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

Noaani

@Dygz welcome back.

Dygz wrote: »

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.

This is something I agree with, completely.

There have been three suggestions put forward in this thread for easy ways Intrepid could resolve issues that absolutely will result from groups attacking other players if there are only consequences for the player that deals the killing blow. However, since we don't actually know what Intrepid have planned for this, those three suggestions are all just things that "could" be done "if" there is nothing else in place.

A big part of the problem right now - and a big part of the reason for the last 2 or 3 double digit page threads - has been a few people thinking this game will be Lineage 3, rather than being it's own thing. They are looking at the corruption system as being almost the same as the karma system from L2, and just assuming the rest of the game is intended to be the same.

What they are either forgetting or purposfully ignoring is the fact that PvP in Ashes is a support system to the base of the game - the node system. This is as opposed to L2 where the game was about nothing other than PvP. Even though the PvP system of both games are very similar, they are forgetting to take in to account that each system is in a different ecosystem, and as such needs to perform the same job, but with a different outcome.

Nagash

CROW3 wrote: »

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.

🥱

You get used to it

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

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.

I see where you're getting with that if you take a portion of responses out of context like normal.

Dygz wrote: »

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.

Would you not agree in the context that "Curb" has been presented in this thread it would = Limit essentially the way this reads to me is that he wants to force through corruption penalties GvG combat into a box of objective based play. To word it differently, he wants to cause GvG play outside of objective based to be encumbered by corruption so that people refrain from it.

The issue I take with this general understanding of how the game "should" play is that the reality is Nodes will be in direct competition with their neighboring nodes for weeks, months and years after launch. Does it not seem reasonable that neighboring nodes would "raid" exp/quest zones to slow down progression? How do you expect most people to find and fight Caravans? Do you not believe they will have to roam in hunting grounds looking for Caravans to attack which then may result in GvG pvp outside of the Caravan? When guild wars are going on do you not expect guilds to travel in groups and come into conflict with others outside of the guild vs guild objective? Consider how a lot of faction based MMOs work once a faction enters another's general area/zone it's relatively typical for the "home" faction to recruit to push them out is it not? Do you anticipate this to never occur or be part of the normal game play? How about all of the contested dungeons and EXP areas in the game when groups go looking for loot and levels do you not believe they would travel in groups and possibly stumble upon other groups, should they not fight over these?

Can you see how all or some of these actions would then result in a reaction of the opposite side retaliating and the process repeating.
It would then stand to reason there will be and should be GvG pvp in droves that is not directly "corruption curbed" to the Caravans or Sieges.

Dygz

lmao
As you literally, once again, take my quotes out of context and try to reframe them.
noanni properly understood what I wrote and where you failed to understand what wrote.

What I see is that you don't like the proposed rules because you want to play the game differently than what is intended.
Ashes is soccer. L2 is American football.
You are complaining because you want to be able to use your hands to control the ball in soccer like you can in American football.

Every couple of months these forums have a debate about whether the Corruption mechanic is too harsh for hardcore PvPers or not harsh enough to suit PvE-only and casual PvPers.
We need to actually play to meaningfully assess the Corruption mechanic, but...again... the focus of Ashes PvP is on objective-based PvP...Caravans/Node Sieges/Castle Sieges.
Group v Group PvP can happen outside of the battlegrounds mentioned above, but yes, Corruption is being implemented specifically to limit that, rather than encouraging free-for-all skirmishes being the primary form of PvP combat.
Just because Ashes Corruption is similar to L2 Karma does not mean that the focus on PvP combat is the same in both games. The focus is not the same in both games.

Tyrantor

Dygz wrote: »

but yes, Corruption is being implemented specifically to limit that

Source?

Dygz

The source is any discussion with Steven about Corruption and Objective-Based PvP combat.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

What I see is that you don't like the proposed rules because you want to play the game differently than what is intended. Ashes is soccer. L2 is American football.
You are complaining because you want to be able to use your hands to control the ball in soccer like you can in American football.

This concept of 'play the game as intended' has come up in other threads as well, and I think it's over-simplifying the game. I'll extend your sports theme. Ashes is less like a soccer game, which is both linear and binary, and more like a track meet.

In a track meet there are all different types of events running, jumping, throwing, etc. While there are binary events - such as sprints - there are a lot of solo events as well. Meets have a number of organizations (nodes) represented at any given time. Each event has their own set of rules, but there is also a higher-level framework that is used to manage the meet.

I'd argue that corruption is one of those higher-level frameworks that will govern how to curb griefing in a number of different scenarios. But there isn't just one way that rule is intended to be applied or used. It's a sandbox after all.

