A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.

The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

We will indeed see. I am mostly arguing from what corruption has been explained to be. You kill someone who can't fight back or won't fight back, you get corrupted. So naturally if someone engages you, why the hell should you gain even more corruption? It doesn't make sense as a gameplay design, and it doesn't make sense with the lore of corruption so far. It just feels like an extra kick in the nuts.

Because corrupted players become "mobs" and greens don't flag against those.

Also, this directly prevents the main abuse of the corruption system. If greens "flag" against reds - a red party can then just go on an absolute destruction spree, because everyone will be "flagging" against them. This is exactly what would lead to the very griefing the system is trying to prevent. There'd be no punishment for the PKer.

Where does it say corrupted players are mobs?

And this is actually incorrect. Everyone involved in what you just described is voluntary. The only people corruption protects against would not even be involved because those people aren't engaging in PvP to begin with. Corrupt players will still gain more corruption if they gank players who don't flag, increasing their penalties. But the players fighting back would simply not be the ones increasing corruption, as it is intended. Otherwise, why doesn't killing combatants give just slightly less corruption at all times? Because that would deter PvP, not griefing.

Voeltz

I've also considered what a 4th status would look like, but I think there are better solutions to what you are describing. On paper, getting all the penalties for going corrupt seems excessive for one kill. I would like to see corruption start with the lower levels of penalties (xp debt, durability loss, resource loss) and advance into percentages of stat dampening and gear loss chance at higher levels, say 2-3 kills. Killing Bounty hunters that come after you will not increase your corruption, so that helps. Your allies can protect you and heal you since they only get the combatant status until they kill a green. So really it would take a group to take you out unless you're running solo. There's a lot of loopholes in the current system if you consider a majority of people will be playing this game with a group of their friends or guild mates, and they're not going to let their corrupt friends go down easily.

HumblePuffin

To be honest instead of a whole added flagging status I just think the rules should be consistent and if you attack someone no matter their status you become a combatant.

It’s already less risk to attack a red player due to stat dampening, plus you’re able to open up with CC on them, and the reward is potentially much greater. Greens staying greens when attacking is pretty overkill in the deterrent department from my perspective.

Dolyem

Voeltz wrote: »

I've also considered what a 4th status would look like, but I think there are better solutions to what you are describing. On paper, getting all the penalties for going corrupt seems excessive for one kill. I would like to see corruption start with the lower levels of penalties (xp debt, durability loss, resource loss) and advance into percentages of stat dampening and gear loss chance at higher levels, say 2-3 kills. Killing Bounty hunters that come after you will not increase your corruption, so that helps. Your allies can protect you and heal you since they only get the combatant status until they kill a green. So really it would take a group to take you out unless you're running solo. There's a lot of loopholes in the current system if you consider a majority of people will be playing this game with a group of their friends or guild mates, and they're not going to let their corrupt friends go down easily.

I agree with the levels of corruption. I have said it many times on these forums that there should be many variables determining how much corruption you gain, and not have such extreme penalties for killing 1 or 2 same level players who decided not to fight back. Could it ramp up quickly? Sure. Maybe once you hit 3 kills of the same player not fighting back in a certain time frame you get slapped with a massive corruption gain.

Dolyem

HumblePuffin wrote: »

To be honest instead of a whole added flagging status I just think the rules should be consistent and if you attack someone no matter their status you become a combatant.

It’s already less risk to attack a red player due to stat dampening, plus you’re able to open up with CC on them, and the reward is potentially much greater. Greens staying greens when attacking is pretty overkill in the deterrent department from my perspective.

Yea, thats why I added the final bit in my OP. It'd be much simpler, but with the 4th status you could prevent corrupted from having their non corrupt friends coming in and stomping the attackers without worry of corruption themselves.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

Where does it say corrupted players are mobs?

I think it was an audible quote. I dunno where to find it quickly, so maybe will get it later on.

Dolyem wrote: »

And this is actually incorrect. Everyone involved in what you just described is voluntary. The only people corruption protects against would not even be involved because those people aren't engaging in PvP to begin with. Corrupt players will still gain more corruption if they gank players who don't flag, increasing their penalties. But the players fighting back would simply not be the ones increasing corruption, as it is intended. Otherwise, why doesn't killing combatants give just slightly less corruption at all times? Because that would deter PvP, not griefing.

I'm talking about those exact PKers not getting their punishment.

