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

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.

I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.

It's one of those things that is hard to talk about without us playing. The current system deters this with the benefits of becoming a combatant. It will probably always be a thing but playing around with the benefits of going combatant as well as maybe the penalty initially going corruption may help. The is probably be changes to interactions with the corruption system when the person killed has also killed a lot. Maybe we could get a grudge system that functions as personal wars that you can declare on people who have killed you recently. This could also be one of those things that is intended to be settled more with the guild/node war systems and on the open ocean than on land.

I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.

As is said, i get the problem but hard to tell how much of a problem it is and the solution without the having the system in my hand.

Mag7spy

Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.

Though we need to remember in AoC most people will be in groups.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.

I mean, I understand the base desire to either have a pve game or a full pvp game, but Ashes is neither of those, so yeah, discussions of this system before people get to properly try it will be kind of a pain

mcstackerson wrote: »

I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.

The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.

Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

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.

As I said earlier I think a big part of the misunderstanding here is the games/systems we're used to.
Yes I am used to open PvP without any system in the way. Even this idea of the victim being CC-immune is v weird and kind've artificial to me but as I said before I like what they're trying to do with corruption, I just want to get my head around the various scenarios.

I totally understand if @Dygz is running around and not in the mood for PvP... I open on him and he says not now, refuses to flag (and I don't want the corruption). The system is working well here.

But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.

blat

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'm not sure if there is a good solution but the "issue" is they seeing pretty simple. Like how jumping a caravan and catching it's defenders off guard is a valid strat, they see jumping someone in the open world as a valid strat. Even if that person is the best pvper on the server, they may choose use the threat of the corruption system to avoid death instead of fighting back.

I know you are experienced with L2 and very used to this scenario but I'd hope that you can see how someone can see this scenario as being a little odd and not necessarily intended.

Thank you. This is exactly it.

mcstackerson wrote: »

As is said, i get the problem but hard to tell how much of a problem it is and the solution without the having the system in my hand.

Agreed.

Ludullu

Mag7spy wrote: »

Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.

L2 had a "duel" mechanic for these kinds of moments. People soooometimes used it to decide stuff, but usually it was just a thing to pass the time with while waiting for your mates.

blat wrote: »

But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.

Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.

You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I know one of the issues they bring up is two players taking turns attacking each other and i think that could be solved with either increasing the amount of time you are a combatant or you could maybe change the system so people who go combatant will automatically go combatant again if attacked. If you attack someone and your combatant state falls off, you will automatically become a combatant again if that person attacks you within a set amount of time. So if i attack you, if you see me an hour later and I'm a non-combatant, you can attack me and I'm auto flagged combatant because i attacked you an hour earlier. Sorry if I'm bad at explaining.

The balancing of that timer would be near-impossible, if it would even be accepted by people. Too many abuses possible and/or too many limitations required for this system to be acceptably balanced.

Even pvpers want to rest sometimes. Losing your flag is meant to create that "rest". If your attackers are still free to kill you - that's kinda bad imo.

I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.

EDIT: I realize the way it should function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.

Mag7spy

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

Its pretty simple if you know the person will only fight back if they consider it fair and that is your only chance to kick them out. Simply be like "duel for spot" And both flag up fight and the person dies or leaves.

L2 had a "duel" mechanic for these kinds of moments. People soooometimes used it to decide stuff, but usually it was just a thing to pass the time with while waiting for your mates.

blat wrote: »

But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.

Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.

You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.

This was a go to for people in BDO (almost always at certain spots) if its one on one it easily could be a common thing. But since AoC is group oriented it might not really pick up as a common thing.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

blat wrote: »

But if me and my mate, who are both willing & active pvpers.. are able to strategically negate each others wpvp openers by leaning on a system that frankly, was never designed with us in mind.. that's seems very obviously "in the way" to me. I get the impression you're v used to these mechanics which is poss causing some of this misunderstanding.

Yes, the game won't appeal to those who're completely used free pvp. I hope you like this system once you get to try it, but before that I doubt I can properly explain that the current design is "fair" to all players.

You just need to account for this possibility, just as you're accounting for enemy abilities and/or surroundings.

Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?

I'm totally willing to try it np, I'm just working out the implications.

Mag7spy

I also think he is missing the point of corruption, corruption is not meant to be the most common pvp. This view is making it feel like this is the main source of pvp.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.

Considering that we can fight pretty much anywhere in the game, huge guilds will absolutely demolish anyone who even tries to stand up against them.

A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.

Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).

This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.

mcstackerson wrote: »

EDIT: I realize the way it needs to function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.

And this plays into my last sentence.

Mag7spy wrote: »

This was a go to for people in BDO (almost always at certain spots) if its one on one it easily could be a common thing. But since AoC is group oriented it might not really pick up as a common thing.

