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

CROW3

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I like this at first blush. It's a devastating hinderance, but it's worth thinking through.

Noaani

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I like this at first blush. It's a devastating hinderance, but it's worth thinking through.

To me, the main thing it would mean is that all group and raid content that is intended to be fought over would need to be in a battleground, so that corruption doesn't apply. This is something I kind of expect to happen anyway.

From there, it kind of reinforces the notion that any PvP that is over anything real (in game) is handled by a system other than the corruption system - there is very little worth fighting over as a solo player.

Like you, I'm not sure of it as an idea, but I do think it is an idea worth looking in to.

Tyrantor

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

Ohh good we're getting there already same page...

Noaani wrote: »

To me, the main thing it would mean is that all group and raid content that is intended to be fought over would need to be in a battleground, so that corruption doesn't apply. This is something I kind of expect to happen anyway.

From there, it kind of reinforces the notion that any PvP that is over anything real (in game) is handled by a system other than the corruption system - there is very little worth fighting over as a solo player.

LOL

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

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.

Ohh good we're getting there already same page...

What's this about instances?

I never said anything at all about instanced PvP. I personally think it is completely out of place in Ashes.

Tyrantor

Ahh I took your word of "battlegrounds" to be suggestive of instanced content especially since you referenced group and raid PVE in the same sentance.

Personally I think the entire world should flag players as combatant once they walk out of a city, if this is essentially what you mean in "contested" areas then I'm on board with it.

Warth

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I like this at first blush. It's a devastating hinderance, but it's worth thinking through.

Can't/won't happen.
This literally kills all the incentive to contest a farming spot from another group.

You can't pressure them out if they know, that you can't properly farm it themselves if they kill you.

In a game that is designed around scarce resources, the contest around these resources is integral to the gane's design. The contest is also something that Steven has talked about fondly on multiple occassions in the past and the inability to group up once you have pushed someone out is a literal death sentence to it.

Also, what's this "trying to bring RL logic into a video game discussion to discredit someone else's opinion" tactic supposed to be and why do people not realize how dumb it makes them look? Some people here really seem to enjoy going that route whenever they run out of valid points to make

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

Ahh I took your word of "battlegrounds" to be suggestive of instanced content especially since you referenced group and raid PVE in the same sentance.

Personally I think the entire world should flag players as combatant once they walk out of a city, if this is essentially what you mean in "contested" areas then I'm on board with it.

Battlegrounds in Ashes are things like the area around a caravan. We know there are set to be other situations in which a similar mechanic exists, and my speculation is that this will be around encounters designed to be fought over (which ties in nicely to why I think there is also space for some of these encounter to be instanced). Corruption is turned off in these areas.

Assuming there is no corruption in these areas, and there is no corruption when attacking a caravan, or when attacking rival guild members or node citizens in a guild or node war, it is my assertion that there are no other times where group based open world PvP is needing to be encouraged. As such, I am working through the notion that it is perfectly reasonable for players with corruption to be blocked from being in groups.

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I like this at first blush. It's a devastating hinderance, but it's worth thinking through.

Can't/won't happen.
This literally kills all the incentive to contest a farming spot from another group.

This notion is assuming that groups will want to farm spots that don't contain boss encounters.

I personally doubt that will be the case. I can see solo players wanting to fight over farming spots, but groups are more likely to want to roam around an entire dungeon (or at least a large portion of one). This roaming will see them come across boss encounters, where the corruption system does not apply.

Personally, I can't think of anything more boring than farming a single spot in a group. If I have a group of friends with me, we absolutely will be looking for something more interesting to do than that.

CROW3

Tyrantor wrote: »

Ahh I took your word of "battlegrounds" to be suggestive of instanced content ...

I thought the same thing, but figured he meant this could be achieved in other ways (e.g. like a battleground radius that suppresses corruption.)

