Griefing the flagging system, and a solution.

Scenario:

Guild 1 and Guild 2 are having a big open world PvP fight. 80 Players in the same area with damage and healing going all over the place.

50% of Griefing Guild 3 joints the battle naked flagged as Green, while Guild 1 and 2 are flagged as Purple. Their mission is to not heal each other to get flagged Purple themselves, but to run into the fight to get people in Guild 1 and 2 flagged Red.

Once enough players are flagged Red, the rest of the Griefing Guild 3 joins the battle and strategically picks off those flagged Red players to get free loot without much penalty.

Solution:
We know the game have systems to track player movement and actions through the node system. A solution to this would be to also track damage to make a heat-map for the world. If a Green player enters an area that have a lot of damage going on between two guilds, they are flagged as Purple as entering the battle, and can not grief by purposely dying while not fighting back to flag people Red.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked.

Also...

corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die.

this isn't true.

If you have any corruption, your stats are reduced against all non-bounty hunter players. Also, guards will attack you on sight, including the guards in your node.

You are right. Wasn't clear in the section I was looking but is in the general corruption section of wiki. That is something I would like to see changed... after some testing of course.

I'm a fan of these two aspects of corruption.

Specifically the stat penalty - in combination with non-combatant being able to attack corrupt players without needing to flag as a combatant.

These two factors combine to give corruption the ability to snowball out of control, which is a key aspect of it imo.

To me, this is the part of the corruption penalty that really adds that weight.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

The real decision/weight falls on the person who is attacked.

Also...

corruption has zero negative effects on someone until they die.

this isn't true.

If you have any corruption, your stats are reduced against all non-bounty hunter players. Also, guards will attack you on sight, including the guards in your node.

You are right. Wasn't clear in the section I was looking but is in the general corruption section of wiki. That is something I would like to see changed... after some testing of course.

I'm a fan of these two aspects of corruption.

Specifically the stat penalty - in combination with non-combatant being able to attack corrupt players without needing to flag as a combatant.

These two factors combine to give corruption the ability to snowball out of control, which is a key aspect of it imo.

To me, this is the part of the corruption penalty that really adds that weight.

So I dislike the stat dampening occurring after the kill. A pretty epic situation is to be the person who finally took down the notorious corrupted player and to do that by actually beating them.... not just because they had their stats reduced. Just seems like a weak ending to it.

I think there are enough other downsides to corruption that stat dampening could accrue and then be applied when the corrupted player dies.

The major problem I see with non combatants staying non combatant is if they die they are hit with the non-combatant death penalty instead of the combatant death penalty... They could make a work around but it just seems unnecessary to me.

I still see this system as a whole actually encouraging WPvP by punishing people who don't fight back. Really hope it all works out that way.

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

I still see this system as a whole actually encouraging WPvP by punishing people who don't fight back. Really hope it all works out that way.

It does do that, at least a bit.

The way it looks to be set to work is that if you are all good for a fight, you will likely fight back. If you have something to lose, you will likely fight back. If you are not carryign much in the way of materials and aren't that interested in a fight, you probably won't fight.

Again, it is important to remember that Ashes is not a PvP game - it is a PvX game. There are legitimate reasons why people may not want to PvP at times, and the corruption system needs to assist in making this happen.

It isn't just about getting more people fighting in PvP - because the game is about more than just PvP.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Again, it is important to remember that Ashes is not a PvP game - it is a PvX game. There are legitimate reasons why people may not want to PvP at times, and the corruption system needs to assist in making this happen.

It isn't just about getting more people fighting in PvP - because the game is about more than just PvP.

See, the issue I have with this interpretation of PvX is that you make it sound like the two are not intertwined when the system clearly does otherwise. Players should enter the game understanding that there will be pvp when they go out to pve. If you go into this game expecting to avoid pvp you are in for a rude awakening. The design will not allow you to peacefully roam about and purely pve.

Killing npcs is not the games standard, and neither is roaming around doing nothing but killing players. It is a combination of both. So we need a system that allows players to participate in pve content without grevious amounts of griefing but also allows players to compete with each other in an impactful way.

Hell, I'm half a mind to suggesting that you cant gain corruption from players equal to or higher than your level. However I'll hold back on that until we have some actual playtesting happen.

insomnia

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Percimes

Xyls wrote: »

I think you are forgetting a major design in the flagging system... and that is a player will receive twice the death penalties for dying as a non-combatant vs. dying as a combatant. [...]

Non combatant = death penalty
Combatant = half the death penalty
Corrupted player = 4x the death penalty.

