Proposal and ideas regarding pvp in order to avoid griefing.

When a type of thread like this comes up, it's important to remind new visitors that:

The purpose of the corruption system is to encourage PvP by encouraging players to fight back more, and to PvP more. Corruption is there only to discourage serial ganking, and give uneasy players a way to ease into PvP and get comfortable with it.

We have not received permission from Plasticyeti to share the quoted post.

Dungeons are one of the places that PvP is most intended to happen. There cannot be a higher penalty for killing players in dungeons because the design intent is for players to fight over good dungeons.

We have not received permission from Plasticyeti to share the quoted post.

If you're new to Ashes, and the corruption system, you may be interested in reading about the Bounty Hunter system, which grants progression and rewards to players who kill Corrupted players.

We have not received permission from Plasticyeti to share the quoted post.

This already exists in a different form: The corruption penalties for killing players much lower level than you are much more severe than the ones for killing a player at your level. Your chance of losing gear increases dramatically. Your stats (and ability to fight back) decrease dramatically. Then see above bounty hunting system (or just any indignant passerby that sees you picking on lowbies).

We have not received permission from Plasticyeti to share the quoted post.

Yeah. This is already done. The PENALTY for killing players lower level than you is much higher. The "flag meter" (I must assume you mean corruption) does increase faster depending on the level difference.

We have not received permission from Plasticyeti to share the quoted post.

The placement of low-level areas depends entirely on what areas players have leveled up, and will be different on each server to some degree.


As a new visitor, I greatly suggest you read about Corruption in greater depth. Many of the things you are asking for are already in the game, or don't apply to Ashes of Creation.

Remember: You are supposed to be able to kill players who don't want to fight. If you weren't, there would be a hard on/off flag system instead of Corruption. Corruption's goal is to ease players into PvP, and prevent things like the lowbie abuse described. It exists for the sole purpose of solving the problems you seem to be concerned about. It's reasonable to assume it will be adjusted until it does so.

I thank you for this information, technically.

Because while I don't have any opinion on this, this is closer to what I was expecting to pop up, (and has a few interesting 'lines that lead to it' in terms of ways it will be found on the internet) so it's possible we might actually get more data on what the more general sentiment is.

Hopefully everyone will have the same sort of response you do, OP and come learn about it, even if it is 'learning that their own suggestions are already the implemented ones'.

Go out there and do the good work of telling people that your ideas are in the game and therefore it will probably be fine! (no sarcasm).

Ok, now that I've watched the video in question, I agree with the video, but I only agree with your suggestions in the cases where they are already what Intrepid is aiming for/doing.

The suggestions from the video that I agree with aren't included in your post, so that's my feedback on that.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yeah Lex is on point with the hardcore shade.

The Citation on the Corruption page that explains this and shows the image (unreadable for me?) of Steven's information on this, now links TO the Lucky Ghost video directly.

Well played.

We have not received permission from MixaZavr to share the quoted post.

Most of this is wrong.

There are not that many easy ways to grief other players without becoming corrupted that are not also available in PvE games.

There is no reason a Green player needs to fight back.

There is no reason a Green player shouldn't fight back against a player that is already Red, because it doesn't turn them Purple to do that.

The only way this matters is if a Purple figures out a way to make a Green miserable enough that they HAVE to fight back, and NEEDED to be Purple to do it.

Azherae wrote: »

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yeah Lex is on point with the hardcore shade.

The Citation on the Corruption page that explains this and shows the image (unreadable for me?) of Steven's information on this, now links TO the Lucky Ghost video directly.

Well played.

Nah, Intrepid tricked even you. That entire quote wasn't even there before.

SongRune wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yeah Lex is on point with the hardcore shade.

The Citation on the Corruption page that explains this and shows the image (unreadable for me?) of Steven's information on this, now links TO the Lucky Ghost video directly.

Well played.

Nah, Intrepid tricked even you. That entire quote wasn't even there before.

Aww, and I thought I had checked so well too...

I even looked at some previous versions, I thought... did I do that incorrectly?

Now I'm upset in a lot of weird ways that I don't even know how to articulate... but...

I THINK that page you linked is as exact as it's going to get?

