Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Corruption Discussion
ArchivedUser
Guest
MONKEY MADNESS LF GOOD PVPERS TO ADD TO OUR RANKS
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/WaVsEKx
DISCORD: https://discord.gg/WaVsEKx
0
Comments
Till more information about the system is actually released and genuine concern is valid, you are just acting like Nostradamus.
Thank you for your time :)
Good night
In an interview Steven specifically states:
<blockquote>"The idea here is to disincentivizes those who wish to gank or grief others, while rewarding those who engage in consensual PVP. We don’t want Ashes to be a murder box!"</blockquote>
(http://www.mmogames.com/gamearticles/interview-ashes-of-creation-wants-bring-virtual-world-life/)
Jeffrey states in another interview:
<blockquote>"It’s a game where PvP is important, but like I said previously, it’s going to be deeply integrated into the other systems as well. This is not a survival horror game; we don’t want this to be a gankfest, and we’ll have in place systems that will disincentivize folks griefing others, and that incentivizes large-scale, organized PvP."</blockquote>
(http://massivelyop.com/2016/12/07/exclusive-interview-with-ashes-of-creations-lead-dev-ex-daybreak-jeffrey-bard/)
So is it harsh on ganking? Yeah, for sure—but that seems to be the point. The game they're shooting for doesn't seem to be "As soon as you hit max level and good gear, prepare for PKing." Some games are built like this, and there's nothing wrong with that. I've played those kinds of games—Even enjoyed them sometimes. But it does drive a certain portion of the community away.
The game isn't only about PvP—and I think that also is something to consider. PvP is extremely influential within the game, don't get me wrong. It is one of the largest and most thought-out systems, it's a catalyst of change. But there is another aspect of the game they're trying to have flourish, which is the cooperative aspect. They want people to work together, to have a strong PvE scene, and for crafters/gatherers/etc. to have a huge presence within the world. The PvP scene will already be strong with things such as arenas, caravans, node sieges, and castle sieges. With the PvP scene being less focused on the ganking aspect.
Going back to the quotes, you can again see this is purposeful:
"The idea here is to disincentivizes those who wish to gank or grief others, while rewarding those who engage in consensual PVP. We don’t want Ashes to be a murder box!"
This doesn't mean they want to entirely protect these people from any and all PKing, it's also been stated you won't be able to avoid ALL PvP—but it does mean that they don't want it to be every interaction in the open world. They want to prevent things such as spawn camping from even being an option. They've made their views on how much ganking should be done clear. So what we should be addressing, in my opinion, isn't "what's fair" (You choose to do it, it's kinda like deleting your own gear and then saying: 'Unfair'. You know what you're getting into. You don't just accidentally PK), what we should be talking about is:
A. What you want to be able to do.
B. How you want it to impact others.
C. Why they should change this crucial design point of their game for a subset of the community.
The "underleveled" worry is, quite honestly, hardly an actual concern in my opinion considering they've already accounted for it. Definitely should be more punished, but it already is. You get worse corruption for killing someone of a lower level, so we don't really have to touch on that point.
From my understanding, within the current system you only take the effectiveness hits after you die. This is done through "Experience Debt" where you lose experience (not deleveling, as far as I know) and have to gain it back up to where you were before. It just so happens to be that the main way of getting rid of corruption is (repeated, I'm pretty sure) deaths. You gain x3 the amount of experience debt when you die while corrupt. So, if you managed to stay alive against all odds (from being pinged on the map for all bounty hunters to see), you wouldn't have to worry about the effects of corruption. But it is from that point on a constant risk to you—but not an immediate penalty.
Also, some of the people supporting the corruption/flagging system aren't all "die hard pro-crafting individuals". Some of them, such as myself, are primarily interested in Ashes of Creation FOR the PvP. The wording in your first sentence suggests that you're representing all pkers, pvpers, and gankers in this post... So, you might consider distinguishing the group you're trying to represent in this post, because it certainly isn't all pvpers (which is implied).
