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

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

The biggest adjustment might just be sharing a server with people who can't wrap their heads around the concept of pvp without artificial rules to hide behind.

As Okey already pointed out, your preferred pvp will be the absolute majority of pvp in the game. Literally every pvp event and the open seas (a pretty big part of the map) allow you to freely kill your opponents.

The corruption system is in the game to not alienate the players who'd be willing to die a few times here and there at the hands of another player, but would not be willing to play a game where they can be freely killed at all times and anywhere.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Your perceived unfairness comes from the inherent desire to be able to kill another player w/o a punishment.

Yeah it's statements like this where I just cba.

I do of course realise that it's a totally different system. IE: there is one, rather than "purer" pvp without such rules in the way (not that I'm advocating for that! just in case).

Btw just because Steven's chosen a particular system, doesn't at all mean there can't be unintentional gaps/consequences in that system, even ones he's aware of.
It just means that all things considered, he's decided it was the best compromise.

Ludullu

Azherae wrote: »

Idk it's a hell of a Leap.

From downtown!

That archetype shoulda been called Michael Jordan CAUSE HE FUCKING FLIES

But yes, obviously there'll be super mobile chars or ones with super high regen, who'll come back way faster. But is this not just a part of the "owpvp is always unfair" that blot has already acknowledged before?

I just find it silly that having an unfair advantage is fine when it's "you", but it's not fine when it's the opponent

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

It just means that all things considered, it's the best compromise. The cons don't outweigh the pros.

Which is exactly why the system is they way that it is. Your described situation will be so damn rare when compared to literally every other instance of pvp in the game that its importance pales in comparison to the importance of curbing malicious pvp attacks on green players.

The example that I mentioned on the previous page summed up to maybe 1-2% of my pvp interactions in the game across 12 years of playing. Everything else was guild wars and sieges. Ashes will have even more ways to participate in free pvp, so the % of the presented situation will be even lower.

Mag7spy

blat wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

You made this statement correct?

Did you want a "yes" or have you not finished your post?
Do us all a favour and make your point in a single post please rather than making it into a multi-part series.

I figured i didn't need to say anything else and you would understand that my comment is valid as it is your own point. Again you its not a flaw, you should not be looking for honorable pvp in the corruption system, let alone ow in general.

blat

Yeah it's really not that rare at all. Two willing pvpers, one getting the jump on the other. Not rare.

Using a system other than combat to handle that scenario, is not the default in any way.

mcstackerson

NiKr wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ok, similar to my response to your rl argument, the system already allows "free kills."

Do you see this statement as false or true?

If that person is flagged (or you are both in a pvp event or open seas) - yes, you can kill them for free.

But an unflagged person is not a pvper.

An unflagged person might not be a pvper but I don't think a person who stopped pvping for 90 seconds after attacking someone suddenly stops being a pvper.

I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?

Ludullu

blat wrote: »

Yeah it's really not that rare at all. Two willing pvpers, one getting the jump on the other. Not rare.

Using a system other than combat to handle that scenario, is not the default in any way.

Once again, I've been playing with this exact pvp system for 12 years. I've been pvping in this exact system for the same 12 years. I've fought thousands upon thousands of different players, all with different approaches to not just the fights but the system itself as well.

And as I already said, I've experienced your exact situation a ton of times. It's a completely normal way to use this system, because the system is a tool that players can use, just as a tree is a tool to use against a ranged character when you're trying to dodge their attacks.

I understand that you've never played with this system, so it feels completely alien to you and weird and all of that. But I'm just telling you that expecting Steven to change the system into something even more pvpey is a lost cause, considering that he has already made pve tunes to this system and the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY of feedback on this system will be along the lines of "why in the living fuck are people attacking me?!?! PLz fIx".

Ludullu

mcstackerson wrote: »

I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?

It's because I believe that is what would be preferable for the kind of owpvp experience that I'd prefer. I've proposed and discussed multiple variations on this system on these forums. Iirc at some point I even proposed a longer flagged counter, just as you did.

But unless Steven decides to overhaul the pvp system completely - I believe that the current timer is just right for what he's going for with this design.

As a middle of the road compromise, I'd be totally ok if the flagging state had a longer timer if the attacker's last attack was against a green player at <50%hp. We're gonna see that shit either way, it seems, so why not at least use it to its fullest.

Imo any pvper who attacks a visible weaker passive player is a weakling coward, so I'm totally fine with him getting punished for doing so. This would also align with my reasoning for invisible hp values, so there's that too.

Ludullu

Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.

Would you still consider that exploit of the system?

hleV

You could appear as purple for way longer than 90 seconds to the last person you have fought or killed in a consensual battle. Basically, allow players to be retaliated against without their consent. It's not a "free kill" (unless getting jumped unexpectedly is your definition of it), it simply prevents a confirmed PvPer from "abusing" the corruption system and so their only choice is to fight back, because, you know, they fought recently, and won, against the very same person, so surely they're not a carebear PvEer needing corruption system's protection.

But then, this could lead to less OWPvP if you know that winning against someone in a consensual fight means they can freely come back and try to jump you while you're minding your own business.
It would also add extra complexity to the system, which may not be worth it.

