Griefing is amazing!

Greetings, fellow humans!

I’ll admit, my title is a bit misleading—laden with a heavy dose of sarcasm—but hey, you’re here, so mission accomplished!

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of PvP whatsoever. However, I can understand the appeal of it and believe it can be made fun and fair for all.

Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:

Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.

The chance of corruption increases with each additional attack within a specific timeframe (reset after 10 minutes, for example).

This chance would also scale further based on the aggressor's level of Blight.

Intended Outcomes
[1] Reduced griefing of non-combatants.
[2] Increased risk for non-PK griefers.
[3] Encourages politically and resource-motivated PK/PvP. (Corrupted debuffs would require major reduction)
[4] Boosted value of bounty hunting: With more corrupted players around, bounty hunters have increased opportunities for action.

Balancing Adjustments
To maintain harmony with the game’s core principles, adjustments would be necessary for non-combatant vs. corrupted interactions. The penalties and rewards need to strike a fine balance to ensure the system feels fair and engaging for all players.

Additional Benefits
[-] Reduces reliance on Customer Support: Placing the onus on victims to report griefers (a double burden, in my opinion) could be minimized.
[-] Streamlined support needs: Fewer reports mean fewer Customer Service Reps required, saving resources for Intrepid.

An Alternate Angle
Perhaps instead of focusing solely on punishing corrupted players, we could explore increasing protections for non-combatants. This might achieve similar goals while offering a more positive approach to the issue.

What do you think? Win-win-win? Or is there another way we can refine this idea further?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

PherPhur

CROW3 wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.

RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.

Agreed. I still think corruption hammer needs to drop around the 3rd-ish green kill. We all know some greens just need to be squashed from time to time as a keen reminder of FAFO.

And by FAFO we mean merely existing in Verra.

God damn greens, sitting around picking herbs and taming deers without a care in the world.. NOT IN MY GAME!

PherPhur

Caeryl wrote: »

Pyrolol wrote: »

I think corruption is over tuned at the moment, 1 gank and you risk losing 1-3 items is a bit extreme

It is significantly overtuned on purpose right now. The severity of consequences currently isn't reflective of the planned system.

10 PKs is the provided estimate of when combat stat dampening will be felt significantly. Consider the current system in that light, aka being 10X more severe than it's going to end up.

Yea I mean fuggn bounty hunter isn't even in place yet. Of course corruption is overtuned when the game is designed from the start to have people able to see corrupted players on the map as if they had some all-seeing eye.

Additionally, and lets be real, the game is in a sensitive space right now at risk of being labeled a gankbox and never being taken seriously again. I said this from the start, they will need to overtune the absolute living shit out of corruption at the start. People haven't gotten a taste of the debuff yet and haven't learned to not like it.

Additionally, Intrepid has no clue I think, just like most other people, how many griefers think. These people don't care about a debuff, they are absolutely mental mate. They have one thing on their mind and it's not some min-max or progressing mentality where a setback means anything to them.

AidanKD

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

And why should the community treat the topic seriously when:

1. The thread opens with a baited title and sarcasm.
2. Clearly they want to opt out of the risk of PvP on the main map (as you pointed out).
3. They aren’t a fan of PvP … nor listed any prior MMO experience to even have standing on the topic.

Feedback and suggestions are totally encouraged. Just not ones that fundamentally change the game’s core principals.

We should at least consider all topics - the guy put in a decent amount of effort into the main content and you're going to write him off because of the title? It at least conveyed the subject of the post which is griefing, it's really not all that offensive.

Yes they want more risk if you open world PvP.

And yes they aren't a PvP enthusiast.

But last I checked we don't have to have people attach their CV of MMO credentials to leave their views here.

If that were the case i'd be ripped apart because the only MMO I have put a considerable amount of time into is WoW - does that mean my views should be ignored just because I haven't played the MMOs that resemble Ashes more like Archeage?

Like I said - disagree and rebuke their points by all means - but the first 3 comments on this thread made a point to highlight that the game is in development so not completed.

What level of completion should we withhold our views before the forums are happy for people to give their views? Do we wait until live? Is there a magic % of completion that Intrepid will disclose for when it's okay to give feedback?

I'm sure these same people have projected these same views about corruption in other corruption related threads - or is it just the ones that oppose their views?

My take is that Intrepid wants people to talk about the systems - and Corruption and PvP are already in the Alpha and therefore open for discussion.

In my post I also said I disagree with his main point, but I wish people would just actually stick to the topic and either agree/deny with reason rather than just shoot people down without discussion. It sucks when you put a modicum of effort into a post hoping to engage with the community - even if your view is the minority - and have some decent discussion but instead people say to wait for more development (while ignoring the fact they don't share this principle for other elements of the game's design).

Sorry rambling. Grumble grumble. Forums should be a welcoming place with open discussion - lives and dies by the community we shouldn't push people away.

xthisu

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!

Isn't that partially the point of an Alpha and a General Discussion forum?

An alpha is not about suggesting anything. It is about finding problems, and then leaving the fix to those that actually know what they are doing.

You can't find problems in a system that is only 10% implemented.

I'm sure your intention was fine, but "feedback" doesn't mean they need suggestions.

That is a small word salad filled with contradictions. An alpha is about finding problems, but you can't find problems in a system that's only 10% implemented? bruh.