If you insist on putting the normal death penalty at the combatant level, you should also point out that, once corrupted, a death would mean 8x the death penalty. Is getting red worth it in all circumstances now? You could suffer a lot more than your initial target. Especially if they had nothing of value on them or no chances of winning anyway.

Sathrago

Percimes wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

I think you are forgetting a major design in the flagging system... and that is a player will receive twice the death penalties for dying as a non-combatant vs. dying as a combatant. [...]

Non combatant = death penalty
Combatant = half the death penalty
Corrupted player = 4x the death penalty.

If you insist on putting the normal death penalty at the combatant level, you should also point out that, once corrupted, a death would mean 8x the death penalty. Is getting red worth it in all circumstances now? You could suffer a lot more than your initial target. Especially if they had nothing of value on them or no chances of winning anyway.

That's not what he was saying at all. I believe he wants 4x green 1x purple 4x red.

Meaning defending yourself should be the standard response to being attacked.

I would say this would work out well if they kept the gear loss for corrupted players and removed the stat dampening. Corrupted players still risk more and still get attacked by city guards and are still hunted by both bounty hunters and anyone else that feels like it.

Green players shouldnt just martyr themselves to purely punish other people for daring to attack them in a PvX game. You wouldn't let someone kill you in a competitive game like CoD or smash bros, and you certainly wouldn't do it in real life just because the other person would go to jail if apprehended.

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

I really don't expect to see much in the way of large scale consensual guild wars until a good while after the bulk of the players involved have a few characters at the level cap.

This is, honestly, where 99% of the game is going to be played.

Seems odd to think of it like that as guilds will be in direct competition during node leveling which would be from day one. Obviously people would likely choose their max level characters to participate in these when available it likely won't be prohibitive in advance of it.

I plan on running my level 1 alt around in open world pvp groups to force max corruption on everyone because we don't have a toggle of course.

Percimes

Sathrago wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

I think you are forgetting a major design in the flagging system... and that is a player will receive twice the death penalties for dying as a non-combatant vs. dying as a combatant. [...]

Non combatant = death penalty
Combatant = half the death penalty
Corrupted player = 4x the death penalty.

If you insist on putting the normal death penalty at the combatant level, you should also point out that, once corrupted, a death would mean 8x the death penalty. Is getting red worth it in all circumstances now? You could suffer a lot more than your initial target. Especially if they had nothing of value on them or no chances of winning anyway.

That's not what he was saying at all. I believe he wants 4x green 1x purple 4x red.

Meaning defending yourself should be the standard response to being attacked.

I would say this would work out well if they kept the gear loss for corrupted players and removed the stat dampening. Corrupted players still risk more and still get attacked by city guards and are still hunted by both bounty hunters and anyone else that feels like it.

Green players shouldnt just martyr themselves to purely punish other people for daring to attack them in a PvX game. You wouldn't let someone kill you in a competitive game like CoD or smash bros, and you certainly wouldn't do it in real life just because the other person would go to jail if apprehended.

He was describing the current system, not how it should be (in the part I quoted at least).

It's not about being a martyr. It's about using the rules of the game to your advantage. It's just another tool to consider when death isn't permanent. The main competitive parts of AoC are objective pvp oriented: castle siege, caravans, world boss and all those things in which the participants will be combatants by default. If even competitive, going to hunt random players is a loop sided enterprise, largely favouring the attacker.

I know I might sound like I'm against open world pvp, but it's not the case. I just want to paint a clear picture of what it is without the glorification twist some people give it nor the blood bath apocalypse some fear it is.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Again, it is important to remember that Ashes is not a PvP game - it is a PvX game. There are legitimate reasons why people may not want to PvP at times, and the corruption system needs to assist in making this happen.

It isn't just about getting more people fighting in PvP - because the game is about more than just PvP.

See, the issue I have with this interpretation of PvX is that you make it sound like the two are not intertwined when the system clearly does otherwise.

The two absolutely are intertwined.

PvX as a term is a bit muddled, it's kind of just made up. As such, we don't have a great definition for it,and so we each make up our own.

My definition for it, in relation to a PvP or PvP/E game is from the perspective of two players encountering each other in the open world.

Let's say you and I run across each other, you want to attack me, I want to di what ever it is I was doing.

In a PvP/E game, you would only be able to attack me if we were in a PvP area (whether those areas are I stanced or open world is up to each developer).

In a PvP game, you could attack me and I would have no say in the matter.

To me, a PvX game needs to fall in the middle of that somewhere, and it is up to the corruption system to see that this happens.

So, in Ashes, you can attack me if you wish, but I can make it obvious to you that killing me will result in a larger penalty to you than you may be willing to take. You can still kill me if you really want, but I am able to encourage you to not, which would allow me to go about my business.

