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

Solvryn

Dolyem wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.

That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession.
Corruption is designed to deter that.

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea.

Or at least that what comes to mind to me.

It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP

Yeah, and I've ran into this countless of times, you have players whom any slight disturbance to their gameplay is griefing to them. Just like when I was there and "your red, your dead" turned from full loot to no loot.

When inconvenience is grief they have bigger issues than a video game.

Griefing has deliberate, malicious intent behind it.

I think there's just a better way to improve the system and with enough brainstorming it could be figured out.

Okeydoke

Dolyem wrote: »

It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP

I don't think it's really practical to try to design a system that could differentiate that. Which is why I think the only choice is to go with the system they're going with - a corruption system that scales upwards in penalties as you accrue more corruption.

It's not perfect. But theoretically, at low corruption levels, the penalties would be low enough that it would allow some play in the system for people to honor pk and for run of the mill legit pvp.

Some people may use their lower penalty corruption kills to grief. Ban them. That's really all there is to say on that. Problem solves itself. See ya griefers. It's good to hear that Intrepid intends to invest resources into policing their game, as opposed to gutting pvx systems to solve griefing problems.

That said, yeah it'd be awesome if there was a system that could differentiate griefing and pvp. It's just hard to imagine, but I'm not a game dev. If it can be done, that'd be ideal.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much.

Exactly. Which is why Corruption is designed to keep it down to once or twice.

Dolyem wrote: »

But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

I think harvesting specifically to hurt a Node won't be much of a thing.
On the flip side, Citizens of a Node might attack those who are on the precipice of endangering the local Land Management for whatever reasons - including ignorance.
You could argue that repeated killings of the returnees from Sanctus is not griefing, but - the Gods of Verra apparently do not agree with you.
It's quite easy to differentiate. Objectively so.

Dygz

Depraved wrote: »

even if he isnt trying ot hurt the node. if someone is randomly picking flowers and i kill that person, that isnt griefing. if they come back and i killed them again, that isnt griefing. if they come back 10 times and i kill them 10 times, that isnt griefing. maybe im trying to get the flowers for myself and dont want others gathring near me.

Individuals do not own land that can be harvested by anyone - nor do they own the flowers on that land.
Your personal greed does not negate your griefing. In the example you provide, your personal greed motivates your griefing.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

even if he isnt trying ot hurt the node. if someone is randomly picking flowers and i kill that person, that isnt griefing. if they come back and i killed them again, that isnt griefing. if they come back 10 times and i kill them 10 times, that isnt griefing. maybe im trying to get the flowers for myself and dont want others gathring near me.

Individuals do not own land that can be harvested by anyone - nor do they own the flowers on that land.
Your personal greed does not negate your griefing. In the example you provide, your personal greed motivates your griefing.

Who is the greedy one? The one gathering at the expense of the node, or the one defending the node against that person?

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much.

Exactly. Which is why Corruption is designed to keep it down to once or twice.

Dolyem wrote: »

But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

I think harvesting specifically to hurt a Node won't be much of a thing.
On the flip side, Citizens of a Node might attack those who are on the precipice of endangering the local Land Management for whatever reasons - including ignorance.
You could argue that repeated killings of the returnees from Sanctus is not griefing, but - the Gods of Verra apparently do not agree with you.
It's quite easy to differentiate. Objectively so.

If it is easy to differentiate as a system, please share with us. A person observing is one thing, but an AI or system deciding the difference is another.

Dolyem

Okeydoke wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP

I don't think it's really practical to try to design a system that could differentiate that. Which is why I think the only choice is to go with the system they're going with - a corruption system that scales upwards in penalties as you accrue more corruption.

It's not perfect. But theoretically, at low corruption levels, the penalties would be low enough that it would allow some play in the system for people to honor pk and for run of the mill legit pvp.

Some people may use their lower penalty corruption kills to grief. Ban them. That's really all there is to say on that. Problem solves itself. See ya griefers. It's good to hear that Intrepid intends to invest resources into policing their game, as opposed to gutting pvx systems to solve griefing problems.

That said, yeah it'd be awesome if there was a system that could differentiate griefing and pvp. It's just hard to imagine, but I'm not a game dev. If it can be done, that'd be ideal.

I do agree and feel that I have been advocating for the first few corruption kills being lenient to accommodate for non-griefing corruption kills. I've even suggested variables for tracking griefing through repeated kills in a certain time frame. It comes down to a balance of allowing for enough leniency to deter griefing as a non-combatant just as much as deterring PKing griefing. Just have to find a reasonable balance. Either way I think we are on the same page.

Raven016

Depraved wrote: »

if i go and kill level 10 as a lvl 30 over and over for no reason, thats also griefing. however, if i kill low levels because i want the mobs in the earea or the flowers, or maybe im helping a friend levle up, that isnt griefing.

as long as you have something to gain from killing someone else, that isnt griefing. griefing is when you follow someone around with the intention of making him quit the game.

