Corruption system and getting "the jump" in wpvp

I'm wondering if the corruption system can accidentally punish getting "the jump" in wpvp in both 1v1 & group v group scenarios?

1v1:
Getting the jump / using environmental advantages is a big, and valid, part of wpvp.
Might people (getting jumped) decide they're already at such a disadvantage in the fight anyway, that they'll not bother fighting back and basically dare the attacker to take corruption penalties? This could be despite the victim being a willing and active pvper.
The attacker may then stop to avoid corruption, giving the victim the opportunity to heal up, buff up, and attack his attacker.
To me this would feel a bit broken and like the system is getting in the way.

Group v group:
Another related scenario is the example from the recent caravan showcase, where a group waited to ambush and started by focusing one enemy (sensible strat). The attackers were able to focus one enemy and take him down quickly with the group's damage combined.
My question here is, outside of a caravan scenario, would this cause the group to all incur corruption + extra 50% drop penalty for the victim, as there was no time to respond?
Again here we're assuming the context is two groups of willing & active pvpers, perhaps fighting to control a resource.

I want to add here, that the corruption system overall seems a v clever attempt at solving the pvp problem for everyone. We want to minimise griefing particularly for non-pvpers, while also giving the world that element of danger and encouraging fair open world pvp for those who wish to participate (me!).

I should also clarify that, in the context of wpvp, "fair" to me is mostly about a) level and b) general appetite for pvp. Mostly level though.
Gaining the advantage via situation / environment is (imo) totally valid in a wpvp setting.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Aszkalon

Always remember and keep in mind this ONE Phrase ... ...

" Risk versus Reward "

Corruption is what happens when you bloody murder Someone without that said Someone fighting back at all, right ?

So imagine You - well - stalk the Wilderness and then ambush a Player and bloody murder him, for this Ressources, Ingredients, Materials, whatever he/she has in their Pockets, right ?

Corruption for murdering even ONE Person will stick quite a few Minutes - but will go away again eventually.

Your Risk is -> You are now flagged so that People can just "murder You" (lol) and you might even drop one Piece of your Armor, Weapons, etc. But most likely a smaller Armor Piece like Shoulders, Gloves, Helmet, Cape, whatever.

However,
should You manage to wait long enough until the Corruption has left your Character - You can approach your Node again without the Guards murdering You - having Parts of whatever that Player you killed was carrying in your Pockets - along with whatever else You might have gathered yourself.

Even when playing as an "evil Player", the Risk versus Reward-Logic still applies.

blat

Similar to my previous points about getting the jump with high damage;

But what if I use a big cooldown to initiate combat? The target (let's assume he's an active pvper here) could just decide to sit this one out, and dare me to take corruption.

I then stop attacking before he dies. Combat drops. He heals up.
Then he could attack me, or I him.

Except now I've just wasted a cooldown.

All I'm getting at with these scenarios, is that I feel corruption can be leaned on and "low-key" (sorry) exploited by active pvpers.
Rather than simply protecting the non-pvpers out there.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Except now I've just wasted a cooldown.

I mean, YOU chose to use the big CD. You then chose to wait for the target to heal to full, while doing nothing to them. And at the same time you also chose not to buff yourself with anything defensive, on the off chance the target does retaliate.

There's no abuse of the system here. There's only poor decision-making and/or weird goals behind the initial attack.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Except now I've just wasted a cooldown.

I mean, YOU chose to use the big CD. You then chose to wait for the target to heal to full, while doing nothing to them. And at the same time you also chose not to buff yourself with anything defensive, on the off chance the target does retaliate.

There's no abuse of the system here. There's only poor decision-making and/or weird goals behind the initial attack.

You may be misunderstanding, not sure.
It's not really about them returning fire, I only include that to further highlight that this is a fellow PvPer.

Let's say, two people have been fighting (consensually) all day, both are willing combatants. Sometimes person A wins, sometimes person B. They're fighting over resources but enjoying the pvp challenge too

All I'm saying, or asking is; in this scenario, can the corruption system be used here in a way other than intended?
IE: this time round person B gets a really good start on person A. Maybe it's a ranger who's managed to get the jump on a fighter, and starts unloading on him at max range.

The fighter in this example can just decide to skip this round, not fight back, and dare the attacker to take corruption.

Then the attacker stops, they depart (for now) and go back to competing over resources.

Isn't this an obvious example of the system getting in the way of natural gameplay?

