Regarding the wording when it comes to PVP, "corruption".

I was thinking about this and i find the word corruption off-putting, why just not got with playerkiller state and deaths should be "unjustified" and "justified".
Or maybe blend it in together with the corruption word, if there is a court where of players decides the penalty for x person who's been killing unjustified then the words would be meaningful and important.

As there is not a lot of information how the PvP mechanics will play out I'm just putting this out here

Just a thought,

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

CROW3

I believe the word choice is lore-based, but I may be wrong. Keep in mind corruption is a punishment for murdering other players - participating in sanctioned pvp events (e.g. caravans, sieges, arenas, etc) does not result in corruption.

Noaani

Blund wrote: »

I was thinking about this and i find the word corruption off-putting, why just not got with playerkiller state and deaths should be "unjustified" and "justified".

Because corruption as a theme is a core part of the games lore.

It would be odd if players that visibly look corrupted in Ashes are called anything other than corrupt.

Aerlana

Corruption come from lore.
to be simple, to avoid to being corrupt, our characters ran away from verra with the help of a goddess, and when the game will begin, it is when the characters come back to verra (exception : tulnars)
The corruption brought by the ancient and the others is still a thing in verra. and could affect anyone.

In technical way. Because there is the question, there is the "combatant" (purple) and "non combatant" (green)
When green character attack another character, he turns purple, you can also just turn "combatant mode" on and become purple this way.
When a combatant kills a non combatant, he become a corrupted or "red player" Anyone can attack a red player without any change of his own tag (so non combatant character can hit and kill a red player, and remain "green" ). The corruption grow for each green player the red one will kill.

This system is automatic, and its aim is simply to limit some bad behaviour. PvP game for some people means "kill them all until they stop playing" ... better avoid it

Here is the wiki page about corruption :
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Player_corruption

Blund

Even if it's due to lore i believe it's good to use the word where it fits,
regarding to the line where you stated "The corruption brought by the ancient and the others is still a thing in verra. and could affect anyone."
This has nothing to do with the actual actions of a player who plays the game, this indicates that something has taken over the character and that's why it's corruption.

The wording is misleading and probably will be confusing to players, but maybe it's not that big of a deal.
but the word will probably be confusing for players.

So if the word corruption has to do with the lore, then keep it there and don't mumble it along with player actions in the game I feel.

Maybe something that dev's could think about and decide about, just spitting thoughts here.

Noaani wrote: »

Blund wrote: »

I was thinking about this and i find the word corruption off-putting, why just not got with playerkiller state and deaths should be "unjustified" and "justified".

Because corruption as a theme is a core part of the games lore.

It would be odd if players that visibly look corrupted in Ashes are called anything other than corrupt.

Again if it's lore then it's just that... why would the players actions be the cause of by some corruption that is defined in the lore of ashes?
The freedom of doing choices in the game is something that people enjoy and to call someone corrupted as if a player didn't do it on own his accord just feels weird, but maybe I'm looking to much into this but again I believe this to be confusing for people.

I will leave this as it's just my thoughts, no one has to agree with me. Better to put up thoughts about the game so managers/devs can get ideas

Noaani

Blund wrote: »

Again if it's lore then it's just that... why would the players actions be the cause of by some corruption that is defined in the lore of ashes?

That isn't how things are.

Perhaps read up a bit on it before forming opinions on it.

The basics are that corruption exists in Verra. Player actions can cause that corruption in to the player character. The corruption didn't begin with the players action, the player action let the existing corruption in.

George_Black

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeKhbtog_pI

Here have a watch. This is how open world combat will take place when not inside PvP zones, either as sieges or caravans.
This 4 min video shows everything.

The word corruption has 2 meanings in AoC. The first is lore related. The second is about the open world PvP system protection.

Atama

Blund wrote: »

I was thinking about this and i find the word corruption off-putting, why just not got with playerkiller state and deaths should be "unjustified" and "justified".
Or maybe blend it in together with the corruption word, if there is a court where of players decides the penalty for x person who's been killing unjustified then the words would be meaningful and important.

As there is not a lot of information how the PvP mechanics will play out I'm just putting this out here

Just a thought,

Corruption should be off-putting; it's a bad thing and it happens to you because you've done a bad thing.

Blund wrote: »

The freedom of doing choices in the game is something that people enjoy and to call someone corrupted as if a player didn't do it on own his accord just feels weird, but maybe I'm looking to much into this but again I believe this to be confusing for people.

Think of corruption as the Dark Side of the Force from Star Wars. It is something that changes the character due to making the wrong choices and opening themselves up to evil. Except unlike the Dark Side, there is no overall benefit. It doesn't make you more powerful, it makes you weaker.

While I say there is no overall benefit, that's not to say there is no reason to become corrupt. There are intangible reasons and tangible reasons. The intangible reason might be that the player wants to engage in that playstyle, where they kill players who haven't consented to PvP. Maybe they like to kill off weaker enemies, maybe they see an opportunity where they catch someone alone in the middle of nowhere and figure they'll get away with it. Maybe they were angered by that player. Maybe they think it's funny to kill people not expecting to be attacked, or maybe they think being the "bad guy" is cool. It could be any of those reasons or more than one.