That is on the border to be griefing because it can easily become one.
You can say that mobs do not respawn fast or flowers grow back even slower, so you prepare the area while your low level friend come. Maybe the flowers are already there, ready to be collected, (for the valuable healing tea).
The player you kill repeatedly sees nobody collecting them but your friends are on their way to the spot.
A GM is summoned and while you explain the situation, your friend gets offline because internet issues or some emergency. You cannot prove your intention to help a friend and you are banned.
That could happen in other games.

In AoC I see that

So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif
...
maybe apprehending or removing poachers that are over hunting a certain species could be helpful to the health of the land. Maybe the mayor puts out a request for players to try and get rid of invasive species that are plants- maybe they're overgrowing weed and it's stopping other valuable plants from growing.[3] – Kory Rice

but how can you defend?
Can the mayor disable corruption in certain areas?

Anyway, if the mayor wants those invasive species removed and you delay the removal because you want your friend to get the experience rather than another player, it doesn't feel ok.

Same with any other resource.
Could be valuable resources which spawn randomly on the map.
You and another gatherer find the spot. You both start collecting and when your mules are half full the resources depleted. As you start going back to the node, you kill the mule of the other player to take his valuable resources. He doesn't defend to prevent CCs but dies anyway.

But his guild mates come (he knew you they are close but you didn't). Now you face a group of greens hunting your corrupt mule and you want less corruption if you kill them?

Can even happen that they are citizens of the node and you are not.

Dygz

Dolyem wrote: »

Who is the greedy one? The one gathering at the expense of the node, or the one defending the node against that person?

Whoever it is who thinks they own all the flowers growing and that no one else has the right to also Gather the flowers.
I'm not sure what "defending the Node" means when all Gathering that takes place within the ZoI of a Node progresses the Node.
Nevertheless, Gathering and even having negative effects on Land Management does not cause Corruption.
From the view of the Gods of Verra - people can Gather as many flowers as they wish.
Griefing Tulnar and the Returnees from Sanctus on the Mainland results in the PKers being treated like monsters - until the Corruption is removed.

Solvryn

Depraved wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.

That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession.
Corruption is designed to deter that.

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

even if he isnt trying ot hurt the node. if someone is randomly picking flowers and i kill that person, that isnt griefing. if they come back and i killed them again, that isnt griefing. if they come back 10 times and i kill them 10 times, that isnt griefing. maybe im trying to get the flowers for myself and dont want others gathring near me.

if i follow him around from area to area for no reason and just keep killing him, thats griefing.

if i go and kill level 10 as a lvl 30 over and over for no reason, thats also griefing. however, if i kill low levels because i want the mobs in the earea or the flowers, or maybe im helping a friend levle up, that isnt griefing.

as long as you have something to gain from killing someone else, that isnt griefing. griefing is when you follow someone around with the intention of making him quit the game.

Eh it depends.

In ESO, there were farming spots that were pretty static, there were many of times I would be farming for a while and then people would watch my farm spot, then they'd try to get ahead of me and push me out of the farm spot.

They were absolutely being malicious trying to push me out of my farming spot, if that happens in Ashes. I'm fully behind someone sending them back to the respawn and it shouldn't incur corruption.

If I farm in Ashes and someone watches my farm spot and tries to push me out, I'm going to grind them into paste.

And if I defend the person being forced out of their farm spot as well, don't give a damn about the color of person being dishonorable.

This is all under the pretext that they're not causing harm to the node.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Who is the greedy one? The one gathering at the expense of the node, or the one defending the node against that person?

Whoever it is who thinks they own all the flowers growing and that no one else has the right to also Gather the flowers.
I'm not sure what "defending the Node" means when all Gathering that takes place within the ZoI of a Node progresses the Node.
Nevertheless, Gathering and even having negative effects on Land Management does not cause Corruption.
From the view of the Gods of Verra - people can Gather as many flowers as they wish.
Griefing Tulnar and the Returnees from Sanctus on the Mainland results in the PKers being treated like monsters - until the Corruption is removed.

Lore can change. We are discussing game mechanics here. Not what gods think.

Raven016

I am the node defender.
If they harm me they harm the node!

Okeydoke

Dolyem wrote: »

I do agree and feel that I have been advocating for the first few corruption kills being lenient to accommodate for non-griefing corruption kills. I've even suggested variables for tracking griefing through repeated kills in a certain time frame. It comes down to a balance of allowing for enough leniency to deter griefing as a non-combatant just as much as deterring PKing griefing. Just have to find a reasonable balance. Either way I think we are on the same page.

Yeah we are.Tbh I don't see pvp griefing being a big problem in Ashes outside of some isolated cases. It's just not going to be practical to do for most people. For any that do, it's just a matter of time before they get banned.

"Pve griefing" or whatever it's called will probably be way more widespread. And harder to prove to GM's.

hleV

Harsher punishments such as risk of dropping gear or being unable to fight back greens without increasing your corruption should be revisited or reserved for those going on killing sprees. The other corruption penalties are sufficient for one-off PKs. Even if that one-off PK is done to grief, but it doesn't turn into a killing spree, then the system is already working (deferring griefing).

