NiKr wrote: » This would only apply to solo players outside of dangerous pve locations, which would most likely not even have any real pvp (outside of wars of course). Pretty much any dungeon location will most likely kill you if you're below a certain threshold of hp, so parties and solo players (if there are solo dungeons) will have to fight back immediately or even be the first ones to attack (just as it was somewhat often done in L2), because it'd be easier to know for sure that you either win or lose, rather than risk fighting hard npcs at low hp and then waste time for sure. Dungeons and valuable content will be farmed by hardcore players (majority in guilds as well), and to a hardcore player the time equation of minmaxing would present flagging up as the best possible solution to a potential attacker.Your loot is super valuable and flagging up reduces any potential loss Time you spent to prepare and get to the dungeon is valuable (cause you're minmaxing) and dying would have you do all of that again If you flag up first there's more chances for you to win, cause the other player is now at lower hp (the other alternative is to just immediately retaliate with a super long CC, if that newcomer flags up; this will depend on builds and situations) The biggest variable in all of this is your ability to play around mobs that would most likely be on you during the pvp. But w/o knowing the AI difficulty or the pve quality, it's very difficult to say how these kinds of interactions will go down. Either way, I've previously suggested several tools that would let people control mob agro in such a way where another player's aggression might play against them. But as all the other things - this will be tested in A2.
Dolyem wrote: » Yes, Repetitive (camping) would be griefing. But just a couple and moving on would not be. So as it is currently designed, non-griefing PKs are punished just as much as griefing PKs, which is punishing PvP, not just griefing.
Dolyem wrote: » Yes and no. With the current iteration of corruption, if someone attacks my group in a dungeon and we let them gain corruption, coming back we gain 4x the materials and potentially some gear, and we aren't affected by their CCs and that group is stat dampened.
Dolyem wrote: » And while I may have to fight back to them, they are also in a dungeon which would likely be easier to find them in, especially if it occured towards the beginning of the dungeon. Plenty of incentive there to almost never react to the initial engagement.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further. And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point. I do not understand this case: My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait The 4th flagging suggestion is an alternative to a simpler solution which would be for anyone attacking another player to become a combatant. This would allow for other players to kill them and not gain corruption. My suggestion still grants corruption to non-corrupt players, preventing players from using corrupted as bait to turn players into combatants to kill them.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further. And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point. I do not understand this case: My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait
Dolyem wrote: » Continuing to kill a player who isn't fighting back would inevitably provide a large amount of corruption with the changes I have suggested, giving the intended results. However, should that non-combatant engage after only being killed a couple of times, the fight is mostly as intended for a legitimate PvP encounter, barring the chance the non-combatant would have normally fought back but instead wants to get 4x loot and a stat advantage. But it is entirely feasible for that non-combatant to not engage at all and give more corruption if the attacking player chooses to continue killing that player and pass the threshold from PvP into griefing, significantly hindering themselves further. And I honestly don't see any benefit for overall PvP if anyone is punished for defending against an attack. My suggestion simply protects non-combatants from combatants who would possibly use corrupted players as bait, while still allowing corrupted players to actually defend themselves when someone else is seeking out PvP. I don't see how this is bad in any circumstance when everyone involved in the situation is actively choosing to PvP at this point.
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » I mean a harsh corruption would be like a flag in option menu where you set yourself as willing to PvP or not. I never said the corruption needs to be harsher than it needs to be to keep healthy amount of PKing, I said that the greens' ability to abuse/grief reds is too harsh right now and that should be disabled, and if it makes the corruption overall not harsh enough, increase the other penalty sliders to compensate.
Raven016 wrote: » I mean a harsh corruption would be like a flag in option menu where you set yourself as willing to PvP or not.
hleV wrote: » ... Then I don't know what you're talking about, or disagreeing with. You suddenly started talking about opt-in PvP which... doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Yes and no. With the current iteration of corruption, if someone attacks my group in a dungeon and we let them gain corruption, coming back we gain 4x the materials and potentially some gear, and we aren't affected by their CCs and that group is stat dampened. What?? Why is there an assumption that the other group will insist on flagging Red if your group refuses to flag Purple? When you return... that Red group is stat dampened. There is no guarantee that they will be stat dampened enough for you to kill them. Especially no guarantee for the 2nd engagement. And, if they kill your group again... they may have completed the dungeon by the time you return. Dolyem wrote: » And while I may have to fight back to them, they are also in a dungeon which would likely be easier to find them in, especially if it occured towards the beginning of the dungeon. Plenty of incentive there to almost never react to the initial engagement. Why would it be easier to find them? Why would it be to worth anything to turn Red at the beginning of a dungeon?? If a group turns Red at the beginning of the dungeon, why would they still be at the beginning of the dungeon when your group returns? How would you know where the Red group has moved to while you are traveling back to the beginning of the dungeon and fighting the respawns? Remember that Ashes is a dynamic game, rather than a static game. By design, dungeons do not have the same content each time you return. It's not like there will be the same exact content in the same exact locations on Tues as there was Mon - you can't necessarily anticipate the content that Red group is pursuing. Also, the Utility Skills of their group might take them to locations in the dungeon that are not accessible to your group, so... Why would it be likely easier to find them when your group returns??