<strong>TL:DR</strong>
– No combat effectiveness hits for ganking/flagging on someone who is the equivalent level to the attacker
– Greater karma hits for attacking someone who is underleveled
– Combat effectiveness debuffs for attacking someone who is underleveled
Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in this thread, we want to reach a worthwhile compromise with the community. ^.^
[/quote]
I agree with points, being a lover of banking myself, i would love to see the punishment be lowered to banking players of similar level (and or gear score if that is added) as usually, i tend not to gank new players near starting level (of course unless they ask for it). Increasing the penalty for killing a lower leveled player should be increased, and killing a player of similar level should be decreased.
Yes this will arise the issue of our lovely non-combat based players of similar being targets of ganking, i would offer a solution to that too, Perhaps a system of Combat rating, that would would be determined by Kill/Death (K/D) ratio of a player, the higher it is, the less penalty is given to the perpetrator for killing the person of similar level, and higher for those who have a lower K/D ratio. This would means that killing a person of lower skill, or one who has no interest in fighting or killing other players would be increased, and also give PvPers and Gankers (such as myself) bragging rights, and show off our K/D ratio. I feel this system would benefit all players, both Pkers/Gankers and those who don't wanna get Ganked/PKed. If not I'm ok with the current system in place, but hey if possible, id like to able have a K/D counter somewhere to show off, perhaps a Leaderboard in a Bandit Hideout (which could also serve as a safe haven for us people in the darker arts).
All in all, I like this post and topic @Easy, great idea, and #FreeTheGankers! lol
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/corruption-discussion/#post-11807" rel="nofollow">Easy wrote:</a></div>
<strong>TL:DR</strong>
– No combat effectiveness hits for ganking/flagging on someone who is the equivalent level to the attacker
– Greater karma hits for attacking someone who is underleveled
– Combat effectiveness debuffs for attacking someone who is underleveled
Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in this thread, we want to reach a worthwhile compromise with the community. ^.^
</blockquote>
I agree with points, being a lover of banking myself, i would love to see the punishment be lowered to banking players of similar level (and or gear score if that is added) as usually, i tend not to gank new players near starting level (of course unless they ask for it). Increasing the penalty for killing a lower leveled player should be increased, and killing a player of similar level should be decreased.
Yes this will arise the issue of our lovely non-combat based players of similar being targets of ganking, i would offer a solution to that too, Perhaps a system of Combat rating, that would would be determined by Kill/Death (K/D) ratio of a player, the higher it is, the less penalty is given to the perpetrator for killing the person of similar level, and higher for those who have a lower K/D ratio. This would means that killing a person of lower skill, or one who has no interest in fighting or killing other players would be increased, and also give PvPers and Gankers (such as myself) bragging rights, and show off our K/D ratio. I feel this system would benefit all players, both Pkers/Gankers and those who don’t wanna get Ganked/PKed. If not I’m ok with the current system in place, but hey if possible, id like to able have a K/D counter somewhere to show off, perhaps a Leaderboard in a Bandit Hideout (which could also serve as a safe haven for us people in the darker arts).
All in all, I like this post and topic <a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/easy/" rel="nofollow">@easy</a>, great idea, and #FreeTheGankers! lol
[/quote]
Your suggestion could be so easily exploited. Just have your friends let you kill them or let them kill you to boost or lower your K:D ratio.
If there is support for people of equal level having less penalties for pvp combat, why not fight each other in an arena (in which there will be tiers) or during caravans, where corruption doesn't apply to any of the participants? Especially if you're concerned about bragging rights.
Your suggestion could be so easily exploited. Just have your friends let you kill them or let them kill you to boost or lower your K:D ratio.
If there is support for people of equal level having less penalties for pvp combat, why not fight each other in an arena (in which there will be tiers) or during caravans, where corruption doesn’t apply to any of the participants? Especially if you’re concerned about bragging rights.
[/quote]
Hmm, now that i think about it, it could be exploited easily, and a ranking system would be better in arena and such, tho, my opinion still stands with the previous comment, i currently don't see anything wrong with the system they have now, but hey, if it can be adjusted a lil to punish less for killing higher player, and more for killing lower players, hey ill take it!