Xyls

Noaani wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Again, it is important to remember that Ashes is not a PvP game - it is a PvX game. There are legitimate reasons why people may not want to PvP at times, and the corruption system needs to assist in making this happen.

It isn't just about getting more people fighting in PvP - because the game is about more than just PvP.

See, the issue I have with this interpretation of PvX is that you make it sound like the two are not intertwined when the system clearly does otherwise.

The two absolutely are intertwined.

PvX as a term is a bit muddled, it's kind of just made up. As such, we don't have a great definition for it,and so we each make up our own.

My definition for it, in relation to a PvP or PvP/E game is from the perspective of two players encountering each other in the open world.

Let's say you and I run across each other, you want to attack me, I want to di what ever it is I was doing.

In a PvP/E game, you would only be able to attack me if we were in a PvP area (whether those areas are I stanced or open world is up to each developer).

In a PvP game, you could attack me and I would have no say in the matter.

To me, a PvX game needs to fall in the middle of that somewhere, and it is up to the corruption system to see that this happens.

So, in Ashes, you can attack me if you wish, but I can make it obvious to you that killing me will result in a larger penalty to you than you may be willing to take. You can still kill me if you really want, but I am able to encourage you to not, which would allow me to go about my business.

You are making it way too complicated. It's simply if you want to PvE, you better be ready to PvP to do it. If you want to be the best at Pvp (gear wise, stats, etc.), you better be ready to PvE.

And in regard to your last paragraph, you forgot a key word... in that killing you MAY result in a larger penalty. If they kill you and just go back to gaining xp the corruption will get worked off before any real penalty is realized.

Xyls

insomnia wrote: »

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Because why go through the process of coding a system if we can come up with a better system before they start. These are just ideas being thrown around and is healthy in game development. Nobody is threatening to quit or not play if their ideas aren't picked up by intrepid, that's nonsense.

This is why these forums exist, to brainstorm about the game. Most stuff will never be picked up and used in game, but there is still a chance that a good idea could get implemented.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take a break from these forums.

Percimes

Xyls wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Because why go through the process of coding a system if we can come up with a better system before they start. These are just ideas being thrown around and is healthy in game development. Nobody is threatening to quit or not play if their ideas aren't picked up by intrepid, that's nonsense.

This is why these forums exist, to brainstorm about the game. Most stuff will never be picked up and used in game, but there is still a chance that a good idea could get implemented.

Yes and in that spirit... I think the most interesting proposition coming out of this thread is the expansion of the guild vs guild system from a few hours event to a semi-permanent war status. What are your thoughts on how it should work and what are the exploits that we should look onto with the current proposed/known mechanics of the game? (Leiloni proposed the same earlier but we started arguing rather that getting on with it)

Should there be conditions aside from time period or surrender for the war status to end? Is there a "prize" for winning the war, like a bet between the guild, or it's simply for the fun of rivalry (and having more occasions to pvp)

Should the conflict be public knowledge? Inspect someone and see if his guild has a rival. Because my next point...

How does this affect groups of mixed guilds? In an event of a few hours it's not really an issue, but if the status is permanent some people could be dragged into this. What if guild a and b are at war and 2 groups consisting of players of different guilds come against each other because one group has member(s) of guild a while the other has member(s) of guild b and both groups have members of guild c?

oophus already pointed out the problem with joining or leaving a guild to exploit the system. If the war is permanent how do we solve this? Put a timer for either options before they become effective? Make it so that it can only be done in a town, city or above? Can be done at any time but only become effective when entering a town? This alone can change how the whole guild recruiting system works, even for the guilds not at war.

How is the permanent war interact with the corruption system? Obviously players from warring guilds should not generate corruption no matter if one is combatant or not, but what happens if one is already corrupted? Is the corruption penalties effective or should the other player be considered a bounty hunter for this situation?

These are my thoughts so far.

Xyls

Percimes wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Because why go through the process of coding a system if we can come up with a better system before they start. These are just ideas being thrown around and is healthy in game development. Nobody is threatening to quit or not play if their ideas aren't picked up by intrepid, that's nonsense.

This is why these forums exist, to brainstorm about the game. Most stuff will never be picked up and used in game, but there is still a chance that a good idea could get implemented.

