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

Tyrantor

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.

What buffs do the healers get?

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

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.

This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want. The game will police itself.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want.

Yeah, and it is that consequence part there that is what the policing thing is all about.

No one is saying you shouldn't be able to kill people, just that there should be no situation in which a player can work around those consequences, not even in part.

In order to achieve this, those edge cases need to be policed properly, otherwise they will not be edge cases for long.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

What buffs do the healers get?

Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.

Noaani

Caeryl wrote: »

anyone who bothers to think about it.

That right there is the issue.

Some people just look at Ashes and assume the PvP will be Lineage 3. They seem to forget that the goal of the game is different - L2 was all about the PvP, whereas Ashes has the PvP as an agent of change as opposed to the focus of the game (which is most accurately described as the node system).

Some people simply haven't made the connection that because Ashes has more, the PvP aspect in this game is a support aspect to the main body of the node system in the game, rather than PvP being the main body of the game.

Since PvP is a support to that main body, the goals and intentions of PvP in Ashes are different to those of L2, even if the base systems are somewhat similar at first glance.

Tyrantor

Caeryl wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

What buffs do the healers get?

Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.

I was just curious if you had specific knowledge of the buffs offered in game, since the cleric preview showed zero buffs and they would generally be considered a support class. (speaking broadly as you do).

Are you forgetting that a character that has no negative penalty but gets the benefit(s) of the same buffs would still have a stat/attribute advantage?

The solo player out numbered and out healed will be at a disadvantage regardless of the buff(s).

Sangramoire

There was another thread talking about this already, I would suggest looking around before creating new threads that talk about the same thing. It would just help if everything was in one place.

To answer your question, corruption would be received by anyone that participated in the kill including if someone did not damage the green player being killed but healed those that were killing the green player. The exact details of how the system works is unknown.

You can expect the corruption system to give more corruption to each individual player than normal when they are fighting in a group vs just 1 player because that means the fight is more unfair. Intrepid has previously said that the amount of corruption gained by someone varies, depending on level difference between the two players meaning that they take into account how fair the fight was.

You have to also remember why the corruption system is there in the first place. It's precisely to reduce meaningless fights and extremely unfair moments that would make the game miserable for someone that's not interested in participating in those moments.

Remember that the corruption system will also decrease combat effectiveness meaning that people can't continually do this over and over, it's the whole point of having the system so I'd be very surprised if they come out with a system that can circumvent this.

Caeryl

Tyrantor wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

What buffs do the healers get?

Where did this question come from? The healers, or supports to speak broadly, will be able to offer buffs to corrupted players. Defensive damage reduction and offensive damage amps can be safely assumed to exist on a support class. Because one of the central penalties for corruption is stat damps that are there to ensure griefing players are not able to endlessly targets non-combatants, supports facing no penalty for circumventing that core aspect of corruption just makes no sense to anyone who bothers to think about it.

I was just curious if you had specific knowledge of the buffs offered in game, since the cleric preview showed zero buffs and they would generally be considered a support class. (speaking broadly as you do).

Are you forgetting that a character that has no negative penalty but gets the benefit(s) of the same buffs would still have a stat/attribute advantage?

The solo player out numbered and out healed will be at a disadvantage regardless of the buff(s).

I simply listed two extremely basic types of buffs that exist in some form in every mmo.
Obviously using these types of buffs grants an advantage, but there is a difference between using these buffs to give your group an edge in a fight, and using these buffs to enable corrupt players to circumvent their intended penalties.

By implementing a more sensible system in which directly assisting corrupt players while they’re attacking/killing non-combatant causes corruption, the support and pocket healers would also have reduced effectiveness. It would mean that corruption is now working as intended, with the players griefing and racking up more corruption, properly being weakened by that corruption.

Being flagged purple isn’t a penalty. If anything it’s a boon to take half penalties on death. A temporary state certainly doesn’t impose on them at all. But if they go corrupt? Then there’s some actual sting behind directly enabling a group to continue griefing.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

This is the entire point of the game offering the freedom and consequences to kill anyone you want.

Yeah, and it is that consequence part there that is what the policing thing is all about.

No one is saying you shouldn't be able to kill people, just that there should be no situation in which a player can work around those consequences, not even in part.

In order to achieve this, those edge cases need to be policed properly, otherwise they will not be edge cases for long.

I haven't heard anything in this thread that sounds like a work around or loophole. Have you? Do you really not believe the players should be the "police" and not the developers? That is ultimately the purpose of player agency it's not so you can choose to wear a green tunic or a blue one.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

I haven't heard anything in this thread that sounds like a work around or loophole. Have you?

As I said...

Noaani wrote: »

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.

What I am taking issue with is the comment that edge cases do not need to be policed.

I'm not getting in to the details of what those edge cases may be, because that is immaterial.

I assume you mis-spoke when you said that not all edge cases need to be policed, because I'm sure you know well enough that they absolutely do, as unpoliced edge cases always become the games meta.

CROW3

I like the idea of being accomplice to murdering a green to have some repercussions, even if it is a lighter degree of corruption than the one who performed the killing blow. Gives some incentive for folks in a party to attempt to influence a bad apple (or kick them from the group).

Also helps with an edge case of a group isolating kills to a single throw-away toon, and benefitting as a group.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

I like the idea of being accomplice to murdering a green to have some repercussions, even if it is a lighter degree of corruption than the one who performed the killing blow. Gives some incentive for folks in a party to attempt to influence a bad apple (or kick them from the group).

Also helps with an edge case of a group isolating kills to a single throw-away toon, and benefitting as a group.

Agreed.

Percimes

CROW3 wrote: »

I like the idea of being accomplice to murdering a green to have some repercussions, even if it is a lighter degree of corruption than the one who performed the killing blow. Gives some incentive for folks in a party to attempt to influence a bad apple (or kick them from the group).

