes perfect sense. I am looking forward to how they are doing things and seems like it will work and be good fun.

Infamouse

Infamouse wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

The goal of Corruption is to reduce griefing and give players an opt-in system if the player was first combatant. Why on earth would they not allow the green player to flag as combatant to protect themselves? Is this perhaps... a hidden incentive for corrupted players to farm out greens? No, it makes more sense that there is a toggle that allows the player to fight back like they would against a combatant if they choose to.

To my knowledge, it is there for the corrupted player, not the player being attacked. Rather than being an incentive to farm greens - it is so that corrupt players know that if they gain that first little bit of corruption, there is a high likelihood of it snowballing. It is a disincentive for getting that first piece of corruption, not an incentive for getting mroe corruption.

If Intrepid decided they didn't want players attacked by corrupt players to suffer the full penalty all the time, they would simply make it so that a non-combatant killed by a corrupt player gets the same penalties as if they were a combatant. This is a much simpler, more elegant solution to the problem (which isn't currently a problem) than adding in a game changing combatant toggle.

Wait so an official moderator for the AoC Discord is just "some guy" that said "some stuff"?

Yes.

As with the moderators here, they have no more access to Intrepid development staff than we do. They may have more access to Intrepids community team than the rest of us, but only in regards to moderating issues.

I dont understand what this arguement even is. A green (non-combatant) player being attacked by a red (corrupted) player basically gets a freebie to attack the red player, with the red player being unable to receive help from allies, and a chance for the red player to drop gear upon death. The green player in this scenario would never want to flag as a combatant, and open yourself up to being freely killed by anyone (namely the allies of the red player).
I am assuming none of you having this discussion have ever actually played Lineage 2, which this system is copied from (rules wise) exactly. This entire conversation is kind of comical if you understand the system.

I decided to elaborate to help those of you who dont understand the PVP system with a PVP video from early L2 days that utilizes this combat system. (The combat rules are exactly identical, with one caveat, there was a bug in L2 at the time that you wouldnt instantly show as red when you PK'ed a non-combatant, even though you are/were red and wouldnt cause other players to flag if they hit you even though your name showed purple)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAxLE4TlvyM

In this video (which is old AF but really funny for me to go back and watch)
Hong, our top PVPer/Damage dealer in our alliance, kills a non-combatant from an enemy alliance at an EXP zone (Antharas Lair, a dragons lair that was a high end EXP zone and often heavily contested with PVP). The rest of us there with him in order to protect him, have two choices here, we can either let him get attacked, and die, or we can all also go red (corrupted) to defend him.
Obviously in this video you can see we were heavily a PVP guild, so we went with option B and decided to kill every single person in the entrance to the zone. An absolute brick ton of karma (corruption) was the result of this video. This was not a regular occurrence (mass PK events), as every single person in this video that you see red (myself included ^^) has multiple multiple PKs and is risking dropping end game gear that took months and months to progress to and get.
Obviously this example is a larger scale event version of what can/will play out on a smaller scale in AOC with this combat system. If we scaled this down to Hong being alone, or only with 1 group from our guild/alliance, he most likely doesnt PK 10+ people in succession, as the number of random people who can/would attack him would likely have resulted in his (and his parties) death, and dropping of gear.
AoC will have similar situations play out (depending on when the combat penalties for PKing kick in).
So to re-iterate. The white players (non-combatants) in this video would NEVER want to flag as combatants (go purple) as doing so would prevent anyone from gaining more karma (corruption) during this PVP encounter. Instead they stay as non-combatants and force the rest of us to go deeper into karma (corruption) if we want to kill them, and they all have a chance to kill any of us that are red and potentially get a gear drop.