Yes and in that spirit... I think the most interesting proposition coming out of this thread is the expansion of the guild vs guild system from a few hours event to a semi-permanent war status. What are your thoughts on how it should work and what are the exploits that we should look onto with the current proposed/known mechanics of the game? (Leiloni proposed the same earlier but we started arguing rather that getting on with it)

Should there be conditions aside from time period or surrender for the war status to end? Is there a "prize" for winning the war, like a bet between the guild, or it's simply for the fun of rivalry (and having more occasions to pvp)

Should the conflict be public knowledge? Inspect someone and see if his guild has a rival. Because my next point...

How does this affect groups of mixed guilds? In an event of a few hours it's not really an issue, but if the status is permanent some people could be dragged into this. What if guild a and b are at war and 2 groups consisting of players of different guilds come against each other because one group has member(s) of guild a while the other has member(s) of guild b and both groups have members of guild c?

oophus already pointed out the problem with joining or leaving a guild to exploit the system. If the war is permanent how do we solve this? Put a timer for either options before they become effective? Make it so that it can only be done in a town, city or above? Can be done at any time but only become effective when entering a town? This alone can change how the whole guild recruiting system works, even for the guilds not at war.

How is the permanent war interact with the corruption system? Obviously players from warring guilds should not generate corruption no matter if one is combatant or not, but what happens if one is already corrupted? Is the corruption penalties effective or should the other player be considered a bounty hunter for this situation?

These are my thoughts so far.

I wrote up this proposal for guild wars a few months ago (has since fallen into the forum abyss). I'm sure it's not perfect and could still have questions but I think it would provide a fun and rewarding system.

https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/46676/lets-talk-about-guild-wars-in-aoc/p1

At the very least I think there needs to be an option where two guilds can go to war indefinitely with the only way to end it is surrendering or a guild disbanding... with the guilds being hostile with eachother (operates outside the corruption system) 24/7.

To answer some of your other points: As far as using the guild wars to contest areas and facing a mixed group... not much you can do except war with the prominent guild in the group or start multiple wars since you arent limited to one.

I know Steven wants guild wars to be included in the pvp leaderboards so if that is the route I guess there would need to be some kind of "winning objective". I think thats why what we know so far sounds like short prime time only objective based guild wars. I personally think that would be a mistake and would make it more like the other structured pvp we already have. I did try to keep the spirit of that in my proposal though while still allowing for longer wars.

insomnia

Xyls wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Because why go through the process of coding a system if we can come up with a better system before they start. These are just ideas being thrown around and is healthy in game development. Nobody is threatening to quit or not play if their ideas aren't picked up by intrepid, that's nonsense.

This is why these forums exist, to brainstorm about the game. Most stuff will never be picked up and used in game, but there is still a chance that a good idea could get implemented.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take a break from these forums.

I don't visit the forum very often. But i feel like there is constantly a new topic about it

Nagash

insomnia wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

insomnia wrote: »

How about we wait and see how it works, before people complain or have "fixes"

Because why go through the process of coding a system if we can come up with a better system before they start. These are just ideas being thrown around and is healthy in game development. Nobody is threatening to quit or not play if their ideas aren't picked up by intrepid, that's nonsense.

This is why these forums exist, to brainstorm about the game. Most stuff will never be picked up and used in game, but there is still a chance that a good idea could get implemented.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take a break from these forums.

I don't visit the forum very often. But i feel like there is constantly a new topic about it

That is because it is always going on and it never will :'(

Noaani

Xyls wrote: »

At the very least I think there needs to be an option where two guilds can go to war indefinitely with the only way to end it is surrendering or a guild disbanding...

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.

My first thing for not liking it is any game system where a guild disbanding is one of the potential designed outcomes is a bad system to have in a game. Players and thus subscriptions, leave the game when guilds disband, so it is in any game developers best interest - and in the best interest of their game and every player in that game - to encourage guilds to stay together.

The second reason I don't see a need for this any longer is that I just don't see a game system requirement in regards to guilds wanting to dislike each other.

If there is a guild that I and my guild actively dislike, we don't need a game system to tell us what to do. Nor do we need to avoid corruption when fighting them - in fact inflicting corruption on that rival guild seems to me to be a valid tactic.

I just don't see the up-side to a system like this, and see many downsides (most notably, people leaving the game due to their guild disbanding, which is one of only two ways to end a war). I mean, why do you need a system to remind you what guild you are supposed to not like?

Warth

[

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

At the very least I think there needs to be an option where two guilds can go to war indefinitely with the only way to end it is surrendering or a guild disbanding...

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.

My first thing for not liking it is any game system where a guild disbanding is one of the potential designed outcomes is a bad system to have in a game. Players and thus subscriptions, leave the game when guilds disband, so it is in any game developers best interest - and in the best interest of their game and every player in that game - to encourage guilds to stay together.