[quote quote=11895]<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/corruption-discussion/#post-11807" rel="nofollow">Easy wrote:</a></div>
<strong>TL:DR</strong>
– No combat effectiveness hits for ganking/flagging on someone who is the equivalent level to the attacker
– Greater karma hits for attacking someone who is underleveled
– Combat effectiveness debuffs for attacking someone who is underleveled
Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in this thread, we want to reach a worthwhile compromise with the community. ^.^
</blockquote>
I agree with points, being a lover of banking myself, i would love to see the punishment be lowered to banking players of similar level (and or gear score if that is added) as usually, i tend not to gank new players near starting level (of course unless they ask for it). Increasing the penalty for killing a lower leveled player should be increased, and killing a player of similar level should be decreased.
All in all, I like this post and topic <a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/easy/" rel="nofollow">@easy</a>, great idea, and #FreeTheGankers! lol
[/quote]
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/corruption-discussion/#post-11896" rel="nofollow">Nivhawk wrote:</a></div>
Your suggestion could be so easily exploited. Just have your friends let you kill them or let them kill you to boost or lower your K:D ratio.
If there is support for people of equal level having less penalties for pvp combat, why not fight each other in an arena (in which there will be tiers) or during caravans, where corruption doesn’t apply to any of the participants? Especially if you’re concerned about bragging rights.
</blockquote>
Hmm, now that i think about it, it could be exploited easily, and a ranking system would be better in arena and such, tho, my opinion still stands with the previous comment, i currently don’t see anything wrong with the system they have now, but hey, if it can be adjusted a lil to punish less for killing higher player, and more for killing lower players, hey ill take it!
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/corruption-discussion/#post-11895" rel="nofollow">Kasage wrote:</a></div>
<blockquote>
<div class="d4p-bbt-quote-title"><a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/topic/corruption-discussion/#post-11807" rel="nofollow">Easy wrote:</a></div>
<strong>TL:DR</strong>
– No combat effectiveness hits for ganking/flagging on someone who is the equivalent level to the attacker
– Greater karma hits for attacking someone who is underleveled
– Combat effectiveness debuffs for attacking someone who is underleveled
Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in this thread, we want to reach a worthwhile compromise with the community. ^.^
</blockquote>
I agree with points, being a lover of banking myself, i would love to see the punishment be lowered to banking players of similar level (and or gear score if that is added) as usually, i tend not to gank new players near starting level (of course unless they ask for it). Increasing the penalty for killing a lower leveled player should be increased, and killing a player of similar level should be decreased.
All in all, I like this post and topic <a href="https://www.ashesofcreation.com/forums/users/easy/" rel="nofollow">@easy</a>, great idea, and #FreeTheGankers! lol
</blockquote>
[/quote]
It'll be interesting to see what the flagging system looks like when the alpha tests start going live! I hope its one of the earlier systems that is on the priority list.
If the developers truly wanted to disincentivize ganking then why not just make it so that you can't attack other players except in certain PvP areas (e.g. Arenas, caravan zones and sieges)? If you only want players to engage in "consensual PvP" then why have a flagging system in the first place?
Steven says he wants to give players a choice in the way they play, but if you don't make those options fair and balanced then all you are doing is giving the illusion of choice. Elite Dangerous (a sandbox space simulator similar to Eve Online) has a similar problem, where even though there are multiple different playstyles you can choose from, they are so unbalanced that you are forced to be a trader in order to get anywhere in the game.
Make the system too harsh for gankers and they will just quit, and if that was your intention then just don't offer the option to begin with.
Becides that I think the idea of trying to stop world pvp is foolish.
From what I've seen, the idea is for it to still be possible and for it to still be a risk for others—but for it to not define what everyone has to do. I can't speak on others' experiences with "gankboxes", but I've played my share of them and it shifts the community in a particular dog-eat-dog mindset fairly reliably. People who aren't interested in the ganking aspect are mostly (though not entirely, a few stragglers remain) at the mercy of the system and ultimately didn't end up staying because of the sheer amount of power that ganking held over the general population.
Within the current system, it's less "I'm going to kill whoever I see." and more "Dude, that person just mined something rare. I could run in there and steal some of that.". The system pushes PKing/Ganking to have <strong><em>meaning</em></strong> for why it happens, beyond "I'm bored." or petty grudges (Though it'll still happen due to those, obviously). It forces you to think about what you're going to do. It is very much a playstyle and an option, but a risk-based one that says: "You get the rewards from your targets and do well if you think it out. If you don't think it out and just mindlessly attack everyone, it's going to make things harder for you."