The tangible reason would be that the person they killed will drop quite a bit of resources; double what they would drop if they were flagged for PvP. In the short term at least this could be pretty lucrative. That is until you die with corruption, in which case you have a very heft death penalty (and might even drop gear at high levels of corruption) and of course taking on corruption lowers your stats as well. And you also open yourself up to bounty hunters who might hunt you down for the reward, and unflagged players can attack you without flagging as if you were a regular monster. The developers want to make it not worth it to take on corruption, yet allow you to make that choice anyway.

Aerlana

Blund wrote: »

The freedom of doing choices in the game is something that people enjoy and to call someone corrupted as if a player didn't do it on own his accord just feels weird, but maybe I'm looking to much into this but again I believe this to be confusing for people.

the corruption is still a thing when our characters come back to verra.
It is easy to consider it like a "magical infection" that wait the "good weakness" in a living body to enter in.
So, some bad behaviour, like killing an innocent (non-combatant character is a pacific one...) and so, each time you do it, corruption enter your body.

Even more corruption damper your stats for PvP fight. In many universe "corruption" will alter and or transform the affected entity, or at first, make it weaker.

Maybe i am false. . .

The main problem with naming a thing is being clearly understood, allow people to understand each other.
Many of the AoC player will have no care about the lore. Myself who likes to learn about different lore of the different game i play, if some games mechanic like this doesn't have lore explanation... i really don't care. i love lore but first i want a well made game.
the main question is "does corrupted/corruption does a good job to be sure everyone understand we speak about "red characters"

Corrupted is not a such bad word for doing it, could be "criminal" also for example, but even with criminal there would be people pointing some problem with this word. For me, it is mainly a question of personnal feeling.

cyanideinsanity

Blund wrote: »

The wording is misleading and probably will be confusing to players, but maybe it's not that big of a deal.
but the word will probably be confusing for players.

Its really not confusing. Its easily explainable in a simple flowchart. More confusing would be your example of a court system. Now killing a green, purple, or red could lead to gaining corruption or not, whereas now its only if you kill a green.

At the end of the day all games have their own lingo, and even mechanics, and players simply have to learn.

RocketFarmer

Corruption is comparable to the Dark Side in Star Wars.

You could gain corruption from interacting with the environment or by making evil choices in game. The act of involuntary PK outside the PVP themes seems to be considered as evil to the Creative Director.

And unlike the Dark Side in Star Wars, Corruption in AoC appears to be irredeemable as opposed to a faction-based system which Star Wars lore seems to focus on. Although I would say that Star Wars is a little deeper in that few are 100% Light Side or Dark Side. Each person has a little bit of both within. That’s essentially Lucas lifting directly from Joseph Campbell, who lifted directly from Carl Jung, who liftefrom various human religious cultures.

The fact that a player can work off the corruption would indicate the gods have some room for forgiveness in the wayward character. It sounds to me that the fight against corruption is the central theme of the game, so the system in place to handle PK activity makes perfect sense. Of course, Corruption and the Calamity could just be the background to some other main story yet to be revealed. I think good game worlds have many layers to it to experience and explore.

Arriving from Sanctus, I assume the players are pure, that is free of any corruption. So their goal is to build a new world to restore it from corruption. That’s not to say characters in Verra won’t have a dichotomy in them, it’s just so far it appears to be a battle of the pure versus the impure. Perhaps the Tulnar have a dichotomy in them, which would make that race interesting in its own right.

Sathrago

Corruption is only confusing if they do not explain what corruption is. They have clearly explained what corruption is so the only thing confusing here is your ability to comprehend their explanation.

Blund

Another youtube clip that goes in about "corruption story line"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9DIrU31M4M

Sathrago wrote: »

Corruption is only confusing if they do not explain what corruption is. They have clearly explained what corruption is so the only thing confusing here is your ability to comprehend their explanation.

This could be the case, I'm just to dumb/stupid to comprehend this... But then again you don't see what I'm actually saying either so it could be that you are just ignorant.

To clarify it's the wording and what the word means and if it has almost two meanings it would be confusing. But then again I would have no bigger issues with it as I understand to some degree the principle about it but my point still stands.
Read up on corruption here;
https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption

And all I do here is to mention my thought about it, but good of you to clarify that you have no problem with it.

Noaani

Blund wrote: »

To clarify it's the wording and what the word means and if it has almost two meanings it would be confusing.

Corruption in Ashes is a well defined concept with only one meaning.

It is no ones fault but your own if you are confusing that with any other possible meaning.

I mean, you seem to grasp the concept that a crime in a game is not the same as a crime in the real world, therefore you grasp the notion of a game concept being different to a real concept.

Corruption in Ashes is a game concept that is removed from any notion of corruption you may wish to associate it with, and is it's own thing.

Blund

Noaani wrote: »

Blund wrote: »

To clarify it's the wording and what the word means and if it has almost two meanings it would be confusing.

Corruption in Ashes is a well defined concept with only one meaning.

It is no ones fault but your own if you are confusing that with any other possible meaning.

