corruption system(a party ganking 1 possible?)

a question just came to my mind about the corruption system, if 2 or more players attack to 1 player alone they corruption will split between they 2 or will they get the same corruption that they would if if there were alone killing to non combatants?(if the corruption get divided wouldn´t if be better for the corrupted)

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

George_Black

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

None of those complaints are valid.
If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

It's not about the "fight back"
It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.

I mean, they all stuck their hands in the cookie jar... Why is the last one the only one punished?

Read my following posts about scamming the proposition of group pk.

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

None of those complaints are valid.
If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted.
If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted.

Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.

im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.

It's not about the "fight back"
It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee".

The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.

I mean, they all stuck their hands in the cookie jar... Why is the last one the only one punished?

Read my following posts about scamming the proposition of group pk.

so the solution to roving bands of griefers... is to make roving bands of anti-griefers?

Idk man, I think the corruption system has a flaw here and wishes to prevent this sort of delinquent gameplay.

If you help kill a non-combatant player you should gain a percentage of the corruption. Since its a small percentage it would be pretty easy to get rid of but they should still have the risk of gaining it if they are going to be playing in this manner.

George_Black

Life isnt fair and there is strength in numbers.

Too many sctructures hurt the game either by leading to abuse of systems or by making the game lame.

Some people used to call for no trade of gold between players, to address gold sellers. That suggestion would make the game lame.

The suggestion of this topic will lead to abuse.

I will say it for the second time, if 20 people want to PK you, all it takes is one person to leave their group and pk you. The other 19 can sit there and wait in case you fight back.

This is life.

George_Black

There cant be a system in place every time somebody feels "this isnt fair to me now"

Sathrago

I don't believe I ever said the word "Fairness". This is about a toxic playstyle that advocates griefing. I use Grief in this example because you are using a loophole in the corruption system to instantly kill an enemy non-combatant before they can choose to flag up or run away. Intrepid want to create a pvp system that works around consent and risk vs reward. A group of 20 players attacking 1 player all contributed, all decided to participate in killing a green, so they should all bear the risk and turn red for that action.

You seem to also be confused on a few parts that I have already explained as well. You cannot become a combatant against a corrupted player as a green player currently.
My suggestion does not require players to be in the same group for them to gain the corruption from helping to kill a green player.

Alright, what's the play now?

George_Black

Here is the play.
Let's imagine that if a group of 20 people atks 1 person, they all share the corruption, as suggested, right?

Play 1.

The group of 20 people arrive near this one person. One of the group /leaves the group and starts killing the victim. The others DONT atk.
a)The victim dies, 1 person got corrupted, the other 19 didnt.
b)The victim fights back the attacker. All 20 people kill the victim, nobody gets corrupted.

Play 2.

I am a troll. I join a group of 5 people. Some random player is also there.
I PK that player. My group gets corrupted.
My friends show up, kill my group and take the loot.
I just trolled a group.

I cant make it any more simple.
How does the proposed system make the game any better?

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

Here is the play.
Let's imagine that if a group of 20 people atks 1 person, they all share the corruption, as suggested, right?

Play 1.

The group of 20 people arrive near this one person. One of the group /leaves the group and starts killing the victim. The others DONT atk.
a)The victim dies, 1 person got corrupted, the other 19 didnt.
b)The victim fights back the attacker. All 20 people kill the victim, nobody gets corrupted.

This allowed the player to make a choice.

Play 2.

I am a troll. I join a group of 5 people. Some random player is also there.
I PK that player. My group gets corrupted.
My friends show up, kill my group and take the loot.
I just trolled a group.

You cant troll the group if they didn't help you. Again, if you didn't help kill them you wouldn't gain corruption.

I cant make it any more simple.
How does the proposed system make the game any better?

If you contribute to a green players death you getting corrupted gives out a proportional risk to each player participating in the system that is built to deter griefing. If you all gain corruption then instead of continuing to farm players you will be incentivized to go do pve for a while. This is how it works on an individual level, and how it should work on a group level.

Sangramoire

IDK how open world pvp will occur but they might restrict some areas to be single combat instead of multi and during events, the area of the event may become multi. They could also have the corruption instead of being spread out, just have every single person that participated in the kill get the full corruption for killing that one person. Some may argue that each person that participated in the kill should actually get more corruption than someone that fought 1v1 because a 3v1, for example, is more unfair. I think it's likely that they will take how many people attack into account when handing out corruption because they have already confirmed that the corruption gained is also based on level difference meaning that they are looking to give more corruption for unfair fights.

Sangramoire

Here's how I expect corruption to work according to what Intrepid has disclosed so far:

Let's assume that corruption goes from 0 to 1,000 and that normal corruption gain for killing someone of the same level is 100.
Let's also assume all players are green and same level at the start of the scenario.