That seems to be what they're trying to achieve with this, and it makes complete sense at least to me for something to shoot for. In terms of just killing other players, if you take their loot and don't have the greater risk of combat effectiveness (exp debt), then your only risk is losing your weapons/armor (where you can just get another set or have your friend kill you over-and-over again and pick up your stuff until you aren't corrupt), x3 the amount of resources dropping (again, circumvented by having your friend pick everything up), and the durability on your weapons/armor taking a hit which is again circumvented by having another set.
Limiting combat effectiveness after too much PKing/Ganking is there to ensure that when players do it—They're thinking about it and making a careful decision. Otherwise they could just run around red and not really worry about being red—Which seems to be the opposite of the point.
There will still be ganking even with the current system, there's no doubt about it at all. People will still go red. We'll all be killed by someone, multiple someones, maybe even repeatedly. But it isn't going to be something that's happening to you (or by you) 24/7. And again the flagging system doesn't apply to: caravans, node sieges, castle sieges, arenas (obviously), duels, and probably doesn't apply to the guild war system either.
If it ends up to the point that ganking is so terrible no one ever touches it ever even when presented with a huge reward for it—of course that'll be tested/adjusted. It's still meant to be there, but in approached with a particular mindset. Very high risk (you really have to carefully plan it out or you won't get anything from it)—Very high reward if you plan it out right and choose your targets carefully. (Miners/gatherers returning from a resource spawn and so-forth.)
People do still have the choice to do this and focus on it. It still can be a fully-fledged playstyle. It's just it's less "run around and murder the masses with little penalty" and more "seek specific targets who will net you the most gain".
Remember—People are punished more harshly for not flagging up, and if someone goes Combatant while you're Combatant you gain no corruption. The choice is on the attackee: "Do I want to suffer worse penalties for not attacking back? Or do I want to attack back, risk them having no penalty, but no matter what keep more of my stuff?" And no one gets corruption in that instance.
We also have to acknowledge that <strong><em>everyone</em></strong> takes the combat effectiveness hits on death. Not just Corrupt players. It makes death a risk for everyone. Corrupt players just suffer it at x3 the rate as usual (and combatants take that at half the rate as usual). The more corruption they have means the more experience debt they have to work off compared to others. But everyone suffers it all the same.
Few things to consider with this are:
→A. <strong><em> Everyone</em></strong> takes the combat effectiveness penalty on death. Not just corrupt players. Corrupt players just get more experience debt they have to work off, so they have to deal with the combat effectiveness penalty more (but aren't the only ones who do). The point is: avoid deaths, no matter who you are you don't want to die.
→B. The PKing/Ganking aspect is still very much an important part of the game. You can still focus on it. But you have to be careful and think it out. Nothing is entirely preventing it from happening, and you can get some great loot if you kill the right person (seems to be mainly gatherers). Just like the person being killed has to consider the risk of PKing in the open world, the PKer has to consider what they're doing carefully. The PKer will have to be less random in their targets if they want to do it well.
→C. If by chance the PKing system doesn't work as intended and no one is willing to risk PKing a target known to be full of goodies because they're too afraid of the repercussions—Then it will obviously be adjusted. It's still meant to be there.
→D. You don't even get corruption in the first place if the person fights back and you're a combatant. And they suffer worse penalties if they don't fight back. Meaning anyone carrying anything valuable is probably going to try to defend what they have.
→E. There are plenty of other options for a more open PvP experience out there. Caravans, Castle Sieges, Node Sieges—Guild wars were even mentioned, and if they work how they do in most games you won't be taking a hit for killing someone of an opposing guild.
If the developers truly wanted to disincentivize ganking then why not just make it so that you can’t attack other players except in certain PvP areas (e.g. Arenas, caravan zones and sieges)? If you only want players to engage in “consensual PvP” then why have a flagging system in the first place?
Steven says he wants to give players a choice in the way they play, but if you don’t make those options fair and balanced then all you are doing is giving the illusion of choice. Elite Dangerous (a sandbox space simulator similar to Eve Online) has a similar problem, where even though there are multiple different playstyles you can choose from, they are so unbalanced that you are forced to be a trader in order to get anywhere in the game.