Dygz

Well, basically there is just one rule that is intended to be applied or used where Corruption is concerned.
Either you're in an area where Corruption is possible or you are not.
I don't see how your track meet analogy works at all. What is your metaphor for Corruption?

In my analogy, the metaphor for Corruption is the rule governing controlling the ball with your hands. In Soccer the rule does not completely prevent controlling the ball with your hands, but it does curb it significantly.
There is are designated areas where you can use your hands and designated areas where you cannot.

That analogy is intentionally an oversimplification.
"Play the game as intended" is not an oversimplification as far as I can tell.
If you complain that you don't like the rules of the game and you want the rules to be changed - that inherently means you don't want to play the game as intended.

Tyrantor

Dygz wrote: »

The source is any discussion with Steven about Corruption and Objective-Based PvP combat.

I'd wager you're simply projecting your expectations on what you hear then. Corruption has been laid out very plainly to "curb" griefing - group vs group is in no means griefing if that's how you view it then I can see why you would have this opinion. You may note that the corruption/flagging system is intended to "curb" ganking and spawn camping as specific examples.

The conflicts created in the hunting ground GvG play will have a snow balling affect on the objective based pvp systems.

Noaani

Tyrantor wrote: »

I see where you're getting with that if you take a portion of responses out of context like normal.

I took it out of context to highlight the discrepency.

Dygz said the focus og group v group PvP is in sieges, caravans, guild wars and other battlegrounds. This happens to be something I have been trying to tell you for months now.

You quoted him and said that he said that he thought the focus of group v group PvP was LIMITED TO sieges, caravans, guild wars and other battlegrounds.

These are not the same thoughts.

As an example, the focus at McDonalds is on burgers. However, they do not limit themselves to only selling burgers.

If you attempted the same argument, you would be trying to say that me saying the focus of McDonalds is burgers is the same as me saying they limit themselves to burgers.

Again, this is a totally different though - yet is the argument you are trying to make.

Tyrantor wrote: »

I'd wager you're simply projecting your expectations on what you hear then.

I assume you realize this is exactly what you are doing.

---

Also, neighbouring nodes are more likely to be on good terms for most of the game, rather than fighting. The reason for this is that most players will look at their node cluster as their "home" rather than their specific node.

Players that are crafting will need neighbouring nodes for resources and infrustructure (a single node is unlikely to be able to build everything, not even a metropolis).Guilds will want their members to be in the node that is most benefitial to the individual player, and players will look at node type, religion and social organization (and to a lesser extent, race) to determin which node is best for them.

As such, most guilds will have members spread across several nodes within a given metropolis cluster, and as such will look at the entire cluster as their "home", as every node is either feeding or is fed by it's neighbour, and is providing members of the guild with value.

Dygz

Tyrantor wrote: »

I'd wager you're simply projecting your expectations on what you hear then. Corruption has been laid out very plainly to "curb" griefing - group vs group is in no means griefing if that's how you view it then I can see why you would have this opinion. You may note that the corruption/flagging system is intended to "curb" ganking and spawn camping as specific examples.

The conflicts created in the hunting ground GvG play will have a snow balling affect on the objective based pvp systems.

You can wager whatever you want. I have actually discussed Corruption and Objective-Based PvP directly with Steven several times in the past 4 years...as well as watched several interviews with him discussing the game design with others.

This topic is not just about Group v Group PvP combat.
This topic is about Group v Solo PvP combat.
Corruption is designed to curb Group v Solo PvP combat aka ganking/griefing.
And, the devs have stated repeatedly that they want the PvP combat in Ashes to be meaningful, rather than just free-for-alls.

So, yes, people will have the option to engage in PvP combat in dungeons and to compete over world bosses if they want to. But, if people feel the Corruption penalties are too harsh, they can go PvP in the battlegrounds - which is free from Corruption.
If you feel the Corruption mechanic hinders group fighting in the open world, go fight in the battlegrounds.

CROW3

Dygz wrote: »

This topic is not just about Group v Group PvP combat.
This topic is about Group v Solo PvP combat.
Corruption is designed to curb Group v Solo PvP combat aka ganking/griefing.

Yep. I think we're in agreement at a high-level. I think where @Noaani and I were agreeing earlier was how to appropriately calibrate corruption to achieve the goal above, without having exploits (for lack of a better word) that would allow folks to game the corruption system to murder greens without a commensurate downside/deterrence.

For all the discussion, it's just going to take a lot of field testing w/rapid changes and feedback to find the right balance.

Dygz

CROW3 wrote: »

Yep. I think we're in agreement at a high-level. I think where @Noaani and I were agreeing earlier was how to appropriately calibrate corruption to achieve the goal above, without having exploits (for lack of a better word) that would allow folks to game the corruption system to murder greens without a commensurate downside/deterrence.