Players 1 through 5 are not necessarily in a group together.
If players 1, 2 ,3, 4 and 5 attack player 6.
Immediately players 1 through 5 become flagged (purple).
Player 6 doesn't fight back and players 1 through 5 end up killing him with player 4 getting the killing blow.
Players 1 through 5 all get 100 corruption because they all participated in the kill.

That's how I expect corruption system to work, and possibly have each of those players get say 150 corruption instead of 100 because even though they are all same level, it was a 1 v 5.

do note that the corruption system is there to prevent these specific kinds of situations where someone is just unable to play the game at all because it's too unfair. Remember that by having more corruption your character becomes weaker in combat. It's done for a reason so I would be very surprised if Intrepid did not implement a system where more corruption was gained by each individual player than normal if they ganked in groups, whether they were partied up or not. I would also expect there to be a timer to decide if a player would get corruption from another players death. For anyone confused let me give you an example.

Let's say that from the group above, player 2 had attacked player 6 but stopped attack right away. Player 6 remained alive for more than a minute after player 2 stopped attacking. In that case I'd expect player 2 to receive little to no corruption. If anything instead of getting 100 corruption he might receive only 15 corruption for example, or none at all.

Auriel

Besides the ganking and griefing issue loopholes mentioned above need to be closed before launching.

The corruption need to correspond with pk looting system, only those flagged corrupted is/are allowed to loot. Risk and reward need to be balanced.

Thedeadnight

Auriel wrote: »

Besides the ganking and griefing issue loopholes mentioned above need to be closed before launching.

The corruption need to correspond with pk looting system, only those flagged corrupted is/are allowed to loot. Risk and reward need to be balanced.

That makes no sense what so ever. So if a player is a combatant and sees another combatant player they can't fight for eachothers resources? Requiring corruption to loot a pk would make the system really really broken.
Honestly the whole corruption system is highly dependent upon the attitude and behavior of the people playing. If only 1% of the players try to use "loop holes" or such to game the system then it will work pretty well. If most of the players using the system exploit it in one way or another than it will need to be adjusted. Until we can get 3k+ players together in the game to test it out it will be very difficult to make the correct adjustments. More rules will make the system less fun and more complicated, best to start out with as few rules as nessisary and adjust up from there. Maybe people will get along well enough that it won't matter. Maybe in the first hour people will have guilds of grief trains where 50 people take turns getting corruption and losing it. We won't know til the community gets together and interacts with eachother in large scale

Atama

George Black wrote: »

In addition, what stops me from joining a group of people, killing a bystander outside of that group, spreading my corruption to the group and then my real mates jump out for the free kills and loot?

This proposition will only lead to abuse.
If 20 people want you dead, they can easily sit and watch as one of them leaves the group and starts killing you.
If you fight back they can still jump you.

I think you're confused. Corruption would only take place if a member of the group gets involved in the combat. If they sit there and do nothing, they'd gain no corruption. Who has advocated that one person in a group spreads corruption to other people who aren't engaging in the combat?

George_Black

Atama wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

In addition, what stops me from joining a group of people, killing a bystander outside of that group, spreading my corruption to the group and then my real mates jump out for the free kills and loot?

This proposition will only lead to abuse.
If 20 people want you dead, they can easily sit and watch as one of them leaves the group and starts killing you.
If you fight back they can still jump you.

I think you're confused. Corruption would only take place if a member of the group gets involved in the combat. If they sit there and do nothing, they'd gain no corruption. Who has advocated that one person in a group spreads corruption to other people who aren't engaging in the combat?

Fair enough.

What about the loophole I mentioned with the 20 gangers?

Atama

George Black wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

In addition, what stops me from joining a group of people, killing a bystander outside of that group, spreading my corruption to the group and then my real mates jump out for the free kills and loot?

This proposition will only lead to abuse.
If 20 people want you dead, they can easily sit and watch as one of them leaves the group and starts killing you.
If you fight back they can still jump you.

I think you're confused. Corruption would only take place if a member of the group gets involved in the combat. If they sit there and do nothing, they'd gain no corruption. Who has advocated that one person in a group spreads corruption to other people who aren't engaging in the combat?

Fair enough.

What about the loophole I mentioned with the 20 gangers?

I don’t see a problem. If you are purple then you’re fair game as far as I’m concerned.

George_Black

Atama wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

In addition, what stops me from joining a group of people, killing a bystander outside of that group, spreading my corruption to the group and then my real mates jump out for the free kills and loot?

This proposition will only lead to abuse.
If 20 people want you dead, they can easily sit and watch as one of them leaves the group and starts killing you.
If you fight back they can still jump you.

I think you're confused. Corruption would only take place if a member of the group gets involved in the combat. If they sit there and do nothing, they'd gain no corruption. Who has advocated that one person in a group spreads corruption to other people who aren't engaging in the combat?

Fair enough.

What about the loophole I mentioned with the 20 gangers?