Tyrantor

This is a good example of the corruption system working as intended, to some degree considering it appears your group(s) were raiding and attacking exp/farming groups. Did L2 have a reduced death penalty for flagging as combatant? If there was no reduced XP loss then I can understand why players wouldn't flag intentionally to fight back, further more it seems like even if they had an option for reduced death penalty, if your entire group(s) flagged as red how could they then if there was no mechanic to toggle themselves combatant attacking a red player? lol

Infamouse

Tyrantor wrote: »

This is a good example of the corruption system working as intended, to some degree considering it appears your group(s) were raiding and attacking exp/farming groups. Did L2 have a reduced death penalty for flagging as combatant? If there was no reduced XP loss then I can understand why players wouldn't flag intentionally to fight back, further more it seems like even if they had an option for reduced death penalty, if your entire group(s) flagged as red how could they then if there was no mechanic to toggle themselves combatant attacking a red player? lol

No reduced death penalty for being flagged. You could only recuperate EXP lost from a death based on the level/power of the resurrection skill being used on you by your healer.
They could have flagged by attacking one of the purple players attacking them, or more likely, attacking one of the flagged healers (Healers in L2 would flag for healing a red player, not sure if AOC will work the same but I assume it will). In order to increase their chances of killing the reds, they could have attacked the flagged healers, then killed the red players. This would have opened them up to being freely attacked by anyone, but they would have had a better chance of killing the red players when they werent being spam-healed. They chose to tunnel-vision on the red players (As people often do) and not employ any tactical thinking, which is why it was a slaughter (hence the name of the video).

Tyrantor

No reduced death penalty is a great reason why the two games and corruption systems are different already.

Infamouse

Tyrantor wrote: »

No reduced death penalty is a great reason why the two games and corruption systems are different already.

Reduced death penalty for being flagged is a LITTLE bit soft but ill deal with it since it will encourage more people to PVP.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

If the system isn't in place yet it likely means there is no death penalties currently in the game either, so a toggle would have no purpose in itself.

Are you aware at all as to what the pre-alpha state of PvP is in Ashes? Do you know if you need to flag up in order to be able to PvP at all in the pre-alpha version of the game?

I don't know the answer to this, but it is not at all hard to imagine a few reasons as to why they would need to add a toggle until they have the full system working. What I do know is that we are talking about the pre-alpha version of the game - one that is missing wholesale systems (such as the corruption system), and so how it plays should not be assumed to be anything like the final game - especially in areas around those systems that are not at all in place.

Again, you are taking the pre-alpha version of the game - a version we know doesn't have the corruption system - and assuming that what we see there is what we will get, regardless of the fact that we have been told how they want to do it.

Tyrantor wrote: »

LOL you're suggesting the "fix" would be to make non-combatant death have less penalties if killed by corrupted automatically? If by elegant you mean broken. Sure.

Some of the moderators here are pre-alpha players, their feedback carries more weight than all of your posts combined.

Some of the mods may indeed be pre-alpha players. Most aren't, but sure, some may be.

Thing is, that pre-alpha is that same version of the game that doesn't have the corruption system built in yet.

And yes, reducing death penalties to non-combatants if killed by a corrupt player would be a more elegant solution. The system is designed around the notion that a non-combatant need not flag up to take on a corrupt player, so there should be no incentive at all for them to flag up.

It completely follows the logic and purpose of the system, and so is an elegant solution.

Tyrantor

Infamouse wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

No reduced death penalty is a great reason why the two games and corruption systems are different already.

Reduced death penalty for being flagged is a LITTLE bit soft but ill deal with it since it will encourage more people to PVP.

How is it soft? Lol it seems like you don't think anyone should want to be flagged constantly, it seems like the more hardcore approach to game play not the opposite.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Are you aware at all as to what the pre-alpha state of PvP is in Ashes? Do you know if you need to flag up in order to be able to PvP at all in the pre-alpha version of the game?

I don't know the answer to this

And yes, reducing death penalties to non-combatants if killed by a corrupt player would be a more elegant solution. The system is designed around the notion that a non-combatant need not flag up to take on a corrupt player, so there should be no incentive at all for them to flag up.

It completely follows the logic and purpose of the system, and so is an elegant solution.