Make the system too harsh for gankers and they will just quit, and if that was your intention then just don’t offer the option to begin with.
[/quote]
If I understand the system correctly, the choice is entirely situational and personal to the player engaging in PvP, whether as the attacker or defender. In either instance, YOU must choose what is more precious or worthwhile. In some situations, that choice might be really difficult to weigh (risk vs reward) but in other situations it may be more straight forward. There's flexibility built into this system that is unlike other titles on the market currently, which is heavily influenced by very weighty risks and rewards.
I'm sure we'll find out more details and put these "what if" scenarios to rest, especially when/as it becomes a focus of testing.
https://youtu.be/5E1wn98fczg
However, this is a game and a game can only be healthy if best possible all participating players have a fun experience. Getting ganked all the time is a horrible experience and you obviously need a counter to prevent that a certain player type goes on a never-ending gank fest.
Someone named EVE Online. I think EVE is not the best example because in that game you have no absolute safety. Not even in high-security NPC controlled space. A maybe easier and more interesting solution was available in Lineage 2. A simple Karma system with 0 as basis and upper end of the system. With each player kill you would gain negative Karma points increasing the chance of you to drop equipped items and revoked rights to enter cities. Guards would simply attack and kill you. If you were killed while on negative Karma, you would loose some Karma points but not all. Also, in this game you lost experience points when dying, including the possibility to down level. At a certain Karma point level you became visible on the game map and a huge man hunt started.
It is a quite interesting system. It allows you to gank players if necessary but prevents players to go on a gank fest - exception: you want to become unlawfull forever.
I have never been a player killer in any game that allows player killing. For the sake of clarity, I have never been one to voluntarily kill other players at random and with no motive. Furthermore, I have never played a game with player killing allowed where I played the game <strong>solely </strong>to player kill. Personally, I find players who play a game to kill other players without any provocation--particularly repeated PK's--to be a bit on the despicable side and very often find myself having opposing real life personalities with these individuals. This isn't always the case, but as a general rule that has been true for me. This applies to 1v1 or 1v2+
Now, for those players who choose to initiate combat with me based upon a game mechanic or lore then I gladly welcome it, regardless if it catches me by surprise or if there is a ceremonial acknowledgment that combat is about to commence. To me that is more honorable and something of which I should know about before I play the game as it would be a type of Terms of Service extension.
Regarding the corruption system....
The current system proposed is acceptable for me, and yes, it is a biased response as I stated it would be. However, I do also acknowledge the rights of other players who want to engage in PvP that causes corruption to have fun; it <strong>is</strong> a game after all. With that said, I believe the corruption system still needs to be tested at considerable length in game to ensure it is as balanced as possible before declaring it launch day ready.
-Zephirius
However, this is a game and a game can only be healthy if best possible all participating players have a fun experience. Getting ganked all the time is a horrible experience and you obviously need a counter to prevent that a certain player type goes on a never-ending gank fest.
Someone named EVE Online. I think EVE is not the best example because in that game you have no absolute safety. Not even in high-security NPC controlled space. A maybe easier and more interesting solution was available in Lineage 2. A simple Karma system with 0 as basis and upper end of the system. With each player kill you would gain negative Karma points increasing the chance of you to drop equipped items and revoked rights to enter cities. Guards would simply attack and kill you. If you were killed while on negative Karma, you would loose some Karma points but not all. Also, in this game you lost experience points when dying, including the possibility to down level. At a certain Karma point level you became visible on the game map and a huge man hunt started.
It is a quite interesting system. It allows you to gank players if necessary but prevents players to go on a gank fest – exception: you want to become unlawfull forever.
[/quote]
I agree a good sandbox should put power in hands of players to police pking, not a dev initiated system but that all depends entirely on a few factors. 1) how important items are in the game
2) how easy such a loss is replaced (if its UO levels of replaceable by all means allow loss of items on death_
3) how easy it is to game such a system
If not be prepared for karma bombing, healing a combat initiated player is a great step forward. However setting harsh penalties under the guise of protecting new and low level players is an overreaching step. The amount of players who will go out and search for such targets are minuscule compared to the amount who simply want to be able to pvp on the map without requiring a large guild or constant declarations of war. The amount of players who will abuse a notoriety system to inflict harm on others though, oh those are far more numerous. Pvp games in the past have proven the "grey" pk (UO term for notoriety pk who never really wanted to go red, but simply would want to harass other players without the risk of being targetable) are far more numerous than actual pks. Your system will be abused.
