NiKr wrote: » 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.
NiKr wrote: » That is true, which is why I stated "dangerous pve locations" before giving an example of dungeons most likely always being dangerous.
Dygz wrote: » Uh. I don't think hardcore challenge is causing my confusion. In Ashes, an open world dungeon would be a dangerous PvX location. Not a dangerous PvE location. And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons. OK. So, here you really just mean a permanent POI that we expect will frequently be contested??
NiKr wrote: » 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. I think it's a shitty solution to a shitty problem. But your suggestion is also breakable by "our tank PKs their healer; they try to kill our tank, while he kills them, because he's healed by our healer". My current belief is that the easiest and best way to balance the system is to have the time to return to your death location roughly at the same length as the time required to remove corruption from a single kill of an equally-lvled character. At that point, flagging up is more beneficial because it saves you time. And time is always the only resource that ultimately matters in an mmo. Obviously you could hope that your killer has a few PKs under his belt and it would take him longer to clear his corruption (or that someone else will kill him in the meantime), but that is exactly the risk/reward equation that Steven likes to talk about. And that's the equation I've always considered in L2. But L2 only reduced your XP on death, so it was usually easier to just make your attacker a PKer. Ashes will have an even stronger push to flag up, which is exactly why I'm somewhat confused at a much harsher tuning for corruption's balancing. But, just like you, I'll be testing this system as much as I can and give all the feedback I can. We'll see where we end up after that.
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.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » There isn't supposed to be a deterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing. In this context, it's the same thing. It's intended that Corruption encourages PK score to be kept low.
Dolyem wrote: » There isn't supposed to be a deterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing.
Dolyem wrote: » In the context of corruption, it is stated to be meant to deter griefing, nothing else.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » In the context of corruption, it is stated to be meant to deter griefing, nothing else. Pretty sure we agree on that, yes.
Dygz wrote: » I mean... why would the PvE difficulty not be "high"??
Dolyem wrote: » That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process.
Dolyem wrote: » And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal.
Dolyem wrote: » And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process. It should be a 5+m thing if you were deep within a dungeon. And the value of content that deep would be the highest, so if you were attacked there you'd have to think twice before just dying to the attacker, because not only would you drop more of your super valuable loot, but you'd also waste time to return there (and would lose the spot as well). And yes, I think that the first kill shouldn't give you more than a minute of mob farming (mobs in this case being the best ones available at your lvl, so obviously farming weaker mobs would take longer to remove the corruption). And the subsequent PKs would increase that time diametrically, or at the very least at a parabolic pace.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal. This is why I mentioned that I want difficult pve. Even if tank is not "killing" the healer, he'll still make healer's life way harder, which would remove that party from the spot, which is ultimately the point of the attack (well, preferably imo). And we'll obviously have to see the balancing and archetype design, but there's a chance that a properly geared tank that's being solely targeted by a healer might outlive a 7v1 situation for long enough to decrease it to a lower Xv1 situation. Though again, this would only happen if the tank is the one who does the finishing blow on the healer. If mobs are difficult and not fully controllable by the victim's party tank - the healer might be dying either way. Hell, if healers can simply aggro with overheal - they'll pull all the mobs, because the tank will make the healer overheal. So it'd be quite likely that the tank won't even become a PKer. As for party distribution of corruption - I've already explained that it would just require for tank to leave their party for a minute. And I sure as fuck hope that healers don't become corrupted if they healer a Red player. I know that some people disagree with that though.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested. PK count is there to prevent repetitive PKing. Which, iirc in your own words, is griefing. If people don't have a PK count and can just repetitively remove corruption and be completely fine to do the same amount of kills - that'll lead to a much bigger % of griefers.
Dolyem wrote: » just regular open areas may be a much different experience unless respawns displace you in a similar manner, which I am not against.
Dolyem wrote: » In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.
NiKr wrote: » Dygz wrote: » I mean... why would the PvE difficulty not be "high"?? That's exactly my point though. Right now it does not seem to be high. Neither are bosses. I want top value pve to be quite a bit harder, especially when you're farming it as a full party (we haven't seen that yet btw).
Dygz wrote: » Because we’re still in Alpha and difficulty is not yet balanced??