So you're argument is simply since I don't know the state of the game that all video and feedback we've seen that states my point, it therefor makes me incorrect just because you don't know the answer? Or is it more likely you're just wrong and refusing to accept it?

The term "elegant" has zero relevance in the discussion. The logic is that if a player attacks a non combatant and does not fight back they become corrupt - if they continue to kill non combatants they gain additional corruption.

The logic immediately fails when applied to a non-combatant attacking a corrupt player as they are no longer a non combatant. If your argument is non-combatants should get a free roll on corrupt players it seems to go against the reason for the corrupt system to begin with.

Not everyone is going to be so concerned about causing corruption on other people compared to just fighting other players.

daveywavey

Pretty sure a Green attacking a Red stays as a Green.

Sathrago

Infamouse wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

No reduced death penalty is a great reason why the two games and corruption systems are different already.

Reduced death penalty for being flagged is a LITTLE bit soft but ill deal with it since it will encourage more people to PVP.

See this is what my point was all about. Ashes encourages you to do consensual pvp and the bonuses of being a combatant upon death reinforce that. Now, the issue is that if a non combatant cannot flag as a combatant vs an already corrupted player they will be forced to die with that extra penalty even though they fought back.

This actually makes going corrupted profitable, and I mean really profitable when you do it against players of your level.

I feel that it makes more sense for there to be a toggle for the flagging system so that you can have agency un that situation rather than being forced to lose more of your loot because a corrupted player is on a murder spree.

Trust me though if this is all by design you will see a hell of a lot of corrupted pvp.

Sathrago

@Noaani

Oh? Is that Fuppoheadhunter there in the siege video from the recent livestream? You know, that random guy that has absolutely no credibility that I referenced earlier?

Tyrantor

Sathrago wrote: »

@Noaani

Oh? Is that Fuppoheadhunter there in the siege video from the recent livestream? You know, that random guy that has absolutely no credibility that I referenced earlier?

Looks like rubber meeting the road to me.

akabear

Agreed with above.

I see ganking and non-consensual pvp in very different categories.

Ganking
As using an unfair advantage to overcome another player.. substantially better gear and/or level gap most usual means. Ganking of this kind I would like to see penalties and prevention means in-game than non-consensual pvp.

Non-consensual pvp
One side not participating in the pvp, be that intentional or not.

L2
But sometimes it is that very unfair advantage that provides challenges, reward in the game. I remember when L2 was in its infancy. Some players that were working together, high level and well geared were blocking new players from leaving the beginning island by boat. They guarded the port. At that time, if you fought you dropped gear with a similar potential if you didn't. It was unfair, they were working in a team and they were substantially better and were profiting off the new players that could not compete. For a while, leaving the beginner island was a no-go. Each time to venture out resulted in death and a need to go back, earn more money and gear up again.. UNTIL the newbs grouped up, pulled in friends and worked together to give some of their own. There was a great sense of achievement to have overcome the strong few. For the short term player that wanted a quick fix then sure they might have been disheartened, I wouldn't change it. Payback was sweet.

The way I see it from my limited experience is many (not all) of the issues of ganking or even non-consensual pvp are often overcome by playing the game as a MMORPG and not a solo game. Making/changing friends, joining clans, making clan alliances. Changing where or how one play, play more, get better and sometimes even how one communicates with other players.

If they follow the L2 model, then that is more than sufficient.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani
Oh? Is that Fuppoheadhunter there in the siege video from the recent livestream?

If you were paying attention, I specifically said that just because it is in the game now, doesn't mean anything.

A player in alpha now is more likely to belive that this toggle will be in the final game than someone not in alpha due to the fact that it is in alpha right now (see previous posts), even though we have no reason to assume it will be in the game.

So yes, still just some random guy.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

The logic is that if a player attacks a non combatant and does not fight back they become corrupt - if they continue to kill non combatants they gain additional corruption.

This is factually incorrect.

But then, when has having the facts wrong ever stopped you?

Child Item