The whole corruption mechanic feels a little odd. While it will encourage not killing people way below your level I fear for the result it will produce with gathering out in the world. If for example someone wanders into my hunting grounds and refuses to leave attacking them would normally persuade them to leave... However the way it is currently set up the corruption mechanic encourages them not to fight back and let me kill them gaining corruption...
I dont find this to not be so. You lose more loot for not fighting back than if u fought back
@NoeSparks I see you got a friend to boost you on the forums. I would also remove the pledge from your signature. We'll get badges for that soon enough.
Little one? you should respect your Elder's I understand you run a guild and you want to feel important but there's no need to disvalue the time other people have put into the community. You would have got your points up in time.
@Elder What is this point thing, give me some please.
First post here, Hi all!
L2 player, waiting to refugee over to AoC.
You won't find a better flagging system. Dropping gear on chance after death while chaotic works amazingly well. It sounds harsh, but it is designed to discourage griefing lower level peeps. Coupling this tried and true system with no fast travel sounds like adding Jack to Coke, perfect.
This is no way has ever discouraged PvP over prime hunting spots, or clan warfare, etc.
Rarely has there been groups of "Reds" roaming around, as they are fundamentally at a disadvantage. Reds get hunted, they don't hunt.
What Carve said about the possibility of going chaotic, if the kill shot lands in the window where the target is transitioning from flagged to normal. This is possible, but not easy to do. The "purple" name is flashing "white" at this point as a clear warning that they are transitioning. The kill has to come at the lat second of this flashing.
Now originally, in L2, you had a chance to drop gear if you died to a mob. This was removed early on. However, it was a great deterrent to bots, as at the time you could train mobs indefinitely and drop them on bots then return shortly later to collect prizes
The whole corruption mechanic feels a little odd. While it will encourage not killing people way below your level I fear for the result it will produce with gathering out in the world. If for example someone wanders into my hunting grounds and refuses to leave attacking them would normally persuade them to leave... However the way it is currently set up the corruption mechanic encourages them not to fight back and let me kill them gaining corruption...
I dont find this to not be so. You lose more loot for not fighting back than if u fought back
i loose more loot for not fighting back in the first fight, but if i can catch u afterwards while u are corrupted, i win more then i lost. (or i let u kill me and one of my friends is killing u afterwards).
i loose more loot for not fighting back in the first fight, but if i can catch u afterwards while u are corrupted, i win more then i lost. (or i let u kill me and one of my friends is killing u afterwards).
I'm hoping people who die as non-combatants are forced to respawn farther away so it's harder for this to happen. Corrupted players already get a penalty to where they respawn, i feel like non-combatants couldn't have something similar. It would also help prevent "Karma bombing."
i loose more loot for not fighting back in the first fight, but if i can catch u afterwards while u are corrupted, i win more then i lost. (or i let u kill me and one of my friends is killing u afterwards).
I'm hoping people who die as non-combatants are forced to respawn farther away so it's harder for this to happen. Corrupted players already get a penalty to where they respawn, i feel like non-combatants couldn't have something similar. It would also help prevent "Karma bombing."
To be karma bombed, you'd have to initiate the fight to turn you corrupted, right? Seems avoidable.. though I agree, this could just need to be a giant balancing act..
"A Siege is, for now, the only way to engage and kill other players (even if they don't fight back) just for being members of a different node, including guilds. However, they are working on guild war mechanics.
But why would you want a mechanic that allows you to kill other players just because they are from another town? That's not very community forward."
It sounds like your contradicting yourself bit, it's an open world PVP and yet I fear not alot of PVP'ing gona happen in the open world except sieging . It's a community vs community or guild vs guild or town citizen vs citizen game and yet you can't deter node progression efficiently ...