Depraved wrote: » 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. PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers.
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.
NiKr wrote: » Which is intended, because open areas would most likely be the places that majority of casual/non-pvp players will attend. And if PKers have issues easily PKing there - it's a win for the casuals and a win for Steven's goal of reduced griefing.
NiKr wrote: » Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.
NiKr wrote: » In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.
NiKr wrote: » The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.
NiKr wrote: » But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.
NiKr wrote: » Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.
Dygz wrote: » Most likely Casual/Non-PvP players will not be playing Ashes.
Dygz wrote: » I would say those gamers are pretty much PvPers who wish to remain Non-Combatants for that moment.
Dygz wrote: » Yeah. I think Corruption is designed to keep the PKing of Greens on the Mainland to a “minimum”, so that gamers rarely choose to PK a Green. Most of the PvP is intended to be in Corruption-free locations (temporary and permanent PvP locations), basically with Purples.
Dygz wrote: » Well, Steven is highly unlikely to add deleveling to Ashes.
Dygz wrote: » That’s hyperbolic phrasing I think, but… Probably more likely that the Non-Combatants who were PKed could defend themselves if they wanted to. The bigger problem would be the PKer escaping the Oranges…thereby bypassing the intended intensity of punishment for inflicting non-coslnsensual PvP on other players.
Dygz wrote: » Corruption is intended to significantly punish even one instance of non-consensual PvP; not just griefing.
Dolyem wrote: » 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. Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route
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.
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: » 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.
Raven016 wrote: » I got confused when I split your short post here instead of keeping in one. But I would like to know your opinion about my post where I said Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would not get more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after 5 minutes elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away? Because after 5 minutes elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them. The statement above I adjusted a bit the next post so I will use points this time to describe it more clearly: - when a green is killed, all greens in the area close to where it died will be marked as "witnesses" - a timer of 5 minutes would be set and would start and keep running only if the player is outside the area where the kill occurred - green players which are not witnesses, would be "acting as" bounty hunters if they fight the corrupt player outside the area. But they would not have the BH ability to see the corrupt on map or other bonuses the BH may get. That means the corrupt player will be able to fight against them like against real BH and with the same consequences. - "witnesses" killed before the 5 minute timer elapsed would increase the corruption. After the 5 minute elapsed, they would also start "acting as" BH - the greens "acting as" BH against a corrupt player would remain in this state for a period of 90 seconds following their most recent attack on this corrupt player With these adjustments I try to bring the Bounty Hunters to have equal chances with greens to catch the corrupt, otherwise they are in disadvantage. So, would you agree with this adjustment? Do you see any problems with it?
hleV wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » I got confused when I split your short post here instead of keeping in one. But I would like to know your opinion about my post where I said Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would not get more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after 5 minutes elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away? Because after 5 minutes elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them. The statement above I adjusted a bit the next post so I will use points this time to describe it more clearly: - when a green is killed, all greens in the area close to where it died will be marked as "witnesses" - a timer of 5 minutes would be set and would start and keep running only if the player is outside the area where the kill occurred - green players which are not witnesses, would be "acting as" bounty hunters if they fight the corrupt player outside the area. But they would not have the BH ability to see the corrupt on map or other bonuses the BH may get. That means the corrupt player will be able to fight against them like against real BH and with the same consequences. - "witnesses" killed before the 5 minute timer elapsed would increase the corruption. After the 5 minute elapsed, they would also start "acting as" BH - the greens "acting as" BH against a corrupt player would remain in this state for a period of 90 seconds following their most recent attack on this corrupt player With these adjustments I try to bring the Bounty Hunters to have equal chances with greens to catch the corrupt, otherwise they are in disadvantage. So, would you agree with this adjustment? Do you see any problems with it? Again, you're looking for a compromise where there's no need for one. Reds "fighting it off" with greens that consent to fight is not an issue that needs addressing, you simply: 1) remove the random-ass penalty that reds get here; 2) allow greens to reduce their death penalty in half by hitting red, then move on. Punish griefing/excessive PKing, not consensual PvP. Meanwhile you're trying to overcomplicate the system for zero gain.
Raven016 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » 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. PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers. They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot. But PvE-ers got nothing. In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers. You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection. Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game? I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