I don’t see a problem. If you are purple then you’re fair game as far as I’m concerned.

Nobody will fall for the group PK. They will let 1 person do the job, unless the victim fights back.
This system wont prevent anything.
No reason to develop it. Hope this topic dont reach 20 pages as well.

Warth

George Black wrote: »

Nobody will fall for the group PK. They will let 1 person do the job, unless the victim fights back.
This system wont prevent anything.
No reason to develop it. Hope this topic dont reach 20 pages as well.

Exactly this. A group doesn't need 8 people to attack an enemy that doesn't fight back. They would simply attack you with one person and back that person up if you fight back. If you don't, then they won't bother attacking and giving themselves corruption for no reason.

You either punish anybody in the group with the killer (which is a bad solution for obvious reasons) or you just punish the killer. Punishing everybody that is actively participating simply doesn't work and would be a waste of development effort.

Sathrago

Warth wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Nobody will fall for the group PK. They will let 1 person do the job, unless the victim fights back.
This system wont prevent anything.
No reason to develop it. Hope this topic dont reach 20 pages as well.

Exactly this. A group doesn't need 8 people to attack an enemy that doesn't fight back. They would simply attack you with one person and back that person up if you fight back. If you don't, then they won't bother attacking and giving themselves corruption for no reason.

You either punish anybody in the group with the killer (which is a bad solution for obvious reasons) or you just punish the killer. Punishing everybody that is actively participating simply doesn't work and would be a waste of development effort.

So let's be clear here for a moment as I feel two different situations are being talked about as if they are the same.

If your combatant buddy in your group of 20 players goes and 1v1s someone only for the target to fight back there is no issue here as even if you help out the target is now a combatant and have consented to pvp.

Now the other situation is you have a group of 20 and one of them is corrupted already. They attack a non combatant and the non combatant fights back. The other 19 combatant players in the current system would gain no corruption as long as the corrupted player finishes off the non combatant player. If the corruption system worked as suggested, those combatants that helped cause the death of the green player would gain a portion of the corruption rather than all of it focusing in on the one guy who landed the killing blow.

I dont want the whole group punished for existing in the same area as the first corrupted player. I want players who actively choose to engage a non combatant to all take on the risk of making that choice regardless of who gets the killing blow.

Let me say one more thing then I'll end the wall of text. If you do not give corruption to contributing assailants you will have situations where high level players shred low level non combatants so that their low level friend can get the killing blow, effectively farming low level players at a reduced corruption rate and any risk to the high level player.

Tyrantor

If entire groups get corruption that's going to destroy any sort of open world ability to pvp from group vs group perspectives. in addition the way the corruption death penalties are currently written on the wiki it wouldn't make sense for a group of 10 or 20 players to all then receive the same 300-400% increase(s) in xp debt, etc. Also there could be multiple groups attacking, one group backs off before killing the non-combatant and someone else steps in and then corrupts players who they have no association with.

If a group of 10-20 players want to kill a solo player that player is going to die in nearly all circumstances regardless if they fight back or not. If this becomes a norm then it seems like the open world pvp will be flush with targets (to my delight) as a roaming group with 1-2 corrupt players in the mix will be free targets and all the group members who want to defend them will create a target rich environment for those of us who are going to be looking for active fights.

The solo player gets the rotten end of it, but at least they set the course of events in action giving the rest of us the ability to come in and clean up or try to at least.

akabear

The system is based on the Lineage 2 model. The L2 model worked well. Loved it, totally believe in it!

Yes, the karma went to the one that laid the killing blow, but that did not always mean that the one who intended or wanted to do the killing blow was actually the one. Some targets were softer than expected, sometimes there was crit damage and sometimes they were already hurt due to pve.

Sometimes too, tapping was just to provoke pvp and a non-combatant kills was not planned.

And yes, sometimes they were tapped and the killing blow was a mob and there was no karma.

And sometimes, tapping to provoke pvp left you flashing as a combatant only to find that your flagging left you open to being killed by someone or a group unexpectedly.

Whilst karma to the one that does the final blow along many not seem fair, it is fairer than those who did not chose to participate in the party that does kill a non-combatant also taking karma.

Thinks can swing both ways, I recall players using alts with same visual gear, near same name, strategically placed but shocking low hp and no other protective gear just to be the patsy for the ganker. So tables could be reversed.

FuryBladeborne

As far as the 20 man group running around murdering solo players to get around the corruption consequence, I wouldn't worry about it much. I have been in such groups and they tend to fall apart in a pretty short time. It's not fun or rewarding and many people start to feel bad about the abused players and the group shrinks. The groups that actually do this will tend to be pretty small and infrequent.

Besides, with the open world PvP available everywhere in Ashes, if such a large group did start to create havok in an area, I would bet that plenty of people desiring PvP would show up for the fun.

Child Item