Your suggestion implies that anyone who comes to punish that PKer will become flagged against him and the PK will be able to kill that person freely. This way they'll go unpunished and will be able to keep on griefing.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Where does it say corrupted players are mobs?

I think it was an audible quote. I dunno where to find it quickly, so maybe will get it later on.

Dolyem wrote: »

And this is actually incorrect. Everyone involved in what you just described is voluntary. The only people corruption protects against would not even be involved because those people aren't engaging in PvP to begin with. Corrupt players will still gain more corruption if they gank players who don't flag, increasing their penalties. But the players fighting back would simply not be the ones increasing corruption, as it is intended. Otherwise, why doesn't killing combatants give just slightly less corruption at all times? Because that would deter PvP, not griefing.

I'm talking about those exact PKers not getting their punishment.

Your suggestion implies that anyone who comes to punish that PKer will become flagged against him and the PK will be able to kill that person freely. This way they'll go unpunished and will be able to keep on griefing.

If that player attacks them, I am implying they be treated as a combatant, because that is what they are. The corrupted player is still being punished from being corrupted. Being weaker, having a higher death penalty, not having access to services, etc, all in correlation to how much corruption they have accrued by killing players who didnt fight them, or were too weak to do so.
The corrupted player should indeed freely be able to defend themselves against anyone that decides to engage them, whether or not they can is affected by their current corruption. Increasing that corruption just because someone decided to attack them and the corrupted succeeded in defending against that attack however, does not line up with what corruption has been described to be. Corruption is a result from killing innocent non-combatant players, so if they decide to fight, they should no longer grant that corruption.

George_Black

You can't win 1 vs many, corruption or not.
You PK when you are with your group, if you have sense.
If you PK alone, dont expect anything good to come out.

When you are with your group the others can share some of the kills and then you ride away into the sunset. There are no flaws in the system. It worked fine in L2.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

If that player attacks them, I am implying they be treated as a combatant, because that is what they are. The corrupted player is still being punished from being corrupted. Being weaker, having a higher death penalty, not having access to services, etc, all in correlation to how much corruption they have accrued by killing players who didnt fight them, or were too weak to do so.

The punishment only comes if you die. The scaling of decreased stats depends on the amount of your corruption and iirc Steven said it'd have to be a pretty high amount for you to start feeling the effects.

In other words, PKers will go completely unpunished, because they can simply go fight some mobs w/o ever being scared that they might gain corruption again while doing it.

To me that's simply too ez of a life for a PKer. There's no feeling of danger or risk in this. And this doesn't even address the issues of literally having a healer with you and easily beating anyone who attacks you. In the current system if you try that - you're getting fucked harder. In your system people will just cleanse their corruption easily, because they can fight anyone who comes to kill them.

What corruption has been described as is a tool against griefing. Going unpunished after said griefing will just empower those griefers. Current system only makes their life harder.

As for the combatant status. You only become that when you attack a green or another combatant. This is why I say that the system treats PKers as mobs. And I'm 80% sure I've heard Steven say that line. But even if I won't find that quote, the current design just represents that in its effect.

As for lore - we don't know shit. Steven could always add whatever he wants to justify how the game works.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

"Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear

Meaningful PvP Conflict = Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.

Not really supposed to be getting tons of fun from the PvP that has a Risk of Corruption.
Which is why Corruption is harsher than L2 Karma.

If you want tons of meaningless PvP combat fun - you have The Open Seas for (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.

Raven016

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

"Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear

Meaninful PvP Conflict = Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.

Not really supposed to be getting tons of fun from the PvP that has a Risk of Corruption.
Which is why Corruption is harsher than L2 Karma.

If you want tons of meaningless PvP combat fun - you have The Open Seas for (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.

True. Sieges will not happen often, except the monthly Castle sieges.
So caravan running might be the PvPer main activity in this game.
I hope PvE will be good.

Raven016

Dolyem wrote: »

I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens.

The problem the corruption seems to solve is to reduce fight between neutral players, who maybe should even see each-other allies (citizens of same node or same nation)

That means soloers without guild will have a safer life than guild members but will sacrifice guild buffs. Because guilds can be at war, allowing defending resource farming spots against competing guilds.