Dygz wrote: » Seems to me those consequences are not enough of a deterrent for killing Non-Combatants. But, I'd want to see whether L2 players agree with me.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Seems to me those consequences are not enough of a deterrent for killing Non-Combatants. But, I'd want to see whether L2 players agree with me. There isn't supposed to be a detterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing.
Dygz wrote: » Why would that only apply to "players outside of dangerous PvE locations?" I mean Ashes really only has PvX locations.
Dygz wrote: » And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Seems to me those consequences are not enough of a deterrent for killing Non-Combatants. But, I'd want to see whether L2 players agree with me. There isn't supposed to be a detterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing. Remains to be seen how Steven will swing the hammer of "everything is subject to change" during Alpha 2.
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Why would that only apply to "players outside of dangerous PvE locations?" I mean Ashes really only has PvX locations. This pertains to the hardcore challenge part of the game, which you're not interested in so you probably wouldn't get the reasoning behind it. Dygz wrote: » And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons. That is true, which is why I stated "dangerous pve locations" before giving an example of dungeons most likely always being dangerous. Dolyem wrote: » Yes and no. With the current iteration of corruption, if someone attacks my group in a dungeon and we let them gain corruption, coming back we gain 4x the materials and potentially some gear, and we aren't affected by their CCs and that group is stat dampened. This is why I mentioned the pve difficulty. If mobs are hard, the attacking party would just need a single glass cannon alt (who's outside their party) to kill your healer. If mobs end up killing the healer - all the better. Once your healer is dead - your party is dead or you have to completely disengage. The harder the mobs, the harder it would be to disengage, so you'd probably just die. Now you need to spend several minutes coming back, you've lost some valuable loot and you've gained xp debt. All while the attacking party would literally just kill their own PK alt (if you didn't do so immediately), gather his stuff and most likely revive him on the spot (if his amount of corruption was removed with a single death). You've lost a shitton of time, while the attackers lost literally nothing. And now you'd have to flag up if you wanted to remove the attacking party from that farming location. But they'd be ready for that, because they were ready for that in the first place. Dolyem wrote: » And while I may have to fight back to them, they are also in a dungeon which would likely be easier to find them in, especially if it occured towards the beginning of the dungeon. Plenty of incentive there to almost never react to the initial engagement. This would highly depend on the respawn points around POIs. Flag state remains for 90s, so unless there were other parties willing to flag up against the Attackers or if the respawn point (and your respawn coordination) is closer than 90s from the spot where you died - ya ain't flagging them back up that easily. Well, this is kinda outside of my point either way, because flagged pvp is exactly what I want in the game and, most likely, what those Attackers would be prepared for too, so you flagging up against them, losing and then coming back is literally the intended gameplay. Dygz wrote: » Seems to me those consequences are not enough of a deterrent for killing Non-Combatants. But, I'd want to see whether L2 players agree with me. Pretty much. The 5min timer is simply a "run away for a bit and then just fight back w/o any problems" situation. And if that timer is changed to something way longer, then we're coming back to the general discussion of "how long does it take to remove corruption on mobs". Also, that timer doesn't really address dungeon PKs (which imo will be the most prevalent ones in the game). Those "witnesses" wouldn't even know where the killer is. This could be "solved" by just letting dead players "shout" to the entire location's chat (and I do hope this is the case), but at that point there's literally no point in the timer existing, because greens in the surrounding areas would get to the killer way before the timer runs out, even if the timer starts immediately after the kill.
Dolyem wrote: » In regards to the fighting back to an enemy party, I meant if I were to get them corrupt. A normal PvP fight isn't meant to have that worry, my point is I'd be able to hunt down people I make corrupt on purpose
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » In regards to the fighting back to an enemy party, I meant if I were to get them corrupt. A normal PvP fight isn't meant to have that worry, my point is I'd be able to hunt down people I make corrupt on purpose Then the alt strat still applies. And it will definitely be a strat if corruption tuning is super hardcore and people never fight back, especially if groups don't fight back. Super easy mobs might remove that situation, purely because a healer wouldn't be able to die if they're attacked by an alt character and some mobs. But at that point the game would have much bigger issues imo.
Dolyem wrote: » I can't tell if you think this is good gameplay or not. Personally I think it's convoluted and entirely avoidable with my suggestions to have corruption lead into truly severe penalties once it can qualify as griefing. But as it is, I'll exploit as much as I can in A2 to make my points. Only real way to go about it is to try to actually break it.
Raven016 wrote: » hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » PvEers will not play this game. PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is. PvE players want a great PvE experience not just the ability to survive in a PvP world. Or to grief PvPers.
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » PvEers will not play this game. PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
Raven016 wrote: » PvEers will not play this game.
Dolyem wrote: » There isn't supposed to be a deterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing.
