How can we improve corruption and world pvp?

As it stands the community seems split on this topic, pvers seem to like the udea of corruption and harsh penalties for pking and pvpers seem to hate it, i myself think think the concept is good but the design is extremley flawed, at no point in time should a player drop armor/ gear as a result of dying in pvp, resorces and materials i can live with, so instead of having a 100 comment long argument lets brain storm some ideas to make it better for both parties,

On another post i read this week someone mentioned an idea of having corruption not come into play if you are attacked at night time, i think this is super cool and emersive, also corruption could be like a 15 minute debuff of stats after you PK but you dont lose materials or armor, what are your thoughts? For a pvx game that is mostly designed around pvp in my opinion the corruption system is way over the top, maybe there could be some zones that you are flagged in and others no

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

akabear

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Chicago wrote: »

On another post i read this week someone mentioned an idea of having corruption not come into play if you are attacked at night time, i think this is super cool and emersive

This is an interesting idea, although I don't think it would work in an mmorpg. It's common in single-player games to have more dangerous creatures come out at night, but most of the time these games have a way of changing the in-game time so you can choose whether to play at night or day time.

In an mmorpg, you can't do this, and it would suck if the only times you could play were when it was night time in game and you had to deal with the PKers or miss out on most of the game.

Actually, in L2 with the better XP mobs coming out at night only in certain areas, it created more intese pvp and pk over the xp hot spots.. so whilst not quite the same, similar.. and worked very well..

Strongest players in terms of pvp or stamina for risk and alertness got to xp at those spots!

akabear

Hard to discuss this topic for those that never played under similar rule sets.

In early L2, the fact that a red had a chance to drop a considerable amount of gear if killed made the decision to pk only for those with high risk tolerane.. so the number of pk`ers were few and infrequent..

The softening of the rule set came later..

Ashes rule set has set the bar quite low and is set for the risk adverse, sadly the stories, the wars and policing and chance to pull community and alliances together over the drama that pk`ing creates will be a lesser social draw than it created in L2

hleV

I think the risk of dropping a gear piece is a good deterrent to griefers/mass-murderers, but I'm strictly against activating this RNG for low levels of corruption, when it's not obvious that the person is a griefer/mass-murderer.

There are different kinds of people. To some, this is a non-issue because they will weight the risk and never PK someone who doesn't fight back. Meanwhile another person may go for that one PK. Should that one person now risk losing a precious item which they worked hard and long for? No, I think it'd be a big mistake to make it so, as the punishment becomes way too harsh then.

It's important to remember that even without gear drop RNG, dying as corrupted has increased mat drop and exp dept, which to me seems already good enough to deter most people from PKing. I don't think the system is meant to deter it so much that there's no PKing whatsoever, so if you PK once and die, you received your punishment, but if it RNG procs a good gear piece drop, thatt can cause a major dissatisfaction with the game and ragequits, which could've been avoided by moving this mechanic to higher levels of corruption.

BeOwningU

I think op might be confusing pvp like caravans, sieges, and ocean combat with mercilessly killing low gatherers over and over.

Just do the meaningful pvp events and you won't drop gear. Kill low level players, gatherers, or simply troll people who are already in mob fights and you get the mechanics you deserve.

Noaani

hleV wrote: »

I don't think the system is meant to deter it so much that there's no PKing whatsoever, so if you PK once and die, you received your punishment, but if it RNG procs a good gear piece drop, thatt can cause a major dissatisfaction with the game and ragequits, which could've been avoided by moving this mechanic to higher levels of corruption.

Every attack that causes corruption has a chance of causing the person being attacked to ragequit.

That is why this balance is in place. If you chose to perform an action that may cause someone else to ragequit, the game may force an action on you that may cause you to ragequit.

You don't need to be a griefer or mass murderer for attacking someone to cause them to want to leave a game.

Caww

NiKr wrote: »

Caww wrote: »

can we merge this with the following 107 comment thread and skip the part where we all repeat ourselves?

You don't understand! This thread is not for arguments

Dang!!! You're right - English is not my first language...

Solvryn

The one thing we can’t fix is how soft some gamers are.

Ludullu

hleV wrote: »

Should that one person now risk losing a precious item which they worked hard and long for? No, I think it'd be a big mistake to make it so, as the punishment becomes way too harsh then.