I am making the assumption here that corruption is intended to help prevent/reduce the more "toxic" PvP gameplay and protect PvEers, via it's use of incentive/disincentive, not to get in the way of combat between willing PvPers

How am I wrong here then? (Semantic bs aside)

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Isn't this an obvious example of the system getting in the way of natural gameplay?

By "natural gameplay" here, do you mean "they should just be able to kill each other for free"?

While I can see how a ffa system could be seen as more straightforward, I'm sure it would just lead to OP people murdering literally everyone they see w/o anyone being able to fight back or even get powerful enough to fight back (afaik, that's the case in full loot free pvp games).

The attacker stopping if the target doesn't fight back would be the same as an irl fight stopping if one side gives up. Don't see how this is unnatural.

blat

Well the point being these are two willing pvpers, but that managing to make a really optimal start to a fight can be effectively punished by the victim choosing to lean on the corruption system.

I'm not intending to argue here, exactly the opposite; I'm actually a bit of a fan of this corruption system and am trying to help theory-probe for gaps.
And to me, using the (very common) scenario I outlined.. this feels like one of those moments where the system gets in the way.

Azherae

Seriously starting to think this game is gonna need 'Threaten' and 'Yield' hotbar buttons...

blat

I just want to clarify; I really have zero interest in killing non-PvPers.
(Well ok I can't rule out defending resources, but generally no interest).

I play for the competitive element, and love those ongoing 'grudges' with like-minded people in the area.

My scenarios is clear; two such players, both totally happy to fight with each other. Taking turns to get "the jump" (a central element in wpvp.. situational awareness, preparation, environment).

In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.

That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.

Azherae

blat wrote: »

I just want to clarify; I really have zero interest in killing non-PvPers.
(Well ok I can't rule out defending resources, but generally no interest).

I play for the competitive element, and love those ongoing 'grudges' with like-minded people in the area.

My scenarios is clear; two such players, both totally happy to fight with each other. Taking turns to get "the jump" (a central element in wpvp.. situational awareness, preparation, environment).

In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.

That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.

So... they basically 'ragequit', and this is a concern in an MMO because... you're not having as much fun if your opponent ragequits?

Or... what?

Just don't fight weaklings.

blat

Azherae wrote: »

Just don't fight weaklings.

Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Well the point being these are two willing pvpers, but that managing to make a really optimal start to a fight can be effectively punished by the victim choosing to lean on the corruption system.

Is the target "willing" if they stop fighting? Cause afaik if an opponent taps out in the hexagon - he's no longer willing to continue the fight.

blat wrote: »

In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.

That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.

This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.

Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.

We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.

Azherae

blat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Just don't fight weaklings.

Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?

I can't even interpret this one.

Is this one of those 'assuming I'm a PvE player and can't possibly understand'?

I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?

In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".

So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".

I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

Blat's assumption here that the target will then "tap back in" and this will somehow be "abuse(?) of the system, and feels unnatural".

So smth like "you're fighting a Bo7 in a fighting game. After your 2 wins, the opponent stops fighting, and killing him would not give a win. He just stands there doing nothing, even if you start hitting him. Then once yourself try to "ragequit" - he tries to kill you".

I think it's smth like that, unless I misunderstood the point as well.

Oh, then I'll leave it to you.

This is actually a result of my toxic attitude in competitive games.

People who do this are trash weaklings and not worth my time, but it's still weird to me, so I'll pass my thought on to you to handle.

If the idea is that you are 'just enjoying PvP' (and you don't have some other goal where doing this serves your purpose better), then every engagement is 'one match', so unless you can only get your... satisfaction? Rank points? Whatever? If you can only get that without 'them being on the ground', in this scenario, then you won.

It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?

But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?

If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.

Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

It resets the exact same as it probably would if you won, except I guess that they don't have to go to a respawn point and get to stay in their position?

But it's a position where you just successfully got the drop on them, so?

If they're doing it because 'they want their chance to fight from that position instead of having to figure out how to beat you now that you've taken it', they can just say that.

Anyways, all yours, NiKr, can't be getting into this state pre-livestream, and it was my fault, so.

I'm not sure I can do much here either, cause I also really don't understand the issue here. I understand the situation, because I've experienced and done it myself, but I do not see how this is an issue with the system.

Maybe blat will explain more of the point, but if the premise doesn't change then the only thing I can say is that I disagree with the conclusion that blot comes to from this premise.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Well the point being these are two willing pvpers, but that managing to make a really optimal start to a fight can be effectively punished by the victim choosing to lean on the corruption system.

Is the target "willing" if they stop fighting? Cause afaik if an opponent taps out in the hexagon - he's no longer willing to continue the fight.

blat wrote: »

In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.

That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.

