corruption system(a party ganking 1 possible?)

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Thats an antagonizing post.

You'd better address my other points as to why pvp content doesnt remove the need to PK and that PK isnt only a griefing method for 20 people looking for 1 target, deserving group corruption.

akabear

@Noaani,
The frequent reference to L2 is perhaps because it is believed to be the source of inspiration for the pvp mechanics to be in game, albeit modified a little to suit a different game. Not much more.

For me, no other game has come close since to offer the same kind of experiences, which is a little sad, but sometimes thankful..

I`m not sure if I will miss getting 0.1% xp per hour, losing 2-3hrs of xp in a single death and dying in pvp 4-5 times in one hour of pvp. But it sure made any wins and losses more memorable late in game.

All games since have been pretty laid back to the commitment L2 required to progress at the time.

As for your above comments:

Report to Intrepid. Don't take the rules in to your own hands.
> much prefer to issue a bit of in game justice first

Report to Intrepid. Don't take the rules in to your own hands.
> much prefer to issue a bit of in game justice first

Solo PvP. It won't take long for one player to get rid of one kills worth of corruption.
> Perhaps true, if you only kill one player and your not already on a tally of kills.. All depends on how red you go. In L2, I recall gaining karma after multiple kills and it taking several adrenaline rushing hrs to reduce, with the need to further go red just to avoid dying.. great sport

Raids will not be subject to corruption based on what I am talking about.
> no idea of the proposed system, but loved the L2 conflict when a boss was about to be taken down and another clan came in an wiped the floor to take the kill.. nothing like a bit of adrenalin ..

Learn how to not get trained on.
> mechanics in game may prevent it maybe not.. prefer not as makes for greater reward for finding and retaining an xp spot. It kind of adds to the risk / reward factor

These players are flagged for combat, by necessity. You won't gain corruption for killing them.
> but if you want to add weight to the kill you wait until they are unflagged

Guild war. Guilds don't have the choice of opting out of these.
> not sure of your experience, wars in L2 occurred one way or two way or just for the hell of it, using declaration or not. Some wars lasted minutes, some months

You don't claim areas.
> perhaps in your experience, not mine.. I or clan want an area we pvp for it / claim it / defend it..

Guild war.
> sure

Grow up. ( I assume you meant trash talking)
> nothing more satisfying to just drop someone instead of engaging in trash talk

These players are flagged for combat, by necessity. You won't gain corruption for killing them.
> not sure point here, but ok

Guild war. Guilds don't have the choice of opting out of these.
> again not sure of AoC approach, but my experience with clan wars were there were wars without declaration, just go red (by more stronger clans/ pvp`ers), one way wars, and two way wars.. and opportunists and unwitting members involved in wars. Not always simple

@Noaani, to give context to your view point, what mmorpg have you played that had pvp?

George Black wrote: »

You'd better address my other points as to why pvp content doesnt remove the need to PK and that PK isnt only a griefing method for 20 people looking for 1 target, deserving group corruption.

Why do these need to be addressed?

None of the three suggestion being made (corruption being shared within a group, corruption being cshared by all those that have reciently attacked a killed non-combatant or corruption preventing players from being in a group) doesn't prevent players from killing others when ever they want. All it does is shift the paradigm just a little bit.

If you are in a group of 20 and want to kill one player, if any of these systems are in place, all you need to do is drop the group for a second. If you don't want to kill the player enough to drop group, then obviously you don't want to kill that player very much.

akabear wrote: »

to give context to your view point, what mmorpg have you played that had pvp?

Several years in Archeage, the other game that is heavily influencing the PvP system in Ashes.

The frequent reference to L2 is perhaps because it is believed to be the source of inspiration for the pvp mechanics to be in game, albeit modified a little to suit a different game. Not much more.

While this is true, it needs to be remembered that PvP in Ashes is designed to be a supporting component of the node system, as opposed to L2 where it is basically the entire game.

Basically, the core of Ashes is the node system, and PvP exists in Ashes to prevent that node system from being static (which would result in the game essentially being a themepark like every other MMO).

From there, it is important to not that the karma system in L2 was the core PvP system in that game, whereas the corruption system in Ashes is designed to be the "if it doesn't fit anywhere else, it fits here" system.

This means that while the corruption system in Ashes and the karma system in L2 can be compared in terms of their mechanics, they shouldn't be compared in terms of the goals each is trying to achieve.

If you look over that list of things you have there, almost every situation is now a slight personal preference, rather than being the only way to deal with a situation.