I mean, you seem to grasp the concept that a crime in a game is not the same as a crime in the real world, therefore you grasp the notion of a game concept being different to a real concept.

Corruption in Ashes is a game concept that is removed from any notion of corruption you may wish to associate it with, and is it's own thing.

Yes, but in order to deal with players they should aim for somewhat simplicity for understanding the game hence my comment.
You don't make a game just in order to confuse the playerbase, to implement words in a game that are not in relation what a word actually means can be confusing, sure there is of course a touch of fantasy and to implement lore with a word where it stretches however in this case corruption is more than just the corruption of a player, if you read it's about Lore, PVP, Nodes, Areas with corruption ("corruption storm") etc.

For you guys who is munching Ashes QA every day might not have an issue with it, and it might not be a big issue, but it's just my opinion. No need to be rude.

Noaani

Blund wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Blund wrote: »

To clarify it's the wording and what the word means and if it has almost two meanings it would be confusing.

Corruption in Ashes is a well defined concept with only one meaning.

It is no ones fault but your own if you are confusing that with any other possible meaning.

I mean, you seem to grasp the concept that a crime in a game is not the same as a crime in the real world, therefore you grasp the notion of a game concept being different to a real concept.

Corruption in Ashes is a game concept that is removed from any notion of corruption you may wish to associate it with, and is it's own thing.

Yes, but in order to deal with players they should aim for somewhat simplicity for understanding the game hence my comment.
You don't make a game just in order to confuse the playerbase, to implement words in a game that are not in relation what a word actually means can be confusing, sure there is of course a touch of fantasy and to implement lore with a word where it stretches however in this case corruption is more than just the corruption of a player, if you read it's about Lore, PVP, Nodes, Areas with corruption ("corruption storm") etc.

For you guys who is munching Ashes QA every day might not have an issue with it, and it might not be a big issue, but it's just my opinion. No need to be rude.

I've been in discussions on these forums (and the old forums) for years.

Literally no one has had any issue in understanding the concept of corruption. It is already a simplified concept.

I think the issue here is your understanding of the meaning of the word 'corruption'. At it's core, corruption deals with the change from good to bad - whether that is in a persons honesty or in data on a drive (two of the more common uses for the term), but corruption is also a term that can be applied correctly to spoilage - as in an apple being corrupted by rot.

That core meaning of the word corruption (changing from good to bad) is exactly what is at play in Ashes. Again, it is no ones fault but your own if you do not understand this.

Blund

Noaani wrote: »

Blund wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Blund wrote: »

To clarify it's the wording and what the word means and if it has almost two meanings it would be confusing.

Corruption in Ashes is a well defined concept with only one meaning.

It is no ones fault but your own if you are confusing that with any other possible meaning.

I mean, you seem to grasp the concept that a crime in a game is not the same as a crime in the real world, therefore you grasp the notion of a game concept being different to a real concept.

Corruption in Ashes is a game concept that is removed from any notion of corruption you may wish to associate it with, and is it's own thing.

Yes, but in order to deal with players they should aim for somewhat simplicity for understanding the game hence my comment.
You don't make a game just in order to confuse the playerbase, to implement words in a game that are not in relation what a word actually means can be confusing, sure there is of course a touch of fantasy and to implement lore with a word where it stretches however in this case corruption is more than just the corruption of a player, if you read it's about Lore, PVP, Nodes, Areas with corruption ("corruption storm") etc.

For you guys who is munching Ashes QA every day might not have an issue with it, and it might not be a big issue, but it's just my opinion. No need to be rude.

I've been in discussions on these forums (and the old forums) for years.

Literally no one has had any issue in understanding the concept of corruption. It is already a simplified concept.

I think the issue here is your understanding of the meaning of the word 'corruption'. At it's core, corruption deals with the change from good to bad - whether that is in a persons honesty or in data on a drive (two of the more common uses for the term), but corruption is also a term that can be applied correctly to spoilage - as in an apple being corrupted by rot.

That core meaning of the word corruption (changing from good to bad) is exactly what is at play in Ashes. Again, it is no ones fault but your own if you do not understand this.

You keep repeating "It's your own fault~"
At this point there is no need replying anymore.

Good that no one sees it as a problem, it's only me.
You want me to apologize or something? Years of being on forums made you probably numb on emotions hence your lack of kindness. It's fine have a nice day.

Aerlana

Listen... you complain that you are confused with "corruption" to define red player.
You consider that using corruption is considering that those acts are not from player choices.
For now, there is not lot of people (you) who is confused with it.

Words are important thing, and because of this, a bad choice can be discussed and maybe changed... But also, There is no use to change things that only a really small part of the players are confused. Even more when the system is well explained.

I explained to friends watching me on alpha 1 how the game works to avoid a big brainless gankfest. no one was confused with "corruption" and "corrupted character"
There were different speaks on the forum, you are the only one feeling confused about it...

Also you consider that "corrupted player" is because the RP says "he did this because he was corrupted" But the reality is different "because he does this act, he allows corruption to infect him"
just moving a little the order of events makes things far more meaningful and far less confusing

Child Item