This is exactly what happened in L2 (which had this flagging system). Like, EXACTLY the same. I've been on both sides: the attacker and the target. And many a times we've gone at it for hours while grinding a single mob spot.

Sooner or later one might attempt not fighting back and "win' the fight by purely fighting mobs better. And at that point the attacker would have to decide what's easier to do: kill mobs better yourself, PK the target, try keeping the target at low hp or move on.

We didn't see target's hp in L2, so that 3 option was usually fairly difficult w/o a higher risk of going Red. In Ashes it'll be way easier to do so and "win" by keeping the target at low hp and preventing them from farming mobs optimally.

Ah a constructive post, agree or not, I appreciate it.

Interesting that you've experienced a similar system and it's played out as described.
I guess a big part of this is simply what we're all used to.
For me, the corruption system is getting in the way when it's affecting the gameplay between two willing pvpers.

I think we can all agree that factors like situational awareness, preparation & environment are key in wpvp.
Starting the fight aka "getting the jump" is an integral part of that. A melee wants to jump a range and start the fight on his own terms. Equally the ranged players want to start at a comfortable distance and maintain control, forcing the early use of the melee's gap closing CDs.
This is a central part of wpvp.

IMO, when an otherwise willing pvper suddenly chooses to lean on the corruption system simply because his opponent has gained a situational advantage is where the system "gets in the way".

I appreciate all constructive replies as I really am only here to discuss & help make the game better in some small way.

I'd appreciate if that intention was respected regardless of anyone's militant loyalty to any one particular playstyle.

blat

blat wrote: »

I just want to clarify; I really have zero interest in killing non-PvPers.
(Well ok I can't rule out defending resources, but generally no interest).

I play for the competitive element, and love those ongoing 'grudges' with like-minded people in the area.

My scenarios is clear; two such players, both totally happy to fight with each other. Taking turns to get "the jump" (a central element in wpvp.. situational awareness, preparation, environment).

In this specific (but common) scenario, when someone has initiated combat and gained a significant advantage in the fight:
The victim (despite being a fellow pvp-enjoyer!) could simply lean on the corruption system in order to reset, and un-do the attacker's situational advantage.

That feels wrong to me. It seems like an unintended consequence of a well-intended system.

Unless I've accidentally slipped into Mandarin, I can't see how this isn't clear.

blat

Azherae wrote: »

blat wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Just don't fight weaklings.

Lol this must just be willful ignorance at this stage.
Are you even reading the posts you reply to?

Or is it simply because we're talking from a PvPer's perspective now and I forgot to add a trigger warning?

I'm literally telling you that I don't understand. How is 'refusing to fight back' in a situation where you are both 'accepting that getting the jump is part of the fight', not 'giving up the fight'?

In my circles we call that a 'ragequit' because the explicit purpose is to 'not give your opponent the deserved win', as opposed to 'tapping out' which is 'leaving your character (talking about fighting games here) just doing nothing or walking forward defenselessly until they finish you'.

I don't think I know anyone who chooses to fight ragequitters repeatedly. Take the W and move on, is what I assume happens here.

So in your experience, world pvp is always fair? IE: you stand 10 yards apart and engage on a 3,2,1 count?
My point is not about hunting ragequitters (even though this really is not the definition of RQ that I understand, but let's use your term):

The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.

Any clearer at all?

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

IMO, when an otherwise willing pvper suddenly chooses to lean on the corruption system simply because his opponent has gained a situational advantage is where the system "gets in the way".

Again, is the version that you'd prefer here just "they can kill each other at any time from any point"?

To me what you're saying is weird because it's self-contradicting, in my experience. The whole point is awareness and preparedness. There's no "system being in the way", because your opponent could attack you while you're at half hp or he could bring you to half hp in just a few hits or bring a train with him to dump on you before fighting.

All of those would be seen as "unfair" by majority of people. Owpvp doesn't have a perfectly fair encounter, even if both sides are fully willing to fight. And that's not even considering the RPS balancing of AoC's classes.

If you hit your opponent, but he retaliates later - that's the same as them coming back to the spot while you're still flagged from the previous fight, while they're at full hp.

Again, I completely fail to see what the system is standing in the way of.

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

The point is that "ragequitting" (backed by the corruption system) seems an unfair way to tackle an opponent's optimal wpvp opener.

I mean, this is literally fighting "unfair" with "unfair" though. So they cancel each other out and it's a fair fight. That's kinda the entire point of the system. The attacker has the first hit, the target has the first CC - everything else is a calculation on both sides of what they wanna use first in terms of abilities.

Child Item