@Gothix, forming a community with your guild mates and your node citizenry and your buddies is good, and I suppose you could all go around killing players that are not in your guild, node, or buddy group as a bonding experience. I was referring to a specific type of community, you are right. I was referring to the one where nodes will be "linked" by helping each other share goods that the other might not have. A more global sense of community as opposed to a local one. However, when your node is stuck because another has advanced too far, time for trade is over, it's all about the siege.
@Valerian, not sure how I was contradicting myself. I stated that a siege was the only way to kill other players just because they are part of another node without gaining corruption. I then mentioned guild war mechanics, but they have (as far as I know) not been posted (I didn't look though either, so if they have can someone post a link?).
There are caravans with a roaming PvP zone around them that will encourage PvP. But the caravan drivers won't exclusively be from a node you don't like (although you could choose to only target those specifically).
In addition to Guild Wars they have also mentioned friction between religions, suggesting that maybe two opposing religions will want an Icon in the same place, so that too would encourage PvP.
There will also be arena's.
I don't see a need to encourage PvP more than that, but as Gothix can testify, I am not a huge fan of PvP either. I do hope for PvP'ers there will be more reasons added as the game progresses as far as lore/story/meaningful reasons can go.
--- As for the corruption mechanic I think it's a grand idea and I am looking forward to testing both sides.
@Gothix said "Risk shouldn't be game mechanics automatically reducing your stats, because other players are too lazy to organize and care of their friends."
I think that is an unfair statement. Friends might not be available. Friends might be available but engaged in things they consider more important. Assuming one of the reasons the corruption mechanic is in place is to help "lazy" players does not seem appropriate. Many could, and would, make generalizations about the corruption mechanic being needed because of unsavory traits PvP'ers might have in common.
The whole corruption mechanic feels a little odd. While it will encourage not killing people way below your level I fear for the result it will produce with gathering out in the world. If for example someone wanders into my hunting grounds and refuses to leave attacking them would normally persuade them to leave... However the way it is currently set up the corruption mechanic encourages them not to fight back and let me kill them gaining corruption...
I dont find this to not be so. You lose more loot for not fighting back than if u fought back
i loose more loot for not fighting back in the first fight, but if i can catch u afterwards while u are corrupted, i win more then i lost. (or i let u kill me and one of my friends is killing u afterwards).
@Azathoth A node can be prevented from levelling past a certain point if it comes within the zone of influence of a larger node...But otherwise not that we're aware of.
@NoeSparks Personally I play the three word game because I enjoy it, it was never intended to be there to spam forum points, but each to their own eh?
I do think we need something like corruption. Though honestly I don't really like the combo of reduced stats AND corruption only going away on a pvp death. Seems like overkill, especially with pkers dropping gear. Everyone's going after them the moment they turn red anyway...
And some of my favorite moments in l2 were fighting over hunting grounds. You could grind xp to get rid of karma, so if you could pk someone and get rid of it before they got back, you were okay. Fail, and they'll probably scoop up some of your hard-earned gear. Really made for some tense moments.
But the more you pk'd (even after getting rid of your previous karma) the more karma youd get for each subsequent pk. It was a really elegant system. It even punished pking lowbies more harshly - if you were pking out in a beginner area, good luck traversing the entire map to find enemies high enough level to gain xp from without dying.
Currently, it just seems like if you pk, you're going to lose some gear eventually. I'm in favor of penalties, especially when it comes to griefing, but pking right now seems like pure risk rather than risk/reward under the current system. I'd much rather see an alternative way to grind away corruption in addition to pvp death.
You only get heavily punished for murdering Innocents. It's not a PvP focused game and if you choose to negatively influence someone else's gameplay there should be repercussions.
The reason the punishment seems strict is because it required to if it's to act as a deterrent for murder.
I do think we need something like corruption. Though honestly I don't really like the combo of reduced stats AND corruption only going away on a pvp death. Seems like overkill, especially with pkers dropping gear. Everyone's going after them the moment they turn red anyway...
...