L2 had group duels as well, but that was only used for tournaments, so yeah, doubt it'd be used in Ashes to "decide a spot" or whatever.

blat wrote: »

Fine but have you entertained the possibility that you are simply used to this system and in fact there are certain scenarios between two consenting PvPers, where that system can be exploited and therefore "get in the way"?

Honestly, no. Because again, this game is not meant for free kills. Well, the open seas are - the remainder of the map no.

If you want to kill a person - do so and be ready for the consequences. No matter who that person is, pvper or not.

Pvpers are not constantly pvpers, because the base state of a character in Ashes is green (passive/non-combatant). Your pov on this system comes from a game where players' base state is pvper - at all times.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I'd have to hear what you were thinking for a time, i was thinking everywhere between 30 minutes to a few hours, but disagree with the idea that you can't be extended because people wanted to rest. If they wanted to rest from pvp, they shouldn't have attacked someone in the first place.

Considering that we can fight pretty much anywhere in the game, huge guilds will absolutely demolish anyone who even tries to stand up against them.

A smaller guild got wiped during a fight? The big guild is absolutely free to keep killing them over and over and over again within this time limit (and that's assuming that the victim doesn't fight back and doesn't renew the timer). And they'd be able to do this outside of a guild war, so the victims would be suffering death penalties. MAJOR penalties.

Also, would this flag be a 1v1 kinda thing or literally "plain combatant flag"? Cause if it's a full combatant flag that anyone can now attack - that's even worse (again, especially against big guilds).

This just creates super bad player behavior imo. To me this would be a MUCH MUCH bigger issue than the visible hp. And would ultimately drive even more people away from even attempting to flag up.

mcstackerson wrote: »

EDIT: I realize the way it needs to function is you only have this increased time if you attacked a non-combatant, not if you attacked a combatant.

And this plays into my last sentence.

I don't see the deterrent to attack people as a bad thing. If you deterred from attacking people because people might bring a fight to you then maybe you shouldn't be attacking people. Yea, if you attack a bigger guild and they bring more members, it might be time for you to leave. I don't think you should be able to stick around, hide behind the corruption system, and wait for opportunities to pick them apart.

The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.

hleV

Yes, it will be "abusable" in the way you describe. If you jump a PvPer and they feel like they're at a disadvantage, they can simply not fight back and have you risk becoming red.

And if you do become red, green PvPers can then "abuse" the fact that red takes an L regardless if they win or lose against greens (the only option is escape, but we don't know how viable that is in AoC).

The system is not perfect and can be abused (I've discussed this to death already), but hasn't been tested yet so we don't know what issues on paper are actual issues, nor is there a good, generally agreed upon way to improve/remake it without negatively affecting other things.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.

I think our views on how much pvp there should be in the game are wildly different.

I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

The main goal of what I'm thinking is to make it so if you attack someone, possibly just non-combatants, then for a period of time, people can attack you without worrying about corruption. Maybe you stay a combatant or maybe it's something where if you are attacked within a certain amount of time, you are auto-flagged one. The second way would allow you to kind of hide from people unless they knew what you did.

I think our views on how much pvp there should be in the game are wildly different.

I want more pvp, but when both sides are fine continuing that pvp. To me there's no "hiding behind the system". Everyone is a non-combatant and shouldn't be forceable to become one, no matter when they had pvp last time or against whom.

They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.

If you are using the system to deter people from attacking you, you are hiding behind it. If you have no interest in pvping, i see no problem with that but if you just attacked someone 5 minutes earlier, I don't think you deserve its protections.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.

They didn't though. They simply attacked another person. And while this attacker is green - anyone else is free to attack them as well. But both of these attacks should result in corruption if executed till the death of the target.

You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!

Like I said, I strongly disagree.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

They are only "forced" to pvp if they forced pvp onto someone else.

They didn't though. They simply attacked another person. And while this attacker is green - anyone else is free to attack them as well. But both of these attacks should result in corruption if executed till the death of the target.

You're suggesting free PKs of those who flagged up for a second and then went back to green. And you're suggesting that free PKs for up to an hour?!

Like I said, I strongly disagree.

I'm flexible on the time.

Yea, if someone attacked a non-combatant, i think for a period of time, they should be able to be attacked.

I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.

Ok, a question then. IRL should a punch be punishable by death?

Aszkalon

Azherae wrote: »

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

Like Macros ?

Hahahahahah! 😂

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I feel like you are trying to trivialize the act of attacking a non-combatant. It's not like they slipped and accidentally attacked them. They attacked them with some intent and i think for some time afterward, a time period that is greater than if a combatant attacked another combatant, others should be more free to attack them.

Ok, a question then. IRL should a punch be punishable by death?

Ignoring the fact that IRL and games have different consequences for those things, you know that is a horrible argument as the current system already allows you to freely kill someone after they attacked someone. It's already allowed, I'm just saying increase the time period it's allowed.

Child Item