All a minor alteration to teh system would do (there are three being discussed here that I am aware of) is slightly alter your preferred means of dealing with each situation. Some of the situations are not even calling for an alteration at all.

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You'd better address my other points as to why pvp content doesnt remove the need to PK and that PK isnt only a griefing method for 20 people looking for 1 target, deserving group corruption.

Why do these need to be addressed?

None of the three suggestion being made (corruption being shared within a group, corruption being cshared by all those that have reciently attacked a killed non-combatant or corruption preventing players from being in a group) doesn't prevent players from killing others when ever they want. All it does is shift the paradigm just a little bit.

If you are in a group of 20 and want to kill one player, if any of these systems are in place, all you need to do is drop the group for a second. If you don't want to kill the player enough to drop group, then obviously you don't want to kill that player very much.

That's my point.
The proposition has no merit.
It fails to curb group griefing.
It hinders group fighting.

George Black wrote: »

It hinders group fighting.

I'll address this point first.

Group fighting should not be undertaken under the corruption system. I can't be more clear on this point. Any time a full group of players have reason to be involved in PvP, there is a system that should be taking over that is not corruption based.

That is the reason all the other systems exist.

There may still be cases where whole groups want to fight, but they should be very rare. None of the three systems proposed would prevent a group from doing this if they really wanted to do it.

It fails to curb group griefing.

This can be said of the corruption system as a whole if you want.

Taking this line of thinking to it's conclusion, the only way to prevent griefing is to prevent all forms of player interaction, including PvP. Obviously, that is rediculous.

The goal of these systems isn't to prevent griefing, as that is an impossible ask - even if it is parroted by some players as the purpose of them.

Rather, the goal of these systems is to influence player behavior to more desired avenues, but in a way where players are not prevented from killing someone they have reason to want to kill. The only thing the corruption system does is raise the threshold for where players will consider it worth it.

None of the three suggested ideas here would alter that. All of them allow players to still kill anyone they want to kill - which is as it should be. All any of the systems proposed would do is raise the threshold for when players in a group would consider it worth attacking others.

The notion that a suggestion would fail to curb griefing is really not something to even bother bringing up, as the only way to prevent griefing is to turn Ashes in to a single player game.

I just explained to you with 2 words that some times in a group v group encounter 1 player may not flag.

With the proposed system of this topic the winners have 2 options:
A. Let that green player rez their fallen members
B. Gain full group corruption.

It's dump.

As I have said a group of 20 people can still PK 1 person withour gaining group corruption. You said it yourself.
This proposition fails.

Corruption as a concept is here to prevent players from going on a killing spree. So it DOES NOT fail to address griefing.

That was it for today. Ill return to see how many pages this topic will reach with this pointless group corruption suggestion.

George Black wrote: »

I just explained to you with 2 words that some times in a group v group encounter 1 player may not flag.

With the proposed system of this topic the winners have 2 options:
A. Let that green player rez their fallen members
B. Gain full group corruption.

It's dump.

You aren't keeping up with the discussion.

There are three suggestions in play now, not one.

However, you also seem to be totally ignoring the fact that any reasonble reason for group vs grou pPvP to exist will be able to be undertaken outside of the corruption system.

akabear

@Noaani

Ah, Archeage. I got to play that for all but a few hours a few years back before region locked out of it.
Working in multiple different countries with region locks, shockingly poor connections pretty much killed the genre for a long period of time

I

played 21min of Bless Online, before I couldn`t stomach it and lasted only
14min with Albion Online when I gave that a shot!
I think Shroud of Avatar even less! Such a shameful mess of a game, made all the more disappointing as I had played Ultima from the very first.
Was all excited for Tera when it first came out only to be region locked.

From what I have read online, what Archeage doesn`t have in pvp gravity compared to L2, it well and truly makes up for by diversity and depth of things to do.

Linage 2 has aged and compared to what is available on the market now, but remains popular despite its age but is very much a niche. I tried going back after 5 years out and just couldn`t stomach the grind after playing other MMO`s that were no where near as demanding.

Only game that I have played since that was possibly more intense pvp than L2 was Age of Conan when it first came out. It was just a perpetual mess of opportunistic pvp when I first played. That pushed the boundary of what was acceptable.

But MMO`s in general have so much more to do, and this one is shaping up to have a lot of interesting options to pass the time

akabear wrote: »

But MMO`s in general have so much more to do, and this one is shaping up to have a lot of interesting options to pass the time

Agreed.

To me, this is why corruption can't be directly compared to karma. While each sysm is similar, they exist in games that are vastly different. As such, each of these two similar systems do serve a different purpose.