The second reason I don't see a need for this any longer is that I just don't see a game system requirement in regards to guilds wanting to dislike each other.

If there is a guild that I and my guild actively dislike, we don't need a game system to tell us what to do. Nor do we need to avoid corruption when fighting them - in fact inflicting corruption on that rival guild seems to me to be a valid tactic.

I just don't see the up-side to a system like this, and see many downsides (most notably, people leaving the game due to their guild disbanding, which is one of only two ways to end a war). I mean, why do you need a system to remind you what guild you are supposed to not like?

you clearly misunderstoos what he meant by that.

Disbanding the guild wouldn't be an actively used way to stop the war. Surrendering would be.
A guild disbanding would however clear all the wars they are a part of... duh. Otgerwise the opposing guild would be stuck in an indefinite unwinnable war.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

Xyls wrote: »

At the very least I think there needs to be an option where two guilds can go to war indefinitely with the only way to end it is surrendering or a guild disbanding...

The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me.

My first thing for not liking it is any game system where a guild disbanding is one of the potential designed outcomes is a bad system to have in a game. Players and thus subscriptions, leave the game when guilds disband, so it is in any game developers best interest - and in the best interest of their game and every player in that game - to encourage guilds to stay together.

The second reason I don't see a need for this any longer is that I just don't see a game system requirement in regards to guilds wanting to dislike each other.

If there is a guild that I and my guild actively dislike, we don't need a game system to tell us what to do. Nor do we need to avoid corruption when fighting them - in fact inflicting corruption on that rival guild seems to me to be a valid tactic.

I just don't see the up-side to a system like this, and see many downsides (most notably, people leaving the game due to their guild disbanding, which is one of only two ways to end a war). I mean, why do you need a system to remind you what guild you are supposed to not like?

Did the whole part about avoiding corruption just fly over your head? Why should players be punished with corruption if the guilds can just have a system that allow them to more freely interfere and contend with each other?

Not to mention he was not even talking about game shattering guild disbands, he's talking about an agreed upon risk of starting the war with the other guild. Loser disbands, or they give something up like guild wealth or maybe that guild has to pay taxes for the next month to the winning guild. These are just some ideas of what happens when/if a war is ended, be it by surrender or otherwise.

If people enter an agreement where their guild disbands they have only themselves to blame if it happens and many guilds would just go ahead and remake the guild like its nothing. You take your loss and move on, you don't cry and complain about your own decisions being Intrepids fault for letting you have the agreement in the first place.

Noaani

Sathrago wrote: »

Did the whole part about avoiding corruption just fly over your head?

Noaani wrote: »

Nor do we need to avoid corruption when fighting them - in fact inflicting corruption on that rival guild seems to me to be a valid tactic.

Nope, didn't fly over my head at all.

I consider using corruption to be a valid tactic in a war against another guild.

Sathrago wrote: »

Not to mention he was not even talking about game shattering guild disbands

You know me well enough to know that I likely have some specific points on a suggestion that I would disagree with.

To me, the suggestion here (that has been suggested before) has two major flaws. The first is the notion that guilds disbanding is an encouraged way to end this war mechanic - guilds are the key social unit in an MMO, and the game should be designed around protecting them, not around giving reasons for them to disband.

The entire point of a system like this from a game design perspective (the idea behind any guild vs guild system. or indeed any activity that is designed to be taken on by a guild) is to enhance the interpersonal connections you have with others in your guild, so that you stay in the guild longer, and thus stay in the game longer.

The actual fighting with another guild isn't the point, nor is winning or losing. All of these things are simply the activity that allows players to arrive at the point. If the system sees those guilds disband - even if only 10% of the time - the whole thing is self-defeating.

Anything at all that leaves a guild disbanding as a potential game system supported outcome is an absolute and immediate non-starter as far as I am concerned (and because this is such a foundational aspect of MMO's, I would have to assume that Steven and Jeff would agree with this - though I'd love to hear them answer a question as to whether they would consider a guild war with guild disbanding as the outcome for the losing guild).

The second is the lack of a specific duration - I can see reasons for a week long guild war system on top of the existing guild kerfuffle system that we have, but I don't see value in a game system for a guild altercation that has no specific time limit.

This last point is something I could easily just gloss over if I could see a point to a very long duration guild war. The thing is, I can't, as I said earlier.

If you are in a consensual fight with another guild and everything is all friendly and such, you wouldn't have any need to worry about corruption, as they would fight back.

On the other hand, if I was actually trying to mess with you and your guild, you had better believe that I would consider corruption a valid tool with which to do that, and so would refuse to join a war if that system meant I no longer had corruption to use as a tool.

Child Item