AOE abilities, farming and general mob targets will create a new type of pk the grey pk to be much more prevalent. Depending on again the importance of items such a pk will do far more damage then the minuscule loss of experience that you are expecting.
The majority of players concerned over the flagging system are concerned for one reason only. We do not want to limit pvp. There are enough games out there that do such. With such a system why would players be incentivized to even become red? To give bounty hunters a target at all? The only thing your system will create is guilds of reds who will respond in one of two ways. A) run in such large mobs and zergs that the risk of death is marginalized (if theres even enough people that would want to risk it, from the looks of it so far nah) or B) create alts of have guildmates kill them to reduce corruptiuon after so called "pk fests".
Any system that puts player protection behind harsh walls will see those walls turned on those it is meant to create. Fair warning.
Note: I was a red player in UO on IPY as well as pacific. I did not kill newbies, waste of time. the majority of players who are concerned with such a system arent conerned because they wish to kill lowbies over and over. There is literally 0 fun in fighting someone who cannot win. players are looking for an MMO with the same feel of world as those provided by past games. an actual sense of blood rush when someone targets you. Depending on the amount of corruption granted on kill as well as the risk of dropping an item and the overall difficulty of obtaining it you may marginalize what your core audience is and lose a lot of players. No one will want to become a pk or even risk the chance of loosing items thus removing one of your core features at the onset. a guild of bounty hunters hunting 0 players. Guild wars will become the only accepted form of pvp, of which I am fine with. However, your game will be worse off for it.
Create lowby alt, have guild mates/friends nearby. Run lowby alt into AOE from opposing member or guild. flag opposing member. Suicide lowby alt within time frame thus giving opposing player corruption loss. have friends nearby kill.
(does combat status show to all members of a party? does it show to all players nearby?)
This was quite a common tactic in UO if a player was a grey pk. If the other player flagged in anyway they'd recall out and suicide then give a murder count to the target. Which wasn't a real problem in a game with full loot. But early stat loss was a heavy handed repercussion that was later rethought and removed
Even with harsh penalties in the guise of protecting low level players the only individuals truly hurt from this are pvpers as whole (running your mouth in most games is a standard form of harrassment, one that shouldnt and usually isnt a bannable offense in most games, although it was cause to simply kill the person and ignore them) creating harsh levels will only protect those who wish to grief by giving them an much more sinister tool, corruption
if the player wishes to grief they still would be able to do so as a high level character with a cheap or easily replaceable weapon. The example people seem to be using is lineage 2 yet they gloss over the amount of pks that did so with easily replaceable weps and high level skills which did more damage. Creating a harsh system does not protect players, it just forces people to work around it.
The majority of players concerned over the flagging system are concerned for one reason only. We do not want to limit pvp. There are enough games out there that do such. With such a system why would players be incentivized to even become red? To give bounty hunters a target at all? The only thing your system will create is guilds of reds who will respond in one of two ways. A) run in such large mobs and zergs that the risk of death is marginalized (if theres even enough people that would want to risk it, from the looks of it so far nah) or B) create alts of have guildmates kill them to reduce corruptiuon after so called “pk fests”.
[/quote]
Might have missed the part where you acknowledge that the corruption system is a sliding scale - PK'ing like leveled players who do not fight back results in much less corruption than one-shotting lowbies who never get the chance to flag up.
Readers of this thread should understand that the system is mainly to be a deterrent to ganking low level players that are at the complete mercy of the max-geared, max level players.
Players that are AFK for whatever reason (computer malfunction, family issue, etc) AND are of a similar level will give small amounts of corruption (should the attacker think it's fun to kill AFK'rs and complete the kill, of course). One can always end combat with the AFK player - Steve has said nothing about <em>attacking</em> another player (except for the flagging system) only about <em>defeating</em> them when he was discussing the corruption system.
re: alts
Link the characters on a player's account. Alts lower a corruption score at a much lower amount when killing a guild member of another player's character - Would necessitate having another account and spending the $15/month to have a maximum-amount-of-corruption "de-leveling" character (who would probably not be a member of any guild). True, could make deals with a "corruption de-leveling" guild but the size of the player base may make that inconvenient.