It's important to remember that even without gear drop RNG, dying as corrupted has increased mat drop and exp dept, which to me seems already good enough to deter most people from PKing. I don't think the system is meant to deter it so much that there's no PKing whatsoever, so if you PK once and die, you received your punishment, but if it RNG procs a good gear piece drop, thatt can cause a major dissatisfaction with the game and ragequits, which could've been avoided by moving this mechanic to higher levels of corruption.

And what if instead of this whole pointless argument we just keep telling Intrepid that we want the first few PKs to be very quickly clearable? Huh? Wouldn't that be swell? Why must you even die after your first PKs? And if you don't die - the item drop is not even an issue.

There! Issue solved by not existing.

Mag7spy

^translation from above "Get gud"

Kilion

Chicago wrote: »

so instead of having a 100 comment long argument lets brain storm some ideas to make it better for both parties,

No, we can't just act like this is where the conversation needs to happen. Lore wise and from a lead designer perspective, the corruption system will stay in the game, as Steven said it "it [an element of the core design] is not up for debate". From a community "management" perspective, the risk to drop gear is an intentionally implemented risk to discourage anti-social behavior or as Intrepid also calls it "griefing".

In the October 2022 live stream Steven said they aim at a balance of risk for being attacked and deterring griefing and it is intended in the game design to make that deterrence very real. The behavior that gains someone corruption is seen by Intrepid as corrosive for the targets game experience (e.g. "farming" low level players for their gatherables to progress ones artisan skills) to a presumably critical point, actions that could result in that level of game disruption are what the system intends to make significantly more risky. And losing a piece of what gives a character 40-50% of its power is definitely a way to achieve that. Also it is worth mentioning that there is only a chance to drop gear, not a guarantee. And lastly mentioned in the stream I would like to point out that the system is not finished yet, it will be subject to change after being tested live.

Edit: From an Interview that Steven gave, the chances for completed gear to be dropped on death as a corrupted player are not equal. A weapon will have a lower chance to be dropped after one PK and in general the chance to drop gear will most likely be extremely low overall to begin with.

The reason why "just" four times the gatherable drop amount is not enough is because it wasn't that players loot to begin with. No griefer will take a sack full of his own mats out on a field trip to rob someone.

Chicago wrote: »

On another post i read this week someone mentioned an idea of having corruption not come into play if you are attacked at night time, i think this is super cool and emersive, also corruption could be like a 15 minute debuff of stats after you PK but you dont lose materials or armor, what are your thoughts? For a pvx game that is mostly designed around pvp in my opinion the corruption system is way over the top, maybe there could be some zones that you are flagged in and others no

I don't think 15 min and no increase in drop amounts and range of potential drops is appropriate.

But before this goes on and on in circles: Why do you want to be able to PK low level characters or other unwilling players outside of the PvP events so badly, that you want the punishments for it to be removed? Why are caravans not good enough? Or encountering an enemy guild? Defending your guild castle or attacking a Castle Node?

akabear

Again, without a measurable impact to these penalities their impact is unknown.

L2 end game XP loss through death in pvp was highly impactful. A quick skirmish round of pvp of only 5-10min could mean a good 3-5 hours of XP to recover the loss...45min-90min per death in the pvp round.
High stakes, high pressure.. great adrenaline

Mag7spy

I'd almost want to say if you have nothing of value in your inventory the chance to drop equipped gear should be higher o.o.

To me that would improve pvp since you know corrupted players most likely will always hold onto loot to ensure their chance to drop gear isn't even higher. Making them a target and knowing you can always get some loot off them even more likely.

tautau

Simple enough, @Mag7spy It could work something like this:

If a red player dies, the possibility of dropping something would depend on variables like PK count, etc. Let's say that this calculation results in a 5% chance of dropping (roll a 1-5 on a 100 number table resulting in something dropping) and the dead player rolls a 3, so something they carry is going to drop.

This results in a 2nd calculation to find out what drops. Assume there are 15 gear/jewelry/weapon slots on a player and that we also have up to 45 additional inventory slots (just making up numbers). We cannot just roll on a 1-60 table to see which slot drops because a PKer's strategy would be to fill up all 45 inventory slots with junk to decrease the odds of a gear drop. Instead, we might roll on a 1-4 table and a 1 is something dropping from a gear slot and a 2, 3, 4 is something dropping from an inventory slot.

The 3rd calculation now rolls on the number of FILLED slots in the category chosen in roll #2. For example, if it is an item drop and there are 12/15 item slots filled on the dead PKer, then we roll on a 1-12 table for something to drop. Or, if it is an inventory drop and 31/45 slots are filled then we roll on a 1-31 table to see which inventory slot drops its contents.

Perhaps this is an individual who has a LOT of PKs, or for some other reason game rules determine they will drop more than one slot. If they are going to drop 3 slots, we just go through the calculations three times, or however many times is necessary for the number of drops.

I recall a few times back in L2 when I killed a deep red player and they popped like a pinata and left a pile of items/stuff on the ground. Best drops of the game are red players!

You all, please feel free to find flaws in the above system!

Noaani

tautau wrote: »

Simple enough, Mag7spy It could work something like this:

If a red player dies, the possibility of dropping something would depend on variables like PK count, etc. Let's say that this calculation results in a 5% chance of dropping (roll a 1-5 on a 100 number table resulting in something dropping) and the dead player rolls a 3, so something they carry is going to drop.

This results in a 2nd calculation to find out what drops. Assume there are 15 gear/jewelry/weapon slots on a player and that we also have up to 45 additional inventory slots (just making up numbers). We cannot just roll on a 1-60 table to see which slot drops because a PKer's strategy would be to fill up all 45 inventory slots with junk to decrease the odds of a gear drop. Instead, we might roll on a 1-4 table and a 1 is something dropping from a gear slot and a 2, 3, 4 is something dropping from an inventory slot.

The 3rd calculation now rolls on the number of FILLED slots in the category chosen in roll #2. For example, if it is an item drop and there are 12/15 item slots filled on the dead PKer, then we roll on a 1-12 table for something to drop. Or, if it is an inventory drop and 31/45 slots are filled then we roll on a 1-31 table to see which inventory slot drops its contents.

Perhaps this is an individual who has a LOT of PKs, or for some other reason game rules determine they will drop more than one slot. If they are going to drop 3 slots, we just go through the calculations three times, or however many times is necessary for the number of drops.

I recall a few times back in L2 when I killed a deep red player and they popped like a pinata and left a pile of items/stuff on the ground. Best drops of the game are red players!

You all, please feel free to find flaws in the above system!

I personally think this is just making it more complicated for no reason, but also leads to a generally less punishing end result - meaning less of a deterrent.

In your example, the chances of dropping an item I care about have gone from 5% down to 1.25%,

I personally am much more of a fan of simply preventing inventory access (or at least preventing gear swapping/unequipping), and leaving that drop chance at 5% in your hypothetical. This leaves players knowing that the gear they use to gain corruption is the gear they stand to lose.

To me, there is a simple elegance to this as a mechanic, it is something that is easy for players to understand from a conceptual point of view. When it comes to any system around which payers may make important decisions, keeping this as simple as possible is always a good idea, imo.

It really depends on what your goal is. If you are after a system to determine a drop from either inventory or equipped gear, then the above works. That just isn't what I would personally want from such a system.

ariatras

I have no idea how it will play it in this game. I'm more then willing to see how it'll play out.

With that said, I do have some ideas.

First, I would have any system be part of the lore and be explained in those terms. So if I kill a player and I get corruption, why do I not get corruption if I kill a wolf, let's say.

As such, I would probably scrap the corruption system (Keep in mind I don't really understand how it works currently) and use a reputation system instead. You start out with neutral relations. If you do things that would effect the node you're in negatively, your reputation goes down, to the point where you cannot visit the city without everyone being aggressive, or even the gates just not opening for you. Just for that node though. During war time, this might even raise your reputation with the opposite city-state.

I would add another "city-type" but with some added restrictions, and some restrictions removed. For example, you can form a bandit camp of sorts, in a place that already has a node. A place to store the valuables you steal during caravan raids. Even bandits work together. I would also add an option to improve reputation, paying an outstanding fine, for example. People gravitate towards that sort of playstyle, some don't. In theory, in can create intrigue, for example, city-state B sponsoring and supplying the outlaws. In exchange for them taking the other's caravans. There could be protection rackets etc.

They already plan to have systems in place like caravans. Supply lines basically. It would make sense for city locations not to be equal. Some might have a lot of fish, others are in a tropical place and produce exotic fruits. If you make these goods an actual physical commodity you'll create trade networks in an organic, non-forced manner.

I would make every stage of a city require an amount of materials, and consume an amount of materials. People need to eat, and a varied diet is important. And the amount of production a city makes depends on the activity of its citizens, the mayor of a city will be tasked with allocating resources and funds (NPC guards and such need a wage)

Why would there be bandits, living in a city clearly seems better? Yes, well, as a gold sink, I'd introduce a taxation system, and bandits/outlaws would obviously not have to pay taxes.

Finally, I would make the prices of goods variable. Some goods may be harder to obtain then others, and it would be different per city. A city full of orchards would have a lower price for fruits then a city located in a sandy desert for example. But also, if a city is unable to secure it's supply lines, and goods can't come in, the price would also rise, despite, maybe the goods being relatively common.

Rare goods would be coveted, and that way you would promote strife.

Not all that thought out, of course, but I think as a baseline idea it's pretty neat.

Triple

Chicago wrote: »

As it stands the community seems split on this topic, pvers seem to like the udea of corruption and harsh penalties for pking and pvpers seem to hate it, i myself think think the concept is good but the design is extremley flawed, at no point in time should a player drop armor/ gear as a result of dying in pvp, resorces and materials i can live with, so instead of having a 100 comment long argument lets brain storm some ideas to make it better for both parties,

On another post i read this week someone mentioned an idea of having corruption not come into play if you are attacked at night time, i think this is super cool and emersive, also corruption could be like a 15 minute debuff of stats after you PK but you dont lose materials or armor, what are your thoughts? For a pvx game that is mostly designed around pvp in my opinion the corruption system is way over the top, maybe there could be some zones that you are flagged in and others no

As a Pvper, I have no problem with this system.
The only way you would drop armor is if you are the player attacking another non flagged player then the player that does the grieving would be open to an armor drop at some point.
If I decide I want to attack a non flagged player, then I get what is coming to me and If I think I can handle it, then let the games begin

There is a way that this could become a problem, but it is in a different way than what you think and would require some organization and more than one player.

https://ashesofcreation.wiki/Corruption

akabear

I hope the degree of the risk and hence penalty will be measured by the scarcity and/or expense of droppable items and the sheer effort be that xp time, or wealth generating to replace as well as the grind time to burn off, ability to burn off in quiet areas, and how inhibiting any other inhibitors are.. until then.. alot of speculation

akabear

What if Mayors had node tools to manage that assisted with regulating pvp / pking each with cost / benefit just general intent direction below not solutions

Increase regional guarding (higher pk penalty) at a high point or tax cost, snow running - cold zoning
Decrease pk penalty for own citizens (purge non-node players) increase pve drops - hot zoning
Increase residents running, decrease drops

Essentialy having all range of combinations for offsetting one benefit against at a series of selected costs

BaSkA_9x2

Most people who'll test Alpha 2 & Beta are somewhat invested in Ashes and a big part of these people will play the game after launch regardless even if it's bad - at least until they run out of "free" membership.

I believe that an issue Ashes will face is that Alpha 2 & Beta won't actually demonstrate if some systems are good or bad, including the Corruption System. Even worse, the testing phases might actually return a false positive when deciding if something works or not because of some biases most of the backers seem to have.

Once testing resumes I hope that carebears and PvE players won't have their opinions shutdown in the testing forum area like they are today, because I'm not sure if Ashes will have a healthy player base if it doesn't minimally cater to these kinds of players.

Now, talking specifically about the way the Corruption System currently works, I think it's theoretically fine the way it is. It probably only needs a few adjustments here and there, but the core of it should work. I'm not concerned about it as much as I'm concerned about the potential of zergs ruining the game, for example.

Noaani

BaSkA_9x2 wrote: »

I believe that an issue Ashes will face is that Alpha 2 & Beta won't actually demonstrate if some systems are good or bad, including the Corruption System\.

This is true.

It's a thing I've been saying here for a few years again. An alpha or beta is able to test a system to see if it is functioning as intended - but it is not going to see if players interact with it as intended.

You can test systems and mechanics in a test, but not players.

Child Item