Currently, it just seems like if you pk, you're going to lose some gear eventually. I'm in favor of penalties, especially when it comes to griefing, but pking right now seems like pure risk rather than risk/reward under the current system. I'd much rather see an alternative way to grind away corruption in addition to pvp death.
Yes, the goal is to make "red" players targets. They target players that don't want to fight back and then kill them anyways, why would it be unfair to make them targets in return?
Players that don't fight back lose more than players that do fight back. So if a player kills another players avatar that didn't fight back they should be subjected to more loss when their avatar is killed. This makes sense to me, although players that like killing players that don't fight back, this probably sucks for them.
Why should there be a reward, in addition to looting someone for more materials than those who fight back, for PK'ing?
Why award players to go around and kill players that don't fight back?
The risk is steep, but you likely made someone else's play time suck (momentarily at least) which was clearly the goal, you got more from them since they didn't fight back, and now you get to PvP players that want to. Seems like there is a bunch of rewards already for killing players that don't fight back.
They absolutely should be targets. They're stealing from other players. However, dropping gear is already a massive, massive risk (not that I'm advocating for getting rid of it). Having lowered stats is also a massive risk, but I'm fine with that too.
It's just that if you're eventually guaranteed to drop gear that will be collected by another player (given that PVP death is the only way to lose corruption) it's not really a risk/reward scenario. It's so punishing that nobody with any decent gear at all will even bother.
I don't think PKing should be advantageous - it's not the sort of thing I'd want to encourage, and the risks should outweigh the rewards - but I do think the game is better off if it's a factor, and that we could refine corruption a bit more to hit that balance.
"So basically if I kill a PKer i can loot his weapon that he worked hard
for months to get it ? I dont like PK but still it would be **** to
do that."
In Gun Gale Online, they apparently found it fair to possibly lose equipment worth over 2000$ in real life (super rares that few people (think 0.01%) in the server even own) upon death. Without being corrupted or a PK, just dying in a non-competition setting (tournament don't drop). It seems you can't even stats reset in that game and it must be long to level, because the bad guy of this chapter kills because he was convinced to make a bad build and now is stuck without enough STR to carry heavier guns. This in a game with legit RMT where the same guy bought a 3000$ worth invisibility cloak.
In Overlord's Yggdrasil (and presumably the new world), you can lose 5 levels upon any death (which would normally take days straight to get back if you knew where to hunt - which is apparently nowhere in the new world), and it's full-loot drop on death where world items seem more iffy (they're so OP, you might keep them on respawn).
So either the authors of those 2 didn't think things through, or they thought super-hardcore lose-everything-on-death would be mainstream in MMOs in the near or not-so-near future. Yggdrasil is said to be one of the most popular games (in the 2130s), even though it gets closed after just 12 years for no specified reason (like a sequel or a bankrupcy). I mean in the current market, a 'lose everything on death' game would only get a tiny market share from very very hardcore gamblers and pvp enthusiasts. No higher share than Eve Online compared to all MMOs.
if you choose to negatively influence someone else's gameplay there should be repercussions.
The reason the punishment seems strict is because it required to if it's to act as a deterrent for murder.
I'm not really sure how you could have read that previous post and thought that I was advocating for zero repercussions - or that I didn't understand that the corruption acts as a deterrent for PKing - so I'll try to clarify.
The point I'm trying to make is that at a certain point, if you punish a game mechanic too severely, it's likely to disappear. If your aim is simply to deter pking, then why not just disallow it entirely? The fact that it's included at all implies that the Devs want PKing to play some role in the game, and in my opinion, the mechanics as proposed will reduce that role to almost zero, which is self-defeating.
Personally I'd be happy with both corruption and gear dropping - it just seems to me that having a PVP death as the only way out is overkill, as it leaves only a single outcome on the table, and is likely to snuff the mechanic out entirely (which doesn't seem to be their aim, but of course I could be wrong about that).
