Trash talk the Corruptin system

Let's friendly trash talk this system, we can do this without being asses, I am sure of it!

Bear with me,

There are many comments across various topics where people wonder about potential exploits or circumvention of game mechanics, as well as other dissatisfactions such as how looting and rights on PK loot will work. There are also debates about what constitutes fair PK and when it becomes "griefing", as well as the possibility of having too few PKs which could make bounty hunting unengaging and a dead end in the game

I've been asking myself the question "Why are there so many inquiries?" and I've finally realized that it is because the system is unnatural, unintuitive, and based on nothing but hatred towards PKs. It is a system which creates no content, no personal stories, no benefits for the node, no benefits for their victims and so on, nothing good comes from this system. The whole idea behind the system is corny.

Corny is the right word for today's model.

AoC has a political and node systems, but the corruption system is "spiritual" thing, it is a fiasco since the corruption system has no synergy with the other systems, it is just a boring dead end for the pks, victims and bounty hunters.

If the bounty hunter catches/kill them then they should face:

fines and bails: node policies
community service: repair walls, defend caravans, kill public enemies, kill node war targets
imprisonment: node should build structures and keep them there for some time
slavery: make them harvest rocks, lumber or any resources for the node and victims
face execution

Letting the PK do his little PvE for cleansing is just weird, dude just go harvest some flowers and kill some creatures around his freehold and he is clean again.

Well, the whole problem is this conundrum of "spiritual corruption", spiritual corruption should not make players puny, maybe they could take a bit of dampening in PvP against greens only, but they should purify their sins working for the community or the node!

Stats dampening should only be effective when the corrupted starts agression against a green player.

In today's model the corrupted player works for himself and purify his sins!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Songcaller

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

No. Corrupted aren't dampened in pve.

Not written in stone, I am already considering it will be changed which is the worst scenario!

Death penalties do not differ between Pvp and PvE, but this is subject to change.[62]

The more skill and stat dampening applies (lower health and mana, lower gear proficiency), until the corrupt player ultimately becomes ineffective at combat.[16][11][18][8][19][20] This dampening only affects PvP combat.[21]

Death penalties are different to corruption penalties.

Songcaller

Solvryn wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Corrupted have no penalties against bounty hunters. It's like purple on purple. To call that dull is to call all pvp dull.

Bounty Hunting ties into military nodes and has nothing to do with the religion system. If Corruption is a spiritual issue, why are they sending people from military nodes?

Why now, can we only gain corruption from being inside of lawful territories?

At this point, corruption isn't a spiritual issue. It's an issue of a territory and the territories laws.

I would love to be a bounty hunter from a Divine Node but when did you last see a priest bounty hunt?

Arya_Yeshe

It is quite absurd that PKers are penalized when fighting against purple players, but not when facing off against bounty hunters. It's a confusing situation, oh spiritual world, who get's you?

I think that the dampening effect should be removed entirely, and instead, PKers should be sent to jail as a form of punishment or completely enslaved.

Songcaller

Really, when corruption was attached to the military node alongside bounty hunters the devs should have moved bounty hunters to divine node rather than removed corrupted from the military node.

Percimes

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If people will be punished, at least make it interesting for everybody, including to the PK. Today's proposal is pretty much nothing, you will be in that corny dead end of corruption.

Hopefully, corruption will never turn into the smb kink you're trying to sell it to us. It will remain a pure punishment, no pleasure for anyone involved.

It takes two to make one corrupted, and they both pay a price. The green that never fought back suffer a normal death penalty (lost resources, xp debt, respanwing somewhere else and, mostly, time lost). The attacker gets corruption. At any point in their encounter one of them could prevent the corruption, but the final say is always in the hands of the attacker. Sure, there will be a few oopsies, but in most cases the player turning corrupted decided to do so.

Let's not forget that being green is the normal status everyone will be, and return to, while on the open world (ocean aside). Unless an area is quite active pvp-wise, most initial contact between players will be green vs. green. Everyone will have to decide if it's worthwhile to start a fight with someone else, and those opting for the easy circumstances of targets already being with mobs, or so low level compared to themselves, will run the risk of their prey having no chances to fight back and so getting corruption.

PKs are never victims. They knew the possible consequences and decided to go through anyway.

Solvryn

Neurath wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Neurath wrote: »

Corrupted have no penalties against bounty hunters. It's like purple on purple. To call that dull is to call all pvp dull.

Bounty Hunting ties into military nodes and has nothing to do with the religion system. If Corruption is a spiritual issue, why are they sending people from military nodes?

