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

akabear

If non-consensual pvp is a large concern for someone there are a variety of options available in game, that do not require game mechanics to prevent, below just a few:

Don`t trash talk
Be respectful of others pve areas
Be aware of where you are in the world and what is going on
Make friends
Play with friends
Play neutral
Join a pve clan
Join a strong pvx clan

George_Black

Caeryl wrote: »

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.

Dead wrong.
If a non combatant healer heals a corrupted player then the healer turns purple. That was their comment.

Caeryl

George Black wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

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.

Dead wrong.
If a non combatant healer heals a corrupted player then the healer turns purple. That was their comment.

If they heal any combatant they’ll become a combatant. Why wouldn’t they be considered direct accomplices in griefing when they directly assist someone who is griefing?

As it’s been mentioned, they have to enable direct healing on flagged players, so it’s not something that can be done on accident.

George_Black

Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.

Sathrago

George Black wrote: »

Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.

I think the idea here is that a healer could make it so that a corrupt player can bypass the debuffs of being corrupted if they have said pocket healer.

George_Black

Sathrago wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Dont you think that turning red for healing a red is too much?

Isnt it enough that a "griefing" healer turns purple, fair game for bystanders?

In my 15 years of gaming I never felt being grieved. I think some people need to grow a thicker skin.

What else is next? Do away with open world conflict? The corruption system works fine in other open world pvp games.
I am confident that it wont be ruin by minority voices by the time of release.

I think the idea here is that a healer could make it so that a corrupt player can bypass the debuffs of being corrupted if they have said pocket healer.

And the healer can be killed without penalties.
No more healer.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

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

I disagree.

In an MMO, those fringe examples - once known by the majority - have a habbit of becoming the normal way to play the game.

Policing those fringe exampels is paramaount - while they are still fringe examples.

Warth

Caeryl wrote: »

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.

feel free to link me the source to your statement.

It might be hard finding something they have never said though, so don't waste too much time on the fruitless search

Caeryl

Warth wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

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.

feel free to link me the source to your statement.

It might be hard finding something they have never said though, so don't waste too much time on the fruitless search

Big shrug from me. I don’t have eidetic memory and I don’t actually care to spend hours searching through archived content to confirm one way or the other. Maybe they didn’t say anything outright, but regardless it doesn’t make sense to leave such a blatant loophole in a core system.

insomnia

If you are 2 or more attacking 1 player. I think all should get corruption and get the same amount they would get, if they were 1. Maybe they should even get more as they are more.

insomnia

If you only get corruption by doing the killing blow. People will just attack you while you fight a mob and let the mob kill you. Which i think is a way to exploit the system and troll people. You could keep causing people to die, but nothing would happen to you, if it's only the killing blow that counts

insomnia

I get the idea that George Black just wants to be able to troll/harrash people

Warth

Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

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

I disagree.

In an MMO, those fringe examples - once known by the majority - have a habbit of becoming the normal way to play the game.

Policing those fringe exampels is paramaount - while they are still fringe examples.

Are you just looking for a way to get in on a new thread and go in circles with me? You're suggesting that corruption should be the policing mechanic to all fringe examples of griefing going above it's current intended design? It seems most of you here think PvP events in the open world are going to be random occurrences, none of them will be based on conflicts within the game itself?

The open world pvp will mostly be driven by political and personal grievances, if a 20v1 occurs it's likely the outcome of a past grievance by a guild or player against the guild or player(s) within those 20 players.

There would be no justifiable profit for 20v1 in some random "kill the gatherer" example as this entire thread seems to indicate the situation to be. All of this "it's not fair", "police the problem" fails to grasp that these examples will police themselves. It's also unlikely that many people in this game would be without a guild for long periods of time and all of the "make friends" "join a guild" talk seems irrelevant to me as well.

While of course there will be players who may experience their whole time in AoC as a solo/non guilded character it's again such a fringe example the game has no reason to correct something like this since it boils down to player agency and that person own willingness and abilities to connect with others.

The game already gives players the tools to police these situations themselves, like I said it's not the games job to protect all of us especially not through the corruption system above and beyond how it's already designed to save these solo, non combatant players in the first place.

Caeryl

Warth wrote: »

Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".

I literally just said I didn’t confirm one way or the other. Perhaps address the part about the blatant loophole for pocket-healing corrupted groups with no penalty.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Interestingly enough, it's always the people stating incorrect information, that "don't have to time look it up or find a source".

I literally just said I didn’t confirm one way or the other. Perhaps address the part about the blatant loophole for pocket-healing corrupted groups with no penalty.

What needs to be addressed here the corruption system isn't supposed to turn the game into a single player campaign mode. If this person goes to EXP/Quest to burn off his corruption and gets healed doing this, should it cause further corruption on others? No it's stupid to think it should.

In group combat the fight doesn't stop because one person goes corrupted and no one else should get corruption by proxy.

Warth

He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

if a 20v1 occurs it's likely the outcome of a past grievance by a guild or player against the guild or player(s) within those 20 players.

Unless there is little relative punishment in 20 people attacking 1 player, in which case it will happen every time there is a raid formed that has to move from one location to another.

Or it will happen because a group of friends realize it's fun to overwhelm people like that, and so go out and do it. Or even make and gear alts to do it.

The point is, if an edge case - any edge case - is not balanced correctly (this includes situations involving mechanical issues like corruption, it includes classes, builds, gear,combinations of classes, literally everything), then that edge case will become the normal way to do things.

As such, all edge cases in this regard need to be equally policed via the corruption system, or they will become the normal way for players to do things. It doesn't at all matter what that edge case is - if you need a specific number of players all with specific classes and builds, all equipped with specific items in order to gain some form of perceived advantage, players will do that.

I'm not really interested in the specifics of what is being talked about here, I just disagree with the notion that not all edge cases need to be policed - they clearly do.

Caeryl

Warth wrote: »

He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

George_Black

Caeryl wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

He gets flagged, he can be killed for free. That's all the penalty there needs to be.

It’s not about the healer themselves, it’s the circumventing of intended consequences for players who gain corruption. A healer who is choosing to buff away a significant portion of the intended combat penalties for corrupted player, should take the same risks as those corrupted players they have chosen to dedicate their healing to.

It’s about the system working as intended. Bypassing penalties with no consequence is certainly not intended.

The system has been working as intented since 2003

Child Item