It is not possible for a system to determine the intent of a one-off PK, meanwhile a killing spree is way more likely to be griefing, which is where harsher punishments should come in.

I don't even think "testing" corruption will provide correct results. It's a test, so people are gonna test, not play "for real". In a test environment one may act differently than in live game. At least I would. I'd PK way more than I normally would, and if these numbers are used to make a statistic in order to apply appropriate penalties, then it won't translate well for the live game. It's better than no testing at all, but in this particular case I don't think the statistic will be reliable.

Depraved

hleV wrote: »

Harsher punishments such as risk of dropping gear or being unable to fight back greens without increasing your corruption should be revisited or reserved for those going on killing sprees. The other corruption penalties are sufficient for one-off PKs. Even if that one-off PK is done to grief, but it doesn't turn into a killing spree, then the system is already working (deferring griefing).

It is not possible for a system to determine the intent of a one-off PK, meanwhile a killing spree is way more likely to be griefing, which is where harsher punishments should come in.

I don't even think "testing" corruption will provide correct results. It's a test, so people are gonna test, not play "for real". In a test environment one may act differently than in live game. At least I would. I'd PK way more than I normally would, and if these numbers are used to make a statistic in order to apply appropriate penalties, then it won't translate well for the live game. It's better than no testing at all, but in this particular case I don't think the statistic will be reliable.

the testing is to see how much corruption you get per kill(s) and how long it takes to cleanse that off, if people will be able to run back to where you were and karma bomb you before you cleanse it, etc etc. so it doesnt matter if people are fighting "for real" or not, because thats not the intend of the test.

of course devs can do it in house, but they gotta do it with live players to see how the system is when you have hundreds or thousands of players (in nearby areas) and to listen to their feedback.

Dolyem

One test I'm planning is to gain different amounts of corruption and have a sort of hunt from non bounty hunter players trying to kill me in intervals to test how fast corruption progresses in its current state and to see how viable evading engagement is. And then testing it with bounty hunters as well to see just how good they are at tracking.

Ayeveegaming1

Solvryn wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.

That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession.
Corruption is designed to deter that.

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea.

Or at least that what comes to mind to me.

It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP

Yeah, and I've ran into this countless of times, you have players whom any slight disturbance to their gameplay is griefing to them. Just like when I was there and "your red, your dead" turned from full loot to no loot.

When inconvenience is grief they have bigger issues than a video game.

Griefing has deliberate, malicious intent behind it.

I think there's just a better way to improve the system and with enough brainstorming it could be figured out.

I agree there is a better design. The perfect way for them to not get griefed is to not play a pvp game where they can get killed. It really sucks that carebears play pvp and cry foul all the time. And if the system does not work they repeatedly report you to the devs to take action. Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.

Solvryn

Ravicus wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I mean, you can feel harassed from a player killing you for harvesting resources from their node. But if the intent of the kill was to defend the node, it wasn't griefing.

That's what Corruption is for. Not griefing if it's not frequently repeated in quick succession.
Corruption is designed to deter that.

If you are killed many times in a short time period yea. But getting killed once or twice, not so much. But I'd even argue that if you're harvesting to hurt the node, killing you repeatedly is not griefing. It's defending the node. Hence the flaw. Not easy to differentiate.

So diminishing returns on an internal corruption timer sounds like an idea.

Or at least that what comes to mind to me.

It's a hard one to solve honestly. Because the system would need to accurately differentiate between intent to grief and actual PvP

Yeah, and I've ran into this countless of times, you have players whom any slight disturbance to their gameplay is griefing to them. Just like when I was there and "your red, your dead" turned from full loot to no loot.

When inconvenience is grief they have bigger issues than a video game.

Griefing has deliberate, malicious intent behind it.

I think there's just a better way to improve the system and with enough brainstorming it could be figured out.

I agree there is a better design. The perfect way for them to not get griefed is to not play a pvp game where they can get killed. It really sucks that carebears play pvp and cry foul all the time. And if the system does not work they repeatedly report you to the devs to take action. Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.

I’ve met people who played full loot and absolutely sucked at it, but they enjoyed the rest of the game so they still championed on.

They didn’t try to change it, they simply accepted it and enjoyed the game.

Dygz

Ravicus wrote: »

Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.

LMAO
Because it's the Carebears asking for change here???
Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane...
Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption.

With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane.

Dolyem

Dygz wrote: »

Ravicus wrote: »

Again, if carebears stayed in their lane it would be fine, but they want to play in pvp land and not get reprocussions. That is the root of it all.

LMAO
Because it's the Carebears asking for change here???
Maybe it's the PvPers who need to stay in their lane...
Steven is not a Carebear and he's the one who designed Corruption.

With Ashes, it's very likely that the Carebears will be staying their lane.

All of my critiques here have been made to deal with griefing and allowing PvP. Asking to reduce PvP instead of just griefing goes against the purpose of corruption.

Child Item