Depraved

Dolyem wrote: »

I was brainstorming, and from what I can tell, corrupted players will continue to gain corruption even when defending themselves against non-combatants who attack them due to non-combatants not becoming combatants when attacking corrupted players. I see this as a bit extreme, especially if a corrupted player only killed 1 or 2 greens. At this point you just snowball into oblivion just by defending yourself in this circumstance. Corruption is already a massive punishment in and of itself with 4x death penalties and reduction in power
So what am I suggesting? Make a 4th player combat flagging status. Where a non-combatant who engages a corrupted doesn't give more corruption upon being killed, but also isn't flagged fully as a combatant, so someone else who isn't corrupted could still become corrupted from attacking them. Could call it vigilante status or something.
Why? Because the only ones who should grant corruption are the ones who aren't fighting back against you.

The other more simple solution is to make anyone attacking someone a combatant regardless of if the player has corruption or not, but that opens up players to being taken out by a corrupted players friends once they are flagged as combatant, hence my suggestion.

Dolyem wrote: »

Liniker wrote: »

I want to test their system first, fully understand it, and see what player behavior with the system is like before thinking about making suggestions or asking for something to change,

Fair, but it's a pretty obvious flaw in design imo.

it isnt a design flaw. the system is an enhanced version of l2 karma system that will prevent some abuses. also, remember that corruption isnt a desirable state to be in. also, you could just turn purple then attack the corrupted player, giving him corruption if he killed you. dont need a 4th state, just remove corruption gaining after you kill 1 or 2 targets (but please dont do that, this would bring back the abuses that the system is trying to prevent)

Dygz

Raven016 wrote: »

True. Sieges will not happen often, except the monthly Castle sieges.
So caravan running might be the PvPer main activity in this game.
I hope PvE will be good.

There should be at least 20 Sieges associated with Castles each month:
5 Castle-node Sieges each week + 5 Castle Sieges each month.

Also - The Open Seas.

Plus Guild Wars and Node Wars.

Dolyem

NiKr wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

If that player attacks them, I am implying they be treated as a combatant, because that is what they are. The corrupted player is still being punished from being corrupted. Being weaker, having a higher death penalty, not having access to services, etc, all in correlation to how much corruption they have accrued by killing players who didnt fight them, or were too weak to do so.

The punishment only comes if you die. The scaling of decreased stats depends on the amount of your corruption and iirc Steven said it'd have to be a pretty high amount for you to start feeling the effects.

In other words, PKers will go completely unpunished, because they can simply go fight some mobs w/o ever being scared that they might gain corruption again while doing it.

To me that's simply too ez of a life for a PKer. There's no feeling of danger or risk in this. And this doesn't even address the issues of literally having a healer with you and easily beating anyone who attacks you. In the current system if you try that - you're getting fucked harder. In your system people will just cleanse their corruption easily, because they can fight anyone who comes to kill them.

What corruption has been described as is a tool against griefing. Going unpunished after said griefing will just empower those griefers. Current system only makes their life harder.

As for the combatant status. You only become that when you attack a green or another combatant. This is why I say that the system treats PKers as mobs. And I'm 80% sure I've heard Steven say that line. But even if I won't find that quote, the current design just represents that in its effect.

As for lore - we don't know shit. Steven could always add whatever he wants to justify how the game works.

We simply disagree then. I believe corruption punishment should only be dealt for killing those who refuse to attack or cant defend themselves. I will test it thoroughly regardless to make my point in the alpha 2 assuming this is a point to be made by then. Otherwise 1 corruption kill inadvertently can become several times that many from defending against players who are seeking PvP, as opposed to keeping to themselves and truly acting as non-combatants.

You say punishment isn't dealt, yet the player is corrupted for the kill against a player who didn't fight back, and dealing with the negative affects. The initial punishment is dealt for the crime committed right then and there, that being a massive debuff for an allotted amount of time, in which you must spend the time either working it off or be killed, whichever comes first. Giving corruption for defending themselves is a massive increase in punishment that doesn't punish griefing, it multiplies a punishment that was already dealt simply for PvPing.