For all the discussion, it's just going to take a lot of field testing w/rapid changes and feedback to find the right balance.

Yes. As far as I know, I don't have a dog in that race.
😉

Tyrantor

Dygz wrote: »

This topic is not just about Group v Group PvP combat.
This topic is about Group v Solo PvP combat.
Corruption is designed to curb Group v Solo PvP combat aka ganking/griefing.

Dygz wrote: »

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're sending mixed signals. Are they curbing group vs solo or group v group because you've said both or is the intention to curb all non objective based pvp? lol

Atama

Tyrantor wrote: »

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

I’m not even sure why I bother.

Again, greens are not always non-combatants. I posted the info already in this thread. If a green is attacked by a red and fights back, he stays green. He will die as green and takes on the same penalty as a non-combatant would in that scenario. I’ve already posted this, with the chart showing this and everything.

Now you might argue that this is stupid and a green who fights back should turn purple. I completely agree. If Intrepid made that change this would no longer be an issue and I wouldn’t care. But so far our info is that if you are green, a red attacks you, and you fight back and lose then you die a green and the red who kills you gets corruption, and you get a double death penalty.

That’s why this matters. But this has already been pointed out, in this thread and elsewhere. No wonder us old-timers on the board get crusty.

Dygz

Tyrantor wrote: »

You're sending mixed signals. Are they curbing group vs solo or group v group because you've said both or is the intention to curb all non objective based pvp? lol

My signals are not the problem. You're inability to perceive nuance is the problem.
But...if there were no intention to curb non-objective-based PvP combat, Corruption would not be a mechanic at all.
Again, there is a difference between curb and prevent.

Tyrantor

Atama wrote: »

Now you might argue that this is stupid and a green who fights back should turn purple. I completely agree. If Intrepid made that change this would no longer be an issue and I wouldn’t care.

If this is your stance on the subject I would fully support the quoted words above. This should be the argument being made on corruption not spreading the corruption. Of course also the toggle would help in this situation.

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

So far our info is that if you are green, a red attacks you, and you fight back and lose then you die a green and the red who kills you gets corruption, and you get a double death penalty.

"So far our info is that if you are green, a red attacks you, and you fight back and lose then you die a green and the red who kills you gets corruption, and you get the normal death penalty."
There. I fixed it for you.

akabear

Under the proposed mechanics I can see multiple ways the system could be played out,
My own experience form L2, which under the current proposed system I already see possible.
And have no problem with.

Green as the Griefer
There were plenty of times that a group of greens were the key protagonist inciting/enraging/upsetting another player through actions or text sufficiently that that a player or group of players was prepared to go red on the green for the pure intention of ganking them for their gear. This included the team being prepared to take multiple uncontested deaths, rezzing after death, taking another uncontested death, all the while working for the end goal of making the other red enough to then kill them for their gear.

Imbalanced Pvp
It was more common to have an over powered individual or duo than a party go around killing everyone indiscriminately. Early game before the clans and in-game politics develop it was common, after than the occasional rogue, more frequent one way pvp to incite a clan war, or clans that did not care about an agreed war to kill and then the very occasional individual that wanted to quit game with a death wish or just be an ass.

PvP
Sometimes a clan at war had a pve party with a non-clan member. This was to fill the party needs. It was not uncommon for the waring clan, when finding the pve party, to take out the entire party including the non-combatant, non-waring clan member. Sometimes this was political to express discontent for that clan mixing with others, to divide clan relationships and sometimes it was to ensure that there were not any members left standing to ressurect the players so they could either a) fight back or b) resume playing in the area once the dust settled or c) do a thorough job of it

PK reducing quest
Most clan members, and self included, would make it a necessity to have done the quests to keep your pk count down so you are ready to pk at any time with minimal consequence. AoC system is not fully known, but under that system, there was rarely the need to utilize a small groups combined pk potential.

So it will be interesting to see how AoC system implements.

Tyrantor

Dygz wrote: »

Tyrantor wrote: »

You're sending mixed signals. Are they curbing group vs solo or group v group because you've said both or is the intention to curb all non objective based pvp? lol

My signals are not the problem. You're inability to perceive nuance is the problem.
But...if there were no intention to curb non-objective-based PvP combat, Corruption would not be a mechanic at all.
Again, there is a difference between curb and prevent.

Let me ask you this. Why would they incentivize fighting back in non-objective based pvp combat if the intention was to curb it? The purple flag could be removed entirely from the "non-objective based pvp" to accomplish what you're suggesting.

It's convenient that you're apparently the only person who's witnessed these interviews and direct conversations with Steven to suggest what you are don't you think?

Child Item