Whether the game would be better/worse off with zero PKing is just a matter of opinion, but doesn't it seem a tad too early to decide that the proposed mechanics have already resulted in the best possible balance?
but you likely made someone else's play time suck (momentarily at least) which was clearly the goal
No, and stop claiming falsehood pls.
The goal was not to make someone else's play time suck. The goal was to steal from him 20 iron that you needed yourself.
It's a game that advertises to feature a theft of resources.
Now a MMO should either, make stealing viable (not ganking and griefing, but attacking player on occasion, single time for the loot he has), without breaking your game play with reduced stats OR it should not advertise that it's a conflict base game with stealing of resources.
While we are on the topic, will there be servers that allow for endless PVP? Meaning the punishment system of PK'ers would be disabled?
This question comes from my lack of understanding of the system as a whole. I know PVP is encouraged through Sieges and what not, but why is small scale PVP punished so? Or does the "corruption" system only arise when you kill low level people and camp them?
@duninn this transcript of an interview with Steven on how he envisions pvp corruption mechanics to work may clear things up for you. Don't let the opinions of a vocal few confuse or conflate the issue. Basically they come round to this every couple weeks, not realizing that absolutely not a single mechanic announced by the developers over the year that they have been giving out information has changed. Not flying, separate servers, QTE bar for weapon skill, or corruption mechanics. Not for one single issue have they come out and said "due to some really well-reasoned arguments by Shitbird21 and others,we have decided to change this mechanic." We have a month till Alpha 0 kicks off, and while it will be under NDA, there will be a set of locked forums and Discord for those involved to comment. They have said a few different times that that is the feedback they are waiting on before any mechanics will be even looked at being adjusted. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fvr9KYT104i8WYppCup1v6SUTZFJTobVz8uRHDas4YM/edit
@Gothix, so you know precisely what the player had prior to killing him and what you would get? I understand watching the player and deciding when would be best to make a move, in your example being after he farmed iron.
But instead of farming iron you kill the player. If you need the iron yourself can you just farm it?
Maybe that player farmed the last bit in the area and you don't have time, or maybe someone is being lazy *maybe* and they just want to kill the player and take it. Do you know for sure that iron will drop? We don't know precisely how loot mechanics in this way will play out yet. You drop materials, are they the materials that were most recently harvested? The ones you have the most of? Do looters get to pick?
Okay, so maybe my assumption that deciding to kill a player to take something you wanted that you either watched them collect or are gambling on them having as being intentionally disruptive to their gameplay was a bit far. But are you assuming that when they don't fight back, and you kill them, they don't think that sucks? Do you believe they enjoy it, or are neutral to the whole thing? Maybe some are.
Maybe I should have said "...which you knew would be part of the outcome" as opposed to "...which was clearly the goal." Unless you honestly believe that players that don't fight back when attacked by other players enjoy the experience.
Comments
Edit: @IceWindAle was it?
Aka 3 wrd story. Same type of boost
Now lets get back on topic shall we little one
First post here, Hi all!
L2 player, waiting to refugee over to AoC.
You won't find a better flagging system. Dropping gear on chance after death while chaotic works amazingly well. It sounds harsh, but it is designed to discourage griefing lower level peeps. Coupling this tried and true system with no fast travel sounds like adding Jack to Coke, perfect.
This is no way has ever discouraged PvP over prime hunting spots, or clan warfare, etc.
Rarely has there been groups of "Reds" roaming around, as they are fundamentally at a disadvantage. Reds get hunted, they don't hunt.
What Carve said about the possibility of going chaotic, if the kill shot lands in the window where the target is transitioning from flagged to normal. This is possible, but not easy to do. The "purple" name is flashing "white" at this point as a clear warning that they are transitioning. The kill has to come at the lat second of this flashing.
Now originally, in L2, you had a chance to drop gear if you died to a mob. This was removed early on. However, it was a great deterrent to bots, as at the time you could train mobs indefinitely and drop them on bots then return shortly later to collect prizes
-CS
Risk should be other players attacking you on sight everywhere because you have become notorious.