Its just as simple of a matter of corruption being too punishing to the point of making fighting back a bad idea. This is where the real threat to the Risk vs Reward concept comes in with corruption. Why fight back when I can just let myself die, run back and kill the player who is now corrupted while not worrying about having CC affect me because I won't flag as a combatant, they're weaker because of it, and I will get several times the reward that I lost? And anytime they defend against me and kill me their corruption continues to increase? Hell, at that point, I would never fight back when initially ganked simply because the game sets it up to be more profitable and easier if I let them kill me and I hunt them down. And on the other end, why would I corrupt myself if by doing so I know I have no chance of surviving due to every time a new player attacks me and I win, my corruption gets extended again and again until I just die from excessive debuffs? Too much risk to the system as I see it, for very little chance at reward on the end of anyone actually engaging the fight. Where on the flip side, theres hardly any risk for a player to attack a corrupted player, and more than enough reward. While this would be fine to just deter the griefing, as it isn't supposed to be rewarding camping players, killing lowbies, etc. It is not fine when dealing with general OW-PvP, which defending yourself, corrupted or otherwise, most certainly is PvP, not griefing. So if you kill 1 or 2 players to hold down a resource area, you should have a reasonable chance to work it off while fighting off whoever happens to come after you without increasing your punishment you are already dealing with. Where if you have been griefing, you'll have a much more substantial amount of corruption, in which case you'll not only be weaker, but you will be getting attacked far longer due to the increased amount you have to work off, significantly increasing your chances of being killed. But if both include gaining corruption for defending oneself, both have an equal outcome, where they continuously gain corruption until they inevitably die.

You could make the argument for corrupted players to not receive assistance from non-corrupt players, which would solve one of the issues you mentioned. It makes sense that a corrupted player would either corrupt the assisting players as well, or just make it as simple as having a debuff that decreases all outside healing by 100%.

And please tell me how it would be too easy to deal with corruption if you dont get corrupted for defending yourself, in comparison to how impossible it would be to ever deal with corruption if you do gain more every time you do defend yourself?

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

"Working as intended" or making PvP not fun? Feels much more like the 2nd one. Nice try carebear

Meaninful PvP Conflict = Sieges, Caravans, Node Wars and Guild Wars.

Not really supposed to be getting tons of fun from the PvP that has a Risk of Corruption.
Which is why Corruption is harsher than L2 Karma.

If you want tons of meaningless PvP combat fun - you have The Open Seas for (Corruption-free) FFA PvP.

You and your love of the term "meaningful pvp". Its all meaningful. You simply favor Objective based PvP. There is plenty of meaningful risk for corruption, as opposed to griefing corruption. I do plan to indulge in Open sea PvP, but if I have to defend a nodes environmental management by killing enemy node gatherers, I expect to take corruption for the kills where they intentionally dont fight back, not the ones where they finally do.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

True. Sieges will not happen often, except the monthly Castle sieges.
So caravan running might be the PvPer main activity in this game.
I hope PvE will be good.

There should be at least 20 Sieges associated with Castles each month:
5 Castle-node Sieges each week + 5 Castle Sieges each month.

Also - The Open Seas.

Plus Guild Wars and Node Wars.

assuming none of those castle sieges and castle node sieges are happening simultaneously with each other or other node sieges. But I hope they do happen more often than I believe they will. Most of my PvP will be at sea, but I do plan to be very active in node progression, which will inevitably lead to corruption kills.

Dygz

I do favor Objective-based PvP.
Meaningful Conflict is the term used in the Kickstarter campaign and the first few years of development.
And, yes, I love that term.
And, yes, Meaningful Conflict acts as hype for me, while obsessive Risk v Reward acts as anti-hype for me.

It's OK for you to think that the design for Corruption makes PvP not fun.
Ashes is not made for everyone.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

I do favor Objective-based PvP.
Meaningful Conflict is the term used in the Kickstarter campaign and the first few years of development.
And, yes, I love that term.
And, yes, Meaningful Conflict acts as hype for me, while obsessive Risk v Reward acts as anti-hype for me.

It's OK for you to think that the design for Corruption makes PvP not fun.
Ashes is not made for everyone.

Corruption can make it very fun if it is only a deterrent for excessive griefing, as it is stated to be. My argument is that increasing corruption for non-griefing pvp not only goes against what corruption is designed for, but it just feels bad. Nice try with the passive aggressive bit at the end there though. I am holding 1 thing close to my chest as far as a theory goes to get around it if need be, though I would rather it be made better. Either way, I think I am covered when it comes to enjoying the game.

Azherae

I generally agree with Dygz and see no reason to add a fourth status.

This game would function mostly without any Open World PvP at all, and while I am glad for the option, adding the fourth status just increases it for no meaningful reason relative to the goals that are related to dynamism.

I expect that if I, or my group's 'Enforcer', get corruption, that the green players around our Node who see this will not have a particularly high chance to attack, due to the assumption that it would be done in order to achieve something positive for the Node Community.

Whereas Corrupted Invaders are instantly KoS for any citizens without danger, and their best option is to leave. I support this because it allows us to prevent the 'Node' being 'griefed' as well.

Child Item