Why now, can we only gain corruption from being inside of lawful territories?

At this point, corruption isn't a spiritual issue. It's an issue of a territory and the territories laws.

I would love to be a bounty hunter from a Divine Node but when did you last see a priest bounty hunt?

I've never, but I've heard of Inquisitors hunt. Would be a damn good question for Intrepid to answer right?

Solvryn

Percimes wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If people will be punished, at least make it interesting for everybody, including to the PK. Today's proposal is pretty much nothing, you will be in that corny dead end of corruption.

PKs are never victims. They knew the possible consequences and decided to go through anyway.

No one is a victim when they read TOS understand what is going on and press the login button.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

If corruption is akin to karma and sin, karma and sin exist everywhere.

This is not what corruption is.

Corruption is the negative aspect of The Essence.

If you are going to a make an argument as to whether a game system makes sense based on the games lore (which is what you have done above), at least look in to the games lore a little bit.

It was a reference to actual real life mythos which in this case the system is closest to karma.

Of course, I read the lore and saw where Steven drew his inspiration.

If you read the lore, you wouldn't have equated corruption to karma.

The lore makes it *abundantly* clear that corruption isn't everywhere, making your point moot before you even made it.

Percimes

Solvryn wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If people will be punished, at least make it interesting for everybody, including to the PK. Today's proposal is pretty much nothing, you will be in that corny dead end of corruption.

PKs are never victims. They knew the possible consequences and decided to go through anyway.

No one is a victim when they read TOS understand what is going on and press the login button.

True, the rules are the rules, for everyone who login. So what have the PKs to complain about if they knew what the were getting into? Didn't they also read the TOS?

I hate to say it, but the game won't be for everyone. That goes for PvEers and PvPers.

Since the game isn't released yet, it's all fine to fight over the proposed implementations on these forums. But when it'll be live, we'll all have to judge if we're fine or not about the game.

Solvryn

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

If corruption is akin to karma and sin, karma and sin exist everywhere.

This is not what corruption is.

Corruption is the negative aspect of The Essence.

If you are going to a make an argument as to whether a game system makes sense based on the games lore (which is what you have done above), at least look in to the games lore a little bit.

It was a reference to actual real life mythos which in this case the system is closest to karma.

Of course, I read the lore and saw where Steven drew his inspiration.

If you read the lore, you wouldn't have equated corruption to karma.

The lore makes it *abundantly* clear that corruption isn't everywhere, making your point moot before you even made it.

lol. Really no point in talking to you anymore. Chew on that shoe.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

What happend, Nik. You used to back more bonuses for greens and harsher penalties for reds. Now you advocate for the opposite. Strange times.

I'm still for all of that, but in proper balancing. Completely fucking over the Reds, while not giving anything back to the greens, WHILE ALSO making BHs useless are all the things I've been against since the very start.

I just want a better interconnected system than the current one seems to be.

Solvryn

Percimes wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Percimes wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If people will be punished, at least make it interesting for everybody, including to the PK. Today's proposal is pretty much nothing, you will be in that corny dead end of corruption.

PKs are never victims. They knew the possible consequences and decided to go through anyway.

No one is a victim when they read TOS understand what is going on and press the login button.

True, the rules are the rules, for everyone who login. So what have the PKs to complain about if they knew what the were getting into? Didn't they also read the TOS?

I hate to say it, but the game won't be for everyone. That goes for PvEers and PvPers.

Since the game isn't released yet, it's all fine to fight over the proposed implementations on these forums. But when it'll be live, we'll all have to judge if we're fine or not about the game.

I'll hold my discernment on the "game isn't for everyone" till concrete decisions are made by Intrepid and Steven.

I don't think anyone here is fighting over the proposed corruption system. Rather wanting extreme clarity.

Arya_Yeshe

Not only are red players unable to walk freely in cities due to NPC guards attacking them on sight wasn't punishing enough, but there is also no city specifically designed for red players.

Green players will gain nothing from it, except for dozing off while picking mushrooms.

Solvryn

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Not only are red players unable to walk freely in cities due to NPC guards attacking them on sight wasn't punishing enough, but there is also no city specifically designed for red players.

Green players will gain nothing from it, except for dozing off while picking mushrooms.

I think people weaponizing being "PKd" needs to come to an end, not every person who "PKs" is bad for destroying a green, because some greens are obnoxious and do not possess the intellectual or moral integrity to have a genuine conversation.

At that point it's free game to destroy them, I have no sympathy for anyone who genuinely doesn't respect their own sentience.

tautau

If a player doesn't like the penalties that come with being Red, then don't go Red.

It is simple as that. Why would someone want to go Red? What does one gain by going Red? Do they have some weird twist to their psyce that makes them think that they are macho & tough if they go Red?

Someone infringing on what you think is your hunting spot? Make them force you out by going purple, and fight back. Or give them an unarmed hand slap for 1 point of damage so you are purple, which is a challenge to them to fight.

Someone badmouthing you? Turn off the sound.

You know the consequences of going Red, so you don't have much right to whine about those consequences when you make yourself Red.

Ludullu

tautau wrote: »

You know the consequences of going Red, so you don't have much right to whine about those consequences when you make yourself Red.

But if those consequence are huge and harsh, and everyone knows that, no one will ever fight back because why would they do that, knowing that no one would ever go Red due to those huge consequences. And now you effectively have turned your owpvp into a toggleable one.

Arya_Yeshe

tautau wrote: »

If a player doesn't like the penalties that come with being Red, then don't go Red.

It is simple as that. Why would someone want to go Red? What does one gain by going Red? Do they have some weird twist to their psyce that makes them think that they are macho & tough if they go Red?

Someone infringing on what you think is your hunting spot? Make them force you out by going purple, and fight back. Or give them an unarmed hand slap for 1 point of damage so you are purple, which is a challenge to them to fight.

Someone badmouthing you? Turn off the sound.

You know the consequences of going Red, so you don't have much right to whine about those consequences when you make yourself Red.

@tautau, it seems that you haven't read the messages in this thread. Many people here are actually in favor of the Corruption system, even with new consequences, as it provides more opportunities for greens, bounty hunters, and PKs.

Hardly anyone will be flagged as red, as Stephen was too hesitant to incorporate an option to disable PvP. However, given the proposed Corruption system, Intrepid could be more straightforward and include the option to disable PvP..

The point is that the current model is a flop, Intrepid could as well simply turn off the entire Corruption system and the flagging system should have only purple vs purple, greens doing PvE and turn off the Bounty Hunting.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

tautau wrote: »

You know the consequences of going Red, so you don't have much right to whine about those consequences when you make yourself Red.

But if those consequence are huge and harsh, and everyone knows that, no one will ever fight back because why would they do that, knowing that no one would ever go Red due to those huge consequences. And now you effectively have turned your owpvp into a toggleable one.

haha we posted the same thing at the same time,we are on the same page on this

it's pretty much the same as toggling pvp on and off, but Intrepid was too shy to do so since this would put the game in the hall of shame right of the bat

Solvryn

tautau wrote: »

If a player doesn't like the penalties that come with being Red, then don't go Red.

It's the same as if you know you can get ganked in open PvP, then don't click the login button.

tautau wrote: »

It is simple as that. Why would someone want to go Red? What does one gain by going Red? Do they have some weird twist to their psyce that makes them think that they are macho & tough if they go Red?

To body people they don't like, to kill people in the spawn they want to hunt at, to kill people strategically so they can prevent them from entering a siege.

There's many strategic and tactical reasons to go red that do not involve ego.

tautau wrote: »

Someone infringing on what you think is your hunting spot? Make them force you out by going purple, and fight back. Or give them an unarmed hand slap for 1 point of damage so you are purple, which is a challenge to them to fight.

tautau wrote: »

Someone badmouthing you? Turn off the sound.

-or- they can experience actual consequences more severe like being smashed.

tautau wrote: »

You know the consequences of going Red, so you don't have much right to whine about those consequences when you make yourself Red.

No ones whining, have some intellectual integrity and read the posts.

Noaani

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

If corruption is akin to karma and sin, karma and sin exist everywhere.

This is not what corruption is.

Corruption is the negative aspect of The Essence.

If you are going to a make an argument as to whether a game system makes sense based on the games lore (which is what you have done above), at least look in to the games lore a little bit.

It was a reference to actual real life mythos which in this case the system is closest to karma.

Of course, I read the lore and saw where Steven drew his inspiration.

If you read the lore, you wouldn't have equated corruption to karma.

The lore makes it *abundantly* clear that corruption isn't everywhere, making your point moot before you even made it.

lol. Really no point in talking to you anymore. Chew on that shoe.

This post makes no sense.

Corruption in Ashes isn't karma, because karma is everywhere, but corruption in Ashes isn't everywhere.

Child Item