Noaani wrote: »

[
None of the three suggested ideas here would alter that. All of them allow players to still kill anyone they want to kill - which is as it should be. All any of the systems proposed would do is raise the threshold for when players in a group would consider it worth attacking others.

It's really hard to quantify the current threshold considering it hasn't been tested. I'm flat out against the idea of suggesting further corruption penalties until we get more details. As it stands right now all open world pvp involving groups will likely at the very least, risk corruption when initiating an attack until we know if the development team is open to creating some sort of manual flagging option or forced flagging once a member of a party engages in pvp (to prevent the holdout scenario) I see no reason to continue any discussions related to corruption penalties.

Gizban

Noaani wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

It fails to curb group griefing.

This can be said of the corruption system as a whole if you want.

The goal of these systems isn't to prevent griefing, as that is an impossible ask - even if it is parroted by some players as the purpose of them.

Rather, the goal of these systems is to influence player behavior to more desired avenues, but in a way where players are not prevented from killing someone they have reason to want to kill. The only thing the corruption system does is raise the threshold for where players will consider it worth it.

George said 'curb', you say 'prevent' and tell him why he's wrong.

Curb ≠ prevent.
curb: to control or limit something that is not wanted
prevent: to stop something from happening or someone from doing something

I'm not sure if you are being dishonest or don't know what these words mean.

The goal of these systems is to CURB griefing.

The player flagging and corruption system are designed to curb griefing, by way of penalties in order to "influence player behavior", thereby preventing some instances of griefing.

We can see that by the fact that the attacker gains a higher penalty for killing a lower level player, the golden standard for griefing.

George Black wrote: »

I just explained to you with 2 words that some times in a group v group encounter 1 player may not flag.

With the proposed system of this topic the winners have 2 options:
A. Let that green player rez their fallen members
B. Gain full group corruption.

What you seem to be missing is that in Ashes, the focus of group v group encounters is objective-based PvP - Castles Sieges, Node Sieges and Caravans.
1 player may not flag is irrelevant.
Group v Group is intended to occur where Corruption is not a factor.
I think, most likely, we should expect full group Corruption in order to "curb" group v group combat that is not part of Caravans or Sieges.
But, we need more details about how the system works.
Great example for a Livestream question.

Dygz wrote: »

What you seem to be missing is that in Ashes, the focus of group v group encounters is objective-based PvP - Castles Sieges, Node Sieges and Caravans.
1 player may not flag is irrelevant.
Group v Group is intended to occur where Corruption is not a factor.
I think, most likely, we should expect full group Corruption in order to "curb" group v group combat that is not part of Caravans or Sieges.
But, we need more details about how the system works.
Great example for a Livestream question.

This seems naive to consider the focus of group pvp to be limited to objective based pvp. Do you consider certain EXP spawns, loot spawns, dungeon bosses, dungeon camps etc all to have no merit for group pvp?

In one of the streams Steven was asked about a scenario if two groups show up at the same camp and want it. He offered the following suggestions:
1) that they could talk it out and see how long the group who was there first would be
2) coordinate a shared rotation
3) fight over the spawn

Now I imagine this is going to be classified as a hunting ground subject to corruption in the example above, so it seems likely that corruption due to group pvp can and will occur outside of objective based pvp.

Yeah, if you notice, two out of those three options avoid combat.
I didn't use the word never - that is a word you introduced.
(also, I purposefully used the word curb rather than the word prevent)

You suggested that group vs group is intended for objective based pvp which is primarily what I'm in disagreement with you over. While it's obvious that the objective based pvp is no doubt group vs group by design it by no means is suggestive that group vs group where corruption is present is not intended. Corruption is not designed to curb group vs group combat or at least has never been stated as such anywhere that I've seen it discussed or written.

The hunting ground group vs group pvp will be a catalyst for nearly all of the objective based pvp to feed from. Their entire class system is being designed and balanced for group vs group pvp does it not seem to reason that mostly all pvp in the game will come down to group vs group? Since this is a rather vague term it could be 2v2, 5v8 or 24vs40 all in corruption flagged content.

You should probably read everything I wrote for proper context rather than just lifting out one bit out of context and running with that.

Sure let me know if this summary is sufficient to understand your context within reason.

Dygz: Believes that group combat is not intended for hunting ground(s), further punishing groups that partake in hunting ground pvp with more corruption is the correct way to limit group pvp from occurring during hunting ground(s).

Does that sum it up or did I miss anything?