Risk shouldn't be game mechanics automatically reducing your stats, because other players are too lazy to organize and care of their friends.
It is. Just a different type of community than what you think of.
You have to realize there are different types of communities than one that you prefer.
If you can take it from me, it's all yours.
I was referring to a specific type of community, you are right. I was referring to the one where nodes will be "linked" by helping each other share goods that the other might not have. A more global sense of community as opposed to a local one. However, when your node is stuck because another has advanced too far, time for trade is over, it's all about the siege.
@Valerian, not sure how I was contradicting myself. I stated that a siege was the only way to kill other players just because they are part of another node without gaining corruption. I then mentioned guild war mechanics, but they have (as far as I know) not been posted (I didn't look though either, so if they have can someone post a link?).
There are caravans with a roaming PvP zone around them that will encourage PvP. But the caravan drivers won't exclusively be from a node you don't like (although you could choose to only target those specifically).
In addition to Guild Wars they have also mentioned friction between religions, suggesting that maybe two opposing religions will want an Icon in the same place, so that too would encourage PvP.
There will also be arena's.
I don't see a need to encourage PvP more than that, but as Gothix can testify, I am not a huge fan of PvP either. I do hope for PvP'ers there will be more reasons added as the game progresses as far as lore/story/meaningful reasons can go.
---
As for the corruption mechanic I think it's a grand idea and I am looking forward to testing both sides.
@Gothix said "Risk shouldn't be game mechanics automatically reducing your stats, because other players are too lazy to organize and care of their friends."
I think that is an unfair statement. Friends might not be available. Friends might be available but engaged in things they consider more important. Assuming one of the reasons the corruption mechanic is in place is to help "lazy" players does not seem appropriate. Many could, and would, make generalizations about the corruption mechanic being needed because of unsavory traits PvP'ers might have in common.
@NoeSparks Personally I play the three word game because I enjoy it, it was never intended to be there to spam forum points, but each to their own eh?
@Tayosis ... just the one type of gear...
@Gothix we get that you dislike the corruption mechanic. sorry.
And some of my favorite moments in l2 were fighting over hunting grounds. You could grind xp to get rid of karma, so if you could pk someone and get rid of it before they got back, you were okay. Fail, and they'll probably scoop up some of your hard-earned gear. Really made for some tense moments.
But the more you pk'd (even after getting rid of your previous karma) the more karma youd get for each subsequent pk. It was a really elegant system. It even punished pking lowbies more harshly - if you were pking out in a beginner area, good luck traversing the entire map to find enemies high enough level to gain xp from without dying.
Currently, it just seems like if you pk, you're going to lose some gear eventually. I'm in favor of penalties, especially when it comes to griefing, but pking right now seems like pure risk rather than risk/reward under the current system. I'd much rather see an alternative way to grind away corruption in addition to pvp death.
The reason the punishment seems strict is because it required to if it's to act as a deterrent for murder.
Players that don't fight back lose more than players that do fight back. So if a player kills another players avatar that didn't fight back they should be subjected to more loss when their avatar is killed. This makes sense to me, although players that like killing players that don't fight back, this probably sucks for them.
Why should there be a reward, in addition to looting someone for more materials than those who fight back, for PK'ing?
Why award players to go around and kill players that don't fight back?
The risk is steep, but you likely made someone else's play time suck (momentarily at least) which was clearly the goal, you got more from them since they didn't fight back, and now you get to PvP players that want to. Seems like there is a bunch of rewards already for killing players that don't fight back.
It's just that if you're eventually guaranteed to drop gear that will be collected by another player (given that PVP death is the only way to lose corruption) it's not really a risk/reward scenario. It's so punishing that nobody with any decent gear at all will even bother.
I don't think PKing should be advantageous - it's not the sort of thing I'd want to encourage, and the risks should outