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

Warth

Sathrago wrote: »

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.

And if there was group shared corruption. Not all 19 player would help the corrupted player kill the green. If they feel like the corrupted will lose, then they'll get a single other player to help him fight the green. Which again, wouldn't result in the entire group getting corruption, hence making the above suggested group-corruption mechanic for players that actively participate in the kill completely useless.

In the end, one person died and one person gained the appropriate amount of corruption for the killing blow is the most straight -forward solution. Trying to add more corruption across everybody in the participating group is just suggested out of spite from players that expected to be ganked by a group. It really comes down to one thing. If there is a group of 20 players in Zone A killing people, then either go somewhere else or get reinforcements to punish them for it. Adding convoluded systems that don't work or barely address the problem at hand isn't a solution.

Atama

What is with the “don’t fight back” talk? Why are you assuming you only get corruption when the person doesn’t fight back?

Note that when a green player attacks a red player they stay green. They don’t turn purple.

Now if you have a group of red players who pounce on a green, who fights back, why should only one get corruption when the green dies? If the green could have fought and beaten one or two, but is facing ten, why should they get off with no penalty? Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?

There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.

Bricktop

Atama wrote: »

What is with the “don’t fight back” talk? Why are you assuming you only get corruption when the person doesn’t fight back?

Note that when a green player attacks a red player they stay green. They don’t turn purple.

Now if you have a group of red players who pounce on a green, who fights back, why should only one get corruption when the green dies? If the green could have fought and beaten one or two, but is facing ten, why should they get off with no penalty? Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?

There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.

This just won't be a problem 99.9% of the time. People who go red constantly are just most likely going to lose all their gear very quickly in Ashes. 10-20 man groups roaming around are almost always looking for equal or larger sized groups to PvP against and not for solo people to gank. A very very small tiny portion of players are actively looking to grief solos who don't want to PvP and go red all the time and it's not feasible to worry about every single tiny chance or random scenario that a player could possibly be killed in a way they don't like.

Corruption is already very punishing and a 10 man group who has 1 of their members go red is already at a disadvantage for any real fight they come across next, there's no reason to punish it even further.

George_Black

I am getting sick and tired of people being extremelly fearful of being killed by other players, calling for all sorts of extra protective/punitive measures and then turning around saying "Does ashes wants to encourage griefing".

Learn to deal with hostile players by playing the game, not by asking the development of systems to prevent imaginary scenarios.

1 player cannot deal with 20 enemies.
1 player can make 19 friends.

Sathrago

So I talked with @Bricktop in dms earlier and he managed to convince me that if they just make dying as a non-combatant horrible enough we really wont need any more punishments for corrupted players because everyone will want to opt in as much as they possibly can to reduce the death penalties.

Basically, we have to wait until the actual values for death penalties to come out before we start deconstructing the whole system.

Tyrantor

Atama wrote: »

Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?

There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.

This is an MMO not a single player game, numbers will generally always give some edge in fights. 1v20 is a dumb example to use as a base line anyway. It would be much more probable to see small groups of players 3-5 vs 8 for example. It's not the games job to make open world pvp "fair".

Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.

Atama

Tyrantor wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?

There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.

This is an MMO not a single player game, numbers will generally always give some edge in fights. 1v20 is a dumb example to use as a base line anyway. It would be much more probable to see small groups of players 3-5 vs 8 for example. It's not the games job to make open world pvp "fair".

Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.

20 on 1 may be a stretch, but 2 or 3 shouldn’t be. And the entire point of corruption is to do what it can to make open world PvP as fair as it can while still giving freedom of choice.

Again, if you’re purple and you get jumped by a group then those are the breaks. That will happen, that’s part of open PvP.

So far in this entire thread I don’t see any real argument against the idea of spreading corruption among all attackers except some vague concept of using up development time. So again, I repeat, the objections here are senseless.

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a party of purples, one guy attacks and kills a green, suddenly everyone gets corrupted. That would be stupid, why punish people who did nothing wrong? I’m not even advocating that if they’re red. Just the people who actively attacked.

Bot

mcstackerson wrote: »

it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone.

If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.

It wouldn't be multiplied, it'd be additive. +1 penalty, not 2x the penalty.

Tyrantor

Corruption has no function in terms of fairness believing that it does is a gross misrepresentation of the intended purpose to the griefing deterrent.

Let me ask you this. If a group of 3 players attacks a non-combatant with the hope that he will fight back to defend his precious loot and the non combatant decides he'd rather not, then 2 of the 3 attackers stop attacking because they don't want corruption but 1 of the 3 thinks "I don't care today" and kills the guy anyway. The other two need to be punished? The corruption system should not try to determine intent by means of a blanket punishment system.

Warth

bot wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone.

If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.

It wouldn't be multiplied, it'd be additive. +1 penalty, not 2x the penalty.

Yes you are multiplying it.
One person receiving 100 corruption or 5 people receiving 100 each certainly is a multiplication.

Bricktop

Atama wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

Does Ashes want to encourage ganking groups preying on solo greens? What happened to using the corruption system as a deterrent?

There are a lot of people in this thread making no damn sense.

This is an MMO not a single player game, numbers will generally always give some edge in fights. 1v20 is a dumb example to use as a base line anyway. It would be much more probable to see small groups of players 3-5 vs 8 for example. It's not the games job to make open world pvp "fair".

Corruption shouldn't be there to police all of the fringe examples we can come up with.

20 on 1 may be a stretch, but 2 or 3 shouldn’t be. And the entire point of corruption is to do what it can to make open world PvP as fair as it can while still giving freedom of choice.

Again, if you’re purple and you get jumped by a group then those are the breaks. That will happen, that’s part of open PvP.

So far in this entire thread I don’t see any real argument against the idea of spreading corruption among all attackers except some vague concept of using up development time. So again, I repeat, the objections here are senseless.

Just to clarify, I’m not talking about a party of purples, one guy attacks and kills a green, suddenly everyone gets corrupted. That would be stupid, why punish people who did nothing wrong? I’m not even advocating that if they’re red. Just the people who actively attacked.

People routinely win 1v2s and 1v3s in plenty of different games so that's not a good example either. If there is even a 1% chance of winning a fight it should be in the players best interest to flag to avoid death penalties associated with dying while green. The entire point of the corruption system is to prevent griefing and camping not PvP altogether.

Flagged state will most likely wear off a very short amount of time after the last attack you did on a player, I'm talking probably 30 seconds. It's highly unlikely you will get jumped while purple unless you are already PvPing somebody because the flagged state will go away very quickly after PvP has happened if it's anything like Lineage.

The argument against spreading corruption to the entire party is that it's a completely unnecessary change. Corruption is already VERY punishing and no matter what group size it is they are at a disadvantage as soon as they bring a red into the equation. Mainly due to the fact that anybody else they come across will focus the red and if they wanna save their buddies gear now they are gonna have to go red as well or spam pickup and hope for the best. It's just not necessary to punish corrupted players even further than stat dampening, gear drops, and showing every bounty hunter in the game where the group is.

Xenotor

From what i got so far is, that Steven dislikes open world ganking in any form.
I expect them to make it so that 20 killing 1 person gives increase corruption penalty.
It could be that all 20 gain corruption.
It could be that the guy getting the killing blow gets an increased corruption.
I dont think they will leave it as it is.

Personally i think there are enough options for PVP in this game without ganking.
You got caravan raiding, guild wars, node wars, node sieges, castle sieges.

Yes ganking should stay. If only to allow people to raid Mules.
But everyone who participated in it from the guy who does the killing blow to the guy giving out heals and buffs. Everyone should receive corruption and more corruption then in a 1 vs 1 scenario.
In the lore those who kill green are considered monsters. Would be strange if these that help the monsters are still considered "normal" people.

Also Steven said that you get more corruption by killing people below your level, ganking someone 5 vs 1 or ganking someone 10 levels below you is the same thing.
Thats why i believe they will change the corruption system for group encounters.
They most likely still gonna test it out first to find all these perksy exploits people come up with to game the system.

daveywavey

Tyrantor wrote: »

Let me ask you this. If a group of 3 players attacks a non-combatant with the hope that he will fight back to defend his precious loot and the non combatant decides he'd rather not, then 2 of the 3 attackers stop attacking because they don't want corruption but 1 of the 3 thinks "I don't care today" and kills the guy anyway. The other two need to be punished?

Yep. Risk vs Reward. That's the risk they take when they initiate the attack, hoping for the potential reward of the kill.

mcstackerson

daveywavey wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

Let me ask you this. If a group of 3 players attacks a non-combatant with the hope that he will fight back to defend his precious loot and the non combatant decides he'd rather not, then 2 of the 3 attackers stop attacking because they don't want corruption but 1 of the 3 thinks "I don't care today" and kills the guy anyway. The other two need to be punished?

Yep. Risk vs Reward. That's the risk they take when they initiate the attack, hoping for the potential reward of the kill.

They are multiplying the risk while not increasing reward.

The reward isn't changing. It's the same as if one of them attacked and killed the target but if everyone gets corruption, now you have 3 people who could suffer the same increased corrupted death penalty.

Sathrago

I have already stated earlier that I'm not supporting the corruption to all attackers anymore however I believe one thing should be cleared up. I never suggested that each attacker gain full corruption. I suggested that the corruption be split evenly between the attackers. So 5 people kill 1 green that is worth 100 corruption, they would each get 20. The idea was to give them *some* corruption for participating, not completely ruin entire group fights because one side didnt react fast enough.

Again, I no longer support any change to the current corruption system if they stick to the lineage 2 values and we dont know if that is the case yet so, I wait.

George_Black

Sathrago wrote: »

I have already stated earlier that I'm not supporting the corruption to all attackers anymore however I believe one thing should be cleared up. I never suggested that each attacker gain full corruption. I suggested that the corruption be split evenly between the attackers. So 5 people kill 1 green that is worth 100 corruption, they would each get 20. The idea was to give them *some* corruption for participating, not completely ruin entire group fights because one side didnt react fast enough.

Again, I no longer support any change to the current corruption system if they stick to the lineage 2 values and we dont know if that is the case yet so, I wait.

That diludes the severity of corruption, doesnt strengthen it.

If anything I'd go PKing in packs, in order to spread my corruption points and burn it off faster with the others.

No.
PK should affect the player landing the killing blow, awarding all the corruption points, making it slower to burn off abd a good target for bounty hunters.

Caeryl

They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player. I would also assume they’ll make changes that give corruption to anyone who played a significant part in the kill, aka dealt damage more than 30% of the targets total hp.

Those things would ensure that a group of 4 attacking a non-combatant who is self-healing will very likely get corruption on all parties, as they’d have to be dealing more damage than their targets total hp to combat that self-healing.

Warth

Caeryl wrote: »

They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

That's incorrect. You only get corruption through killing a non-combatant. If you want to heal anybody but a non-combatant, you'll have to mark a checkbox. Once you heal them you'll be automatically flagged, but you do not get corruption.

Caeryl

Warth wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

They currently have said they plan to give corruption for directly healing (and I would assume buffing) a corrupted player.

That's incorrect. You only get corruption through killing a non-combatant. If you want to heal anybody but a non-combatant, you'll have to mark a checkbox. Once you heal them you'll be automatically flagged, but you do not get corruption.

No, they’ve definitely made comments about gaining corruption through directly aiding a corrupt players. I’ll go search for them, but it doesn’t make sense that there would be no system at all for such a thing.

akabear

As stated before this follows the Lineage 2 system, which worked fine.

Lineage 2, from memory, had a server population of 2,000-3,000 people max and probably 1200-1500 during peak periods. From 6 years of play, the imbalanced pvp was pretty much limited to 5-10 players during open beta, a couple of key players during the first 6 months, and then 1-2 clans of 10-20 people and a couple of well known rouges there after.

It equated to an average of 2-3 non-consensual encounters per month or so from clans/players that were not at war and prepared to go red.

To put in perspective, I played between 20+hrs a week, with a medium ranked clan that had plenty of allies and enemies on a server that had very active pvp and a non-consensual pvp came along for 5min once every 10-15 days, so about 0.2% of play time.

Is 0.2% of play time interruption is not so much in my books.

Child Item