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

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

That is not what I wrote.
And, yes, you are missing significant portions of what I did write.

You missed out how L2 was providing 24/7 PvP sources, yet I said PK was still happening and nobody felt griefed.

Dygz

George Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

That is not what I wrote.
And, yes, you are missing significant portions of what I did write.

You missed out how L2 was providing 24/7 PvP sources, yet I said PK was still happening and nobody felt griefed.

That is irrelevant.
Ashes is not L2.

George_Black

Dygz wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

That is not what I wrote.
And, yes, you are missing significant portions of what I did write.

You missed out how L2 was providing 24/7 PvP sources, yet I said PK was still happening and nobody felt griefed.

That is irrelevant.
Ashes is not L2.

Ah.... who said anything about Ashes being L2?

You said "ashes has pvp activities. PK wont be a must"
I said another game had pvp activities. Pk still happened.

Are we talking the same language here?
And here we are 5 pages later moving away from the topic of whether a group of players should gain group punishment for attacking 1 non combatant.

George_Black

You have been given many explanations as to why this is:
An over reaction to being outnumbered
A failure to counter group ganging
A possible exploit

Yet you keep defending the idea that PK should spread to a group because you dont have the will to find friends and fight back and want the game to become more combat restrictive (asHeS hAs MaNY pvP eVEnts) because you are delusioned in thinking that 20 people want to find you alone and "win".

Typical forums, ego fights, no merit.
One more month for me and Ill start real testing and true feedback.
You keep at playing the intelectuals for pages unend.

George_Black

Here is a true corruption system improvement discussion:

Remember Steven saying that in addition to burning corruption status there will be activities to lower PK count?

How difficult SHOULD these activities be?
Should they be group focus? Lengthy? Challenging.
Should redemption for PKing be easy?

In previous "noN aSHes gAmes" I always stayed at 3 PK at all times to avoid dropping gear on death. Every time I'd easily do the redemption quest to lower my PK count to 0. Easily.

I am pretty sure nobody bothered taking note of this mentioning at the dev updates and interviews. Even more so nobody though it was a good topic to discuss.

I am of the opinion that reducing PK count (to avoid dropping gear while corrupted) should be a challenging task, to hold you accountable. That way griefers would think twice about killing random ppl often.

Dygz

George Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

That is not what I wrote.
And, yes, you are missing significant portions of what I did write.

You missed out how L2 was providing 24/7 PvP sources, yet I said PK was still happening and nobody felt griefed.

That is irrelevant.
Ashes is not L2.

Ah.... who said anything about Ashes being L2?

You said "ashes has pvp activities. PK wont be a must"
I said another game had pvp activities. Pk still happened.

Are we talking the same language here?
And here we are 5 pages later moving away from the topic of whether a group of players should gain group punishment for attacking 1 non combatant.

I have not moved from anything. On this page, I 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."

You responded:
"You missed out how L2 was providing 24/7 PvP sources, yet I said PK was still happening and nobody felt griefed."
You are the one who brought up L2 for whatever reason. And I said L2 is irrelevant.
I did not say PK won't be a must. I didn't even think that, so I definitely did not say it.
I also did not say, "Ashes has PvP activities."

CROW3

George Black wrote: »

Typical forums, ego fights, no merit.
One more month for me and Ill start real testing and true feedback.
You keep at playing the intelectuals for pages unend.

🥱

akabear

Reading large sections of the AoC wiki on pvp could be mistaken for reading an L2 wiki. They are very, very similar.

Given that L2 is a complete / working example such pvp mechanics, and AoC is a largely unpublic exposed / tested mechanic, L2 makes a solid point of reference for the time being and is quite relevant.

If there are other games that also overlap/referenced in this mechanic, then perhaps voice what they are too.

I can appreciate for some, that playing L2 under those mechanics, and reading and interpreting how those mechanics might work for those that didn`t play L2 might create a divided interpretation.

Suggest anyone in this thread that hasn`t already to read the wiki. It really does lay out what is likely to occur.

As far as I could read, whilst there will be plenty to fight over in dedicated areas, there is still potential for conflict fair or otherwise with consequences, just like L2.