The majority of players concerned over the flagging system are concerned for one reason only. We do not want to limit pvp. There are enough games out there that do such. With such a system why would players be incentivized to even become red? To give bounty hunters a target at all? The only thing your system will create is guilds of reds who will respond in one of two ways. A) run in such large mobs and zergs that the risk of death is marginalized (if theres even enough people that would want to risk it, from the looks of it so far nah) or B) create alts of have guildmates kill them to reduce corruptiuon after so called “pk fests”.
[/quote]
Might have missed the part where you acknowledge that the corruption system is a sliding scale - PK'ing like leveled players who do not fight back results in much less corruption than one-shotting lowbies who never get the chance to flag up.
Readers of this thread should understand that the system is mainly to be a deterrent to ganking low level players that are at the complete mercy of the max-geared, max level players.
Players that are AFK for whatever reason (computer malfunction, family issue, etc) AND are of a similar level will give small amounts of corruption (should the attacker think it's fun to kill AFK'rs and complete the kill, of course). One can always end combat with the AFK player - Steve has said nothing about <em>attacking</em> another player (except for the flagging system) only about <em>defeating</em> them when he was discussing the corruption system.
re: alts
Link the characters on a player's account. Alts lower a corruption score at a much lower amount when killing a guild member of another player's character - Would necessitate having another account and spending the $15/month to have a maximum-amount-of-corruption "de-leveling" character (who would probably not be a member of any guild). True, could make deals with a "corruption de-leveling" guild but the size of the player base may make that inconvenient.
The majority of players concerned over the flagging system are concerned for one reason only. We do not want to limit pvp. There are enough games out there that do such. With such a system why would players be incentivized to even become red? To give bounty hunters a target at all? The only thing your system will create is guilds of reds who will respond in one of two ways. A) run in such large mobs and zergs that the risk of death is marginalized (if theres even enough people that would want to risk it, from the looks of it so far nah) or B) create alts of have guildmates kill them to reduce corruptiuon after so called “pk fests”.
</blockquote>
Might have missed the part where you acknowledge that the corruption system is a sliding scale – PK’ing like leveled players who do not fight back results in much less corruption than one-shotting lowbies who never get the chance to flag up.
Readers of this thread should understand that the system is mainly to be a deterrent to ganking low level players that are at the complete mercy of the max-geared, max level players.
Players that are AFK for whatever reason (computer malfunction, family issue, etc) AND are of a similar level will give small amounts of corruption (should the attacker think it’s fun to kill AFK’rs and complete the kill, of course). One can always end combat with the AFK player – Steve has said nothing about <em>attacking</em> another player (except for the flagging system) only about <em>defeating</em> them when he was discussing the corruption system.
re: alts
Link the characters on a player’s account. Alts lower a corruption score at a much lower amount when killing a guild member of another player’s character – Would necessitate having another account and spending the $15/month to have a maximum-amount-of-corruption “de-leveling” character (who would probably not be a member of any guild). True, could make deals with a “corruption de-leveling” guild but the size of the player base may make that inconvenient.
[/quote]
True and a lot of the discussion is arguing in a grey area because we really don't know the amounts of corruption gained. If it is a small amount and the risk of losing equipment comes from increasingly large amounts (IE nothing but ganking lowbies) then such debate is a non-factor (again entirely dependent on gear replacement. If it is as easy as UO was, im perfectly fine with gear loss on red death. If its as time encompassing as BDO, ya goodbye playerbase)
Ideally the player base is large enough that players from all groups are present. I for one would like to see the possibility of a Red bounty hunter.
The majority of players concerned over the flagging system are concerned for one reason only. We do not want to limit pvp. There are enough games out there that do such. With such a system why would players be incentivized to even become red? To give bounty hunters a target at all? The only thing your system will create is guilds of reds who will respond in one of two ways. A) run in such large mobs and zergs that the risk of death is marginalized (if theres even enough people that would want to risk it, from the looks of it so far nah) or B) create alts of have guildmates kill them to reduce corruptiuon after so called “pk fests”.
</blockquote>
Might have missed the part where you acknowledge that the corruption system is a sliding scale – PK’ing like leveled players who do not fight back results in much less corruption than one-shotting lowbies who never get the chance to flag up.
Readers of this thread should understand that the system is mainly to be a deterrent to ganking low level players that are at the complete mercy of the max-geared, max level players.
Players that are AFK for whatever reason (computer malfunction, family issue, etc) AND are of a similar level will give small amounts of corruption (should the attacker think it’s fun to kill AFK’rs and complete the kill, of course). One can always end combat with the AFK player – Steve has said nothing about <em>attacking</em> another player (except for the flagging system) only about <em>defeating</em> them when he was discussing the corruption system.
re: alts
Link the characters on a player’s account. Alts lower a corruption score at a much lower amount when killing a guild member of another player’s character – Would necessitate having another account and spending the $15/month to have a maximum-amount-of-corruption “de-leveling” character (who would probably not be a member of any guild). True, could make deals with a “corruption de-leveling” guild but the size of the player base may make that inconvenient.
[/quote]
Until we know actual numbers of corruption such debates really are nothing more then adventures in opinion. The only problem with the current corruption debate is reduction in player skills with higher corruption and percent chance to drop items. These two problems are also dependent on multiple different points of interest in the current game system that is at present unknown.
If items mean little to no importance in-game (IE the staff you drop can be farmed or reobtained with relative ease and player character power is based more on skillful play and not farming the same mob for eons ala BDO) then I am perfectly fine with drop-rate at higher levels of corruption.
The reduction in skills however has to go. if they want to reduce skills do what other games has already done, create state loss on death. Death by a bounty hunter drops more corruption than a standard kill and also inflicts a dissability that is removed over time that decreases skills (non-permanent). Many games in the past had similar systems that create a punishment that is not heavy handed but does slow progression. SLOW.. not altogether halt.
For every lowby you say your protecting with hash ruling you may ultimately force out top end players. any core game play the consists of punishing players and leading them to leave a game based on subscriptions is a poor design decision.
The big difference with PVP in an MMO is that IT ISN'T SKILL BASED, IT'S GEAR/LEVEL BASED. I'm just not a fan of a system where some guy who might suck at PVP can press 1,1,1,1 and kill me and even if I drop every skill I have on him, he takes 1% damage. I prefer a game where people get better over time because they learn to play better, not simply get handed wins because they have played for a long time. It would be like saying "When Andre Miller makes a lay up it's worth 30 points because he's played in the NBA for a long time".
As far as AOC goes, this game is a sub based game. If they want people to continuously pay $ every month, the game needs to be fun for the majority of people. The majority of people A) don't like OWPVP (recent survey on another MMO put the ratio at 70/30) and B) don't like getting ganked while they're new to the game. So unlike something that is $50 or $60 box purchase, if someone pays $12 and then quits and never comes back, AOC is out $48. That's not really a good model.
Easiest solution to me is that it's OWPVP but you just can't attack people outside of a level band. If someone is more than 5 levels below you, either you do reduced damage or no damage at all.
Other option is just make it so if you PVP someone you get flagged red until you die and there's no way to lose the flag. If you like pvp, you like pvp right?
Of course these 2 solutions aren't palatable to most PK complainers because the only pvp they like is ganking people 20 levels below them and then running and hiding until their red state wears off and then doing it again.
But you can loose your corruption if you do "greenpeace" quests where you help other players. And you can turn again from a pirate to a good player
But you can loose your corruption if you do “greenpeace” quests where you help other players. And you can turn again from a pirate to a good player
[/quote]
That does the opposite of encouraging world PVP though.
I honestly don't get why people play a mmorpg if they are afraid of player versus player interaction. Sure, ganking low-levels and repeatedly killing the same player will ruin the fun of playing the game, but simply adding a buff on the killed party that gives a penalty if you kill him/her again for say 2-5 minutes should suffice, and ofc if the killed party with the buff decide to interact in pvp, he/she would lose said buff from protecting him/her.