Greypelt is a dev or something, right? Or is this just wiki vandalism? It's not 'Intrepid tricking me' if this is some random person who shouldn't actually have wiki access but does.

EDIT: Now I see, it was because of that thing about how Citations and such are handled on the Disambiguation page.

I guess we're just waiting for a more 'official' announcement of this change, soon, and they're probably just not done crafting it yet? (again, assuming Greypelt is a dev or related)

We have not received permission from MixaZavr to share the quoted post.

Actually, while I don't agree with your reasoning, I have been informed that I am in error anyway.

The information that made me say 'well there isn't a way to do that' was apparently changed TODAY. So though I still disagree about your specific example... yeah... my bad.

Oof, I already don't like this... I mean... I like the change... I THINK... but I don't like the 'surroundings' of this.

Azherae wrote: »

SongRune wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

Yeah Lex is on point with the hardcore shade.

The Citation on the Corruption page that explains this and shows the image (unreadable for me?) of Steven's information on this, now links TO the Lucky Ghost video directly.

Well played.

Nah, Intrepid tricked even you. That entire quote wasn't even there before.

Aww, and I thought I had checked so well too...

I even looked at some previous versions, I thought... did I do that incorrectly?

Now I'm upset in a lot of weird ways that I don't even know how to articulate... but...

I THINK that page you linked is as exact as it's going to get?

Greypelt is a dev or something, right? Or is this just wiki vandalism? It's not 'Intrepid tricking me' if this is some random person who shouldn't actually have wiki access but does.

EDIT: Now I see, it was because of that thing about how Citations and such are handled on the Disambiguation page.

I guess we're just waiting for a more 'official' announcement of this change, soon, and they're probably just not done crafting it yet? (again, assuming Greypelt is a dev or related)

Why would a dev bother to stealth edit a link in such a weird way just to point to Steven 'debunking' a video? That's only good for doing a scummy publicity stunt.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Even so though, I don't like how this is going, because the wiki now 'discredits' this YouTuber in a disingenuous way. Basically it makes them look like they made a video out of ignorance of something, when that 'something' was only updated AFTER they made the video.

I hope Intrepid changes or clarifies this in some way so as to make good on this, cause this is... kinda not cool...

EDIT: Ok found it, Steven made comments on the video itself.

Good job Intrepid as always.

We have not received permission from Mag7spy to share the quoted post.

None. I really appreciate it.

I'm not even gonna start a topic about this change, because I'm reasonably sure that Intrepid will just make that topic themselves, and be able to frame the change and question correctly, rather than us just guessing.

I'mma just go think about how I feel about it. I already added my related question to Q&A for this month (whether or not this means you can't drain Mana from a Green).

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

We couldn't really test it in Alpha-1. There was minimal CC, and PvP was off most of the time. So I doubt they would have got enough data that way. Probably internal testing.

It's pretty easy to think about though, most people could pretty simply realize that this could be a problem, the question was WHICH solution Intrepid intended to use for it, and not everyone comes up with the same ones.

I would have preferred something closer to what Lucky Ghost suggested, where you can eventually build up Corruption from CC 'griefing' because it would let me keep the option of 'CC open for combat'. This removes some of the strategy/capability for situations where you EXPLICITLY intend to kill the person, or explicitly intend to use CC to discourage them from doing something (taking your resource node, training mobs onto you, etc).

I think this COULD theoretically make PvE griefing easier, for example, a person who 'finds a way to pull mobs to you using some very defensive ability' could do this while green, but you could send someone from your group to CC them and make their timer run out before they reach your group and they die.

Maybe that won't be important, but in my experience, being able to CC the 'PvE griefers' is an important part of counterplay.

We have not received permission from JamesSunderland to share the quoted post.

Yeah, see, I don't like this perspective.

The video didn't even try to address the HARSHNESS of the system. It looked at two scenarios that explicitly AVOID that harshness, one that exploits the (now non-existent I guess) CC vs Greens, and the other making use of 'groups that literally don't care how harsh it is'.

So no amount of research would have changed the core video at all. It wasn't POSSIBLE to know the counter to the first, and there is still no counter to the second. There was no 'due diligence to do' that wasn't done.