Tyrantor wrote: »

Personally I think the entire world should flag players as combatant once they walk out of a city, if this is essentially what you mean in "contested" areas then I'm on board with it.

You already know we're lockstep on this. I've been sketching ideas around this for the past week or so, and I keep ending up at the same place: I really don't like the green flag at all. Ultimately, it's Steven's call and I'll adapt to whatever, but green flags over complicate the system. I think you could have purples and reds, and manage corruption slightly differently to mitigate repetitive griefing.

Warth wrote: »

Can't/won't happen...In a game that is designed around scarce resources, the contest around these resources is integral to the game's design. The contest is also something that Steven has talked about fondly on multiple occasions in the past and the inability to group up once you have pushed someone out is a literal death sentence to it.

Like I said, worth thinking through and maybe testing.

Warth

Noaani wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I like this at first blush. It's a devastating hinderance, but it's worth thinking through.

Can't/won't happen.
This literally kills all the incentive to contest a farming spot from another group.

This notion is assuming that groups will want to farm spots that don't contain boss encounters.

I personally doubt that will be the case. I can see solo players wanting to fight over farming spots, but groups are more likely to want to roam around an entire dungeon (or at least a large portion of one). This roaming will see them come across boss encounters, where the corruption system does not apply.

Personally, I can't think of anything more boring than farming a single spot in a group. If I have a group of friends with me, we absolutely will be looking for something more interesting to do than that.

Steven has literally talked about exactly that in the past and we have already seen (and (some of us) fought against) exactly these type of monsters within Ashes.

Just one non-NDA breaching example is the open world fire dungeon, that solely has group to raid-tuned monsters within them. Which has stated ti be intentional. Open World Dungeons are facilitated to support multiple groups. They are designed around group play

akabear

Noaani wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

As such, I am working through the notion that it is perfectly reasonable for players with corruption to be blocked from being in groups.

I couldn`t be more against this train of thought. Last thing we need is a nanny state.

Killing other players is not limited to ganking nor unfair play. In past, my clan or I have killed other players for innumerous reasons, all of which were considered just at the time, such as:
Players found botting

Players found buying in game currency for real life currency

Players picking up our drops

Players healing a boss during a raid

Players training groups of mobs into our area just for us to die

Players picking off our clan members opportunistically during pvp that were not involved in the conflict

Retribution for stealing from our clan

XP`ing over our area that we had laid claim to

Giving intel of our clan to another

General trash talk

Their clan members ganking ours

Inciting a clan that won`t war to go to war (and war fairly)

Any player in our clan/group that killed someone for above would commended and we would want them back in group ASAP to help burn off their karma.

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

Just one non-NDA breaching example is the open world fire dungeon, that solely has group to raid-tuned monsters within them. Which has stated ti be intentional. Open World Dungeons are facilitated to support multiple groups. They are designed around group play

I'm not sure you are getting what I am saying.

What I am saying is that areas such as this should be battlegrounds - as in, corruption isn't a thing here.

Noaani

akabear wrote: »

Killing other players is not limited to ganking nor unfair play.

I haven't even been close to suggesting or insinuating that this would be the case.

I'm not sure why you would think this.

However, lets go through that list of things you have there, and detail the situations that are most appropriate in Ashes.

Report to Intrepid. Don't take the rules in to your own hands.
Report to Intrepid. Don't take the rules in to your own hands.
Solo PvP. It won't take long for one player to get rid of one kills worth of corruption.
Raids will not be subject to corruption based on what I am talking about.
Learn how to not get trained on.
These players are flagged for combat, by necessity. You won't gain corruption for killing them.
Guild war. Guilds don't have the choice of opting out of these.
You don't claim areas.
Guild war.
Grow up.
These players are flagged for combat, by necessity. You won't gain corruption for killing them.
Guild war. Guilds don't have the choice of opting out of these.

So, it's safe to say, I'm not really seeing your point here.