Intrepid does in fact want feedback/suggestions, Steven has said so himself many times in many interviews...that is the whole point of the public Alpha with no NDA so there is a transparent iteration process with user feedback/suggestions.

xthisu

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

AidanKD wrote: »

But the SHEER ELITISM of the community here saying you're not allowed to offer feedback or suggestions on x topic (a topic which is currently IN THE ALPHA) - blows my mind.

And why should the community treat the topic seriously when:

1. The thread opens with a baited title and sarcasm.
2. Clearly they want to opt out of the risk of PvP on the main map (as you pointed out).
3. They aren’t a fan of PvP … nor listed any prior MMO experience to even have standing on the topic.

Feedback and suggestions are totally encouraged. Just not ones that fundamentally change the game’s core principals.

1. I mean, 90% of YouTube content is click baity, just going with the flow.
2. I never said I wanted to opt out of PvP at all. I only said i wasn't a fan of PvP because my suggestion would actually increase, not decrease PvP. I must not have made that clear enough. My main concern is Griefing outside of actual PKing...that is not addressed in any of their current and future systems that I could find.
3. I don't mind indulging you on this one...started playing MMOs in EverQuest. I never played WoW when it first came out as i was a recovering EverCrack addict. I got into WoW a few years ago, missing the Classic one, but got into it with Burning Crusade and also Wrath. Played some ESO, FFXIV, GW2, Albion, New World, etc...but they all quickly faded as they are all the same. Easy content. Always the same content. Boring.

That's why i got interested in Ashes. From what I've seen so far, it looks very grindy and I love this. I also loved from EQ that you needed to grind keys and items to enter zones/dungeons. I think gatekeeping things behind grind/hard content is great as it makes it feel good when you finally get there. That everyone can just buy everything to look the same is just annoying IMO.

I don't think my suggestion fundamentally changes the core principles at all, but I'd love to hear why you think it does.

Honestly I think if they focused on adding protections on the "greens" they could better control griefing without altering how PvP/Corruption works.If they keep the debuffs how they are today, being a Bounty Hunter is going to be boring as hell haha.

I don't mind getting PKed once in a while, I play Escape from Tarkov so I'm used to losing all my shit.

xthisu

AidanKD wrote: »

One last thing i'd add for OP is behind a lot of the design decisions is clearly a sense of community. If a PKer is going around killing people constantly - while they plan to have designs in place to inhibit this, it's clear Stephen/Intrepid want the community to manage it more. Getting PK'd a lot? Party up with other local players, or join a guild and implore for their help. Grouping being the way to offer a disincentive for the player PKer - either by leaving, going for other player/s, or grouping up themselves to increase the manpower. Tensions can diminish or escalate but it's very much intended to be part of the game.

I don't think you're going to get what you want and since the vocal lot of the community are all aboard this train, that's why you're getting shut down unfairly - but I think you're looking at it from the perspective of a solo player - and you might want to approach the situation more creatively with other players in mind.

I get you, I appreciate you for your post. PKing is not my main concern since once you are dead, you are at least removed from the area and can't be griefed, at least by a single individual. I'm not looking for solo playing at all. I'm sure PvP enthusiasts are just as concerned with griefing than the more PvE inclined. I really can't imagine anybody with only 30 mins of available playtime would want to find themselves getting griefed for the entire period.If you get PKed in that time, that's totally fair.

Ultimately, I really don't want to spend my time with Customer Service or wasting a bunch of my guildies' time to chase off a neckbeard griefing me if the game could be altered to prevent this. I get enough of that IRL already ;p

This game has great potential, all the upcoming systems sound pretty amazing and will give everyone something they love to do.

CROW3

PherPhur wrote: »

And by FAFO we mean merely existing in Verra.

God damn greens, sitting around picking herbs and taming deers without a care in the world.. NOT IN MY GAME!

More like the players that bunny hop around you trying to lure you into corruption. There needs to be just enough slack in the corruption system to curb annoyance while still punishing griefing.

Noaani

xthisu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

xthisu wrote: »

Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.

Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!

Isn't that partially the point of an Alpha and a General Discussion forum?

An alpha is not about suggesting anything. It is about finding problems, and then leaving the fix to those that actually know what they are doing.

You can't find problems in a system that is only 10% implemented.

I'm sure your intention was fine, but "feedback" doesn't mean they need suggestions.

That is a small word salad filled with contradictions. An alpha is about finding problems, but you can't find problems in a system that's only 10% implemented? bruh.

No, you can't find problems in a design when you aren't looking at all of that design.

This isn't a controversial or unusual take.

The notion that a someone that isnt even classed as an amateur could find problems in something made by an experienced professional, without seeing the entire thing- that is an unusual and somewhat controversial take.

Alpha is indeed for finding problems.

Right now, Intrepid want to test things like server stability and performance. You simply being online is testing that.

Paying attention to systems and finding things you see wrong with them is also great, but as we should all be aware that these systems are not fully in place, we should then be aware that there is no point in providing Intrepid feedback on them as yet - and Intrepid know there is no point in paying attention to any feedback on systems we aren't being asked to test yet.

Arya_Yeshe

I didn't like this, it is another layer on top of the system

Laetitian

OP, you're replying to way too many meta discussions about your thread, and not nearly enough practical discussions about PvP that contain all the insights you should really be engaging with.

Lodrig

RNG adds nothing to this proposal.

If you think Corruption should occour for damage, not just kills that is a straitforward idea, but their is absolutly no reason to multilate the idea by putting it through the RNG meatgrinder.

Child Item