Dygz

Yeah... I mean... the original Corruption design is a bit harsher on PvPers than L2 Karma.
So, it seems unlikely that Corruption will be tuned to be less harsh on PvPers.

Attackers will probably be attacking Non-Combatants more frequently than Combatants, on land, because Non-Combatant is the default state and the Combatant flag cools down in less than 1 minute, IIRC.

One of the things I hate most about the PvP-flagging system on PvP-Optional servers is being attacked while I'm waiting for the PvP-flag to cool down when I'm no longer in the mood for PvP.
As in, I've been defending a Town or Caravan for an hour - and now I want to do anything else in the game except PvP. But, people contine to attack me because the flag cool-down lasts too long.

Ashes is desgined for gamers who love the L2 Karma design, like Steven.
So... I would not hold out hope that Corruption is going to be vastly different than Karma.
I dunno what the cool-down was in L2, but expect it to be fairly close.

Dygz

mcstackerson wrote: »

An unflagged person might not be a pvper but I don't think a person who stopped pvping for 90 seconds after attacking someone suddenly stops being a pvper.

I get you prefer how it is and you might be right, it might be the perfect amount of time, but is that just because it's what you are used to?

Everyone playing Ashes is a PvXer.
So... you stop being a Combatant and become a Non-Combatant.
If you wish to become a Combatant again after the flag cools down, you'll have to go combat a player character.

Otr

NiKr wrote: »

But an unflagged person is not a pvper.

A wise man said:

"+98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs"

so if is not PvPer then is PvXer.
Or is one of those 2%.

Ludullu

Otr wrote: »

A wise man said:

"+98% of Ashes players will be gamers who enjoy PvP-centric MMORPGs"

so if is not PvPer then is PvXer.
Or is one of those 2%.

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Once again, I've been playing with this exact pvp system for 12 years. I've been pvping in this exact system for the same 12 years. I've fought thousands upon thousands of different players, all with different approaches to not just the fights but the system itself as well.

Good to hear! Tbh this is kind've why I'm here, sounds like this system shouldn't be too much of a pain in the arse then, once I've got used to it.

But I do think you're so used to this/other systems that you can't appreciate how artificial the rules are (and basically how pure wPvP really works).

NiKr wrote: »

But I'm just telling you that expecting Steven to change the system into something even more pvpey is a lost cause

Tf? Again, where have I said anything like this?

blat

NiKr wrote: »

Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.

Would you still consider that exploit of the system?

Of course not. There will be other more subtle examples but I've been keeping it simple here:

Again.. I'm talking about active pvpers. Active pvpers deciding on the spot whether to fight or to lean on a punitive system, not based on their appetite for PvP, but based entirely on how much of an advantage/disadvantage they have in that moment.

Also, I never once said I was against the corruption system, or want "Steven to change the system"... I am simply trying to understand where the friction is with these PvP rules.

Mag7spy

blat wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Btw, blat, another question for you. Would the "known pvper" still be "exploiting the system" even if he hadn't pvped you in a week? Like, you've come across each other, maybe you even tried flagging up on him, but he simply moved on from the spot. But then he finally did attack you after a week.

Would you still consider that exploit of the system?

Of course not. There will be other more subtle examples but I've been keeping it simple here:

Again.. I'm talking about active pvpers. Active pvpers deciding on the spot whether to fight or to lean on a punitive system, not based on their appetite for PvP, but based entirely on how much of an advantage/disadvantage they have in that moment.

Also, I never once said I was against the corruption system, or want "Steven to change the system"... I am simply trying to understand where the friction is with these PvP rules.

Ow pvp is not going to be fair... of course people will do what will give them an advantage to some random person attacking them. With other factors judging their decision like what they have to lose as well based around the systems.

What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?

blat

Dygz wrote: »

Attackers will probably be attacking Non-Combatants more frequently than Combatants, on land, because Non-Combatant is the default state and the Combatant flag cools down in less than 1 minute, IIRC.

@NiKr so the scenario we're talking about will be pretty common

Dygz wrote: »

One of the things I hate most about the PvP-flagging system on PvP-Optional servers is being attacked while I'm waiting for the PvP-flag to cool down when I'm no longer in the mood for PvP.

See this is wild for me to get my head round (and I imagine for anyone who's played in similar environments to me).

I'm not condemning anyone's playstyle here, just saying this expectation to hop in and out of PvP is as bad as it gets, for me. Totally ruins the game tbh. Artificial feeling & immersion breaking. Zero element of danger too as long as you manage to outsmart the mobs.

It's like throwing a punch irl and then saying *I'm not playing* a second later.

This is why corruption is a big deal, it needs to somehow accommodate as many of us lot as possible!

blat

Mag7spy wrote: »

Ow pvp is not going to be fair...

Funnily enough that is what I've been trying to say. The rules you are familiar with force it to be fairer than it would be in a game without such rules.
I like the pros that come with that system (preventing/reducing toxic behaviour) but I'm here discussing the cons.

Mag7spy wrote: »

What is your solution that does not involve giving more people to the person attempting to pk and making it easier for them?

[/quote]

Now there's a question.
But again as a few of us have said, no easy answer without upsetting the balance elsewhere.
I'm not just here waving a PvP flag, I'm trying to understand it the system & consequences.

Child Item