Warth

Noaani wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

Just one non-NDA breaching example is the open world fire dungeon, that solely has group to raid-tuned monsters within them. Which has stated ti be intentional. Open World Dungeons are facilitated to support multiple groups. They are designed around group play

I'm not sure you are getting what I am saying.

What I am saying is that areas such as this should be battlegrounds - as in, corruption isn't a thing here.

That's an interesting thought. Open World Dungeons not having the limitation of corruption would certainly have some merits. It those bring certain consequences with it though. I'll have to think about that for a while. Free-PK Zones for certain content certainly could make sense (contested world bosses for example). I'm just not sure if they should be extended over the entirety of the OW-Dungeons or even other spaces and whether running with zones like that for these dungeons would just take away the consequences for behaviour that should be either a last resort or at least come with consequences/risk.

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

It those bring certain consequences with it though. I'll have to think about that for a while. Free-PK Zones for certain content certainly could make sense (contested world bosses for example). I'm just not sure if they should be extended over the entirety of the OW-Dungeons or even other spaces and whether running with zones like that for these dungeons would just take away the consequences for behaviour that should be either a last resort or at least come with consequences/risk.

I wouldn't make these battlegrounds take the entire dungeon, just around bosses (and only while said boss is present).

However, with well considered positioning of bosses, this would mean that entire areas of the dungeon are able to be fought over within the vicinity of those bosses.

Also, I don't think we will see players fighting over a portion of a dungeon that doesn't contain a boss.

George_Black

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sVK6UOChl5g
Vid starts at 0:15

L2 pvp for a corridor inside catacombs. Contesting farming spot.

In many cases (not seen in this video) a person will not fight back, hoping to rez the fallen group members. That person will get PKed, instead of letting them rez their fallen group.

This suggestion, that corruption should be equally/partially spread is dump.
The player that lands the last hit will get the corruption. Anything else would dumpen down the game.

George_Black

There are also situations where a group comes across another group whose guilds are at war.

Many times, there are characters that dont belong in the guilds that may not attack, hoping that they wont get PKed by the winning group.

These characters will get PKed to eliminate the rival guilds presence in the area, instead of letting them rez their fallen friends.

Again, the suggestion that corruption should be spread is too punitive, just because somebody imagines that 20 people will attack 1 person to grief and shouldnt be implemented.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

There are also situations where a group comes across another group whose guilds are at war.

Many times, there are characters that dont belong in the guilds that may not attack, hoping that they wont get PKed by the winning group.

In my experience of games with guild wars that last a matter of hours, when a guild is at war with other guilds, each respective guild tends to focus on said war rather than grouping up with non-guild members to do other things.

Additionally, non guild members tend to want to keep well away.

Intrepid are going well out of their way to keep situations where people have actual reason to fight each other from being subject to corruption. As such, corruption based PvP is essentially restricted to what can accurately be described as petty squabbles.

L2 does not provide players with other systems for PvP, and so comparisons to it can't really be made.

George_Black

I am afraid that if you think that people wont PvP for a dungeon room without a boss, you dont have a big open world experience.

The fact that there are full combatant events means very little to those not participating at that moment, and it is totally irrelevant with the topic of "20 people grief 1 target, they should all gain corruption".

In addition... L2 PvP content:
Bloodsport arena (BR)
Grand Olympiad (nightly arena competition, rewards of the highest nature, no mmo comes close...)
Town arena squares (casual PvP, no flagging, no PK)
Colosseum (GM PvP events)
Siege every 2 weeks at 7 or so castles + some PvP gained guild halls outside of cities
Outpost siege many around the map (decleration every 4h, lasts 1h)
Guild wars (extremelly long duration way beyond the 24h wars you have experienced)

Still plenty of PK going around. Nobody felt grieved or bullied.

Noaani

George Black wrote: »

I am afraid that if you think that people wont PvP for a dungeon room without a boss, you dont have a big open world experience.

I would suggest that if you think they would, you only have experience with small open worlds.

Child Item