Dygz

akabear wrote: »

[W]hilst there will be plenty to fight over in dedicated areas, there is still potential for conflict fair or otherwise with consequences, just like L2.

As far as I can tell, that is not in dispute.

Tyrantor

Dygz wrote: »

akabear wrote: »

[W]hilst there will be plenty to fight over in dedicated areas, there is still potential for conflict fair or otherwise with consequences, just like L2.

As far as I can tell, that is not in dispute.

It sure must be nice to claim everyone has no idea wtf you're getting at and then refusing to explain it just quoting your original post, because that has been working so far to get your point across.

Dygz

Tyrantor wrote: »

It sure must be nice to claim everyone has no idea wtf you're getting at and then refusing to explain it just quoting your original post, because that has been working so far to get your point across.

I wrote what I wrote.
If you have reading comprehension problems, that's on you.
But, you should probably focus on what I actually wrote, rather than make up stuff that I didn't write.

Katak

These forums should remain constructive and non-hostile.

@Dygz , You might try reinforcing or rephrasing your stance. If you've said all that you feel like saying, than perhaps just leave the discussion rather than antagonizing those that are trying to understand your explanation.

I didn't follow much of this thread, but I had to jump in just because of these last few posts.

Dygz

Any hostility comes from the attempt by others to take what I wrote in very clear and simple language, rephrase it, and then argue about stuff I did not write.

Instead of me rephrasing... people can also re-read what I wrote (since they are the ones who are mistaken),
then quote what I actually wrote and ask questions about that, rather than misquoting me and asking questions about things I did not write.
There should be no hostility involved in that.

Others can also choose to ignore what I've written. But, if someone misrepresents what I wrote, of course, I am going to comment on that.

CROW3

Just flipping this around a bit (I don’t know the answer to this question) - if multiple purples take a green down, who gets the loot from the green?

Dygz

Seems like that would be the same rules as a group looting a single mob.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

Seems like that would be the same rules as a group looting a single mob.

Yeah...That seemed like the most likely route. In which case I’d argue that corruption could leverage the same model.

Being able to gain benefit (loot) without cost (corruption) when murdering greens seems off.

Infamouse

I think people vastly over assume the amount of roving PK corrupted players there will be. While there will absolutely be some people who PK and love the thrill, that will be the absolute minority, these mechanics are absolutely phenomenal (primarily the reduced combat effectiveness with increased corruption and PK count). Literally no one is going to want to spend months leveling a character to end game, farming/crafting/raiding high end loot, and then just throwing it onto the ground to kill some random players. I have seen a lot of these type of threads but its mostly just a lack of experience playing within the system. If you're apprehensive I suggest that you simply give it a try once we get to launch and youll quickly understand that a lot of the fears that you have are based solely on paper and rarely if ever play out that way in game in a significant way. Its not worth fundamentally altering a system that has been proven to work, when you have already improved upon it.

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Seems like that would be the same rules as a group looting a single mob.

Yeah...That seemed like the most likely route. In which case I’d argue that corruption could leverage the same model.
Being able to gain benefit (loot) without cost (corruption) when murdering greens seems off.

Yes. And...my understanding is that the purpose of Corruption is to discourage ganking - like a group killing one pc. Seems to me that if it's just one person in the group who gets Corruption for killing one pc, that encourages ganking.
Especially true if the one ganker who makes the kill is getting buffs from the group. Even if they aren't in an official party, buffing the one ganker should cause the buffer(s) to flag purple. And seems like there should be Corruption repercussions if the victim dies.

Dygz

Infamouse wrote: »

If you're apprehensive I suggest that you simply give it a try once we get to launch and youll quickly understand that a lot of the fears that you have are based solely on paper and rarely if ever play out that way in game in a significant way. Its not worth fundamentally altering a system that has been proven to work, when you have already improved upon it.

That's true all around.
We don't have enough details about how Corruption will be implemented in Ashes.
We will have to play to know. And then we can have an informed discussion about what needs altering.

Noaani

Dygz wrote: »

the focus of group v group encounters

Tyrantor wrote: »

This seems naive to consider the focus of group pvp to be limited to objective based pvp.

I think I can see the issue here.

Child Item