Also helps with an edge case of a group isolating kills to a single throw-away toon, and benefitting as a group.

Agreeing on the principle, not sure how it can be implemented or if it's even worth it.

What if you have a roving band of X un-grouped players? Do you give a base % of the killer's corruption to everyone who's done 1 point of damage? A % of corruption base on the % of damage done? What's a buff to the killer worth in corruption? What is a heal? What about blocking an escape route?

Over-complicating the system will not solve everything. Many angles are impossible to cover and people wanting to avoid the corruption system at all cost will exploit the limitations.

Tyrantor

Percimes wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

I like the idea of being accomplice to murdering a green to have some repercussions, even if it is a lighter degree of corruption than the one who performed the killing blow. Gives some incentive for folks in a party to attempt to influence a bad apple (or kick them from the group).

Also helps with an edge case of a group isolating kills to a single throw-away toon, and benefitting as a group.

Agreeing on the principle, not sure how it can be implemented or if it's even worth it.

What if you have a roving band of X un-grouped players? Do you give a base % of the killer's corruption to everyone who's done 1 point of damage? A % of corruption base on the % of damage done? What's a buff to the killer worth in corruption? What is a heal? What about blocking an escape route?

Over-complicating the system will not solve everything. Many angles are impossible to cover and people wanting to avoid the corruption system at all cost will exploit the limitations.

I'm not really understanding the need for buffs and heals when killing non combatants - I mean... they're not fighting back after all.

Forcing corruption on all parties involved in the damage of a non-combatant is ridiculous, it's also exploitable based on any sort of duration applied to this. The point you raise above related to multiple individuals or groups attacking would open up exploitable situations where someone attacks a non-combatant and stops only to have a 3rd party decide for everyone that they're going to share in corruption. Which then opens up multiple people from different group(s) or individuals to higher death penalties and material loss when they did not decide to kill the non combatant.

There is no need for additional corruption penalties soon people are going to just suggest all pvp should be instanced to avoid unfair fights lol.

Percimes

I'm not advocating for any change to the current corruption system!

Sure, in principle, anyone taking part on a kill played a role, but trying to quantify how much corruption everyone should receive gets ridiculous pretty fast. No matter how you divide the blame it can't include every possible ways someone might have influence the "fight". I, clumsily, tried to illustrate how difficult it would be to even try to do so. And people would still find ways to play a role and still evade the punishment. We're saying the same thing but I made a mess at making my point

As for the non-combatants not fighting back... that's not guarantied. They could fight back and unless you are already corrupted they would become combatant and not give any corruption anyway. So buffs are still relevant but it would be silly to give corruption to someone who gave a buff to someone who passed by a few minutes before. There would be not limit.

Do I make more sense now ? hihi

Tyrantor

Yeah I quoted you mostly because of the quote chain associated with it and the fact you raised the individual/multiple group topic. Others in this thread have been concerned about corrupted players receiving heals, I understand your viewpoint on the subject and agree.

Gizban

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.

"If you spread the penalty" Do you mean divide it equally, or each member is given the same penalty?

Dividing it equally diminishes the punishment, so that's not good for a deterrent.

Each attacking member being given the same penalty... well, that's culpability, isn't it?
Think of a felony murder murder charge in the US: if you are a party to a felony crime, and someone is killed or dies because of the actions of any member of your group, you can all be charged with that murder.

"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."
Its not 'strategy' when you're attacking someone 10 levels under you, its griefing, and that's what corruption is meant to stop.

Tyrantor

pyreal wrote: »

Each attacking member being given the same penalty... well, that's culpability, isn't it?
Think of a felony murder murder charge in the US: if you are a party to a felony crime, and someone is killed or dies because of the actions of any member of your group, you can all be charged with that murder.

So you're saying that in the US it's still felony murder even if the victim fights back????

CROW3

Tyrantor wrote: »

So you're saying that in the US it's still felony murder even if the victim fights back????

Judge: Guilty! You're sentenced to death.
Defendant: But my victim fought back!!
Judge: Oh! So the victim was flagged and is no longer a victim. Case dismissed! To the Tavern!
Jury: Yay!

I think corruption could be spread across a group, but you'd have to take proximity into account. If I'm halfway across the continent, I shouldn't get corruption for what my group is doing.

I don't think corruption should be spread for an ungrouped bunch of players.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Forcing corruption on all parties involved in the damage of a non-combatant is ridiculous, it's also exploitable based on any sort of duration applied to this. The point you raise above related to multiple individuals or groups attacking would open up exploitable situations where someone attacks a non-combatant and stops only to have a 3rd party decide for everyone that they're going to share in corruption. Which then opens up multiple people from different group(s) or individuals to higher death penalties and material loss when they did not decide to kill the non combatant.

It isn't really that exploitable, and largely fits in with the theme of the corruption system anyway.

If we are talking a time frame of 5 seconds or so (you gain an amount of corruption if someone dies within 5 seconds of you attacking them), then you would need to have almost killed them, or attacked them while they were already being attacked, in order to gain corruption - based on a 30 - 60 seconds TTK.

What this would prevent is players running around and almost killing others, but stopping just short (an action would should be discouraged anyway).

It won't stop anyone from attacking a player in order to attempt to have them flag to a combatant, as there is no risk of that player dying in that 5 second period (barring a conveniently positioned large group of stealth players). All it will mean is players would need to stop such attacks sooner if the player being attacked didn't flag up, and the attacker was not keen on corruption.

One other mechanic I'd like to see tested in beta is that if you have corruption, you can not be in a group. If you are in a group and gain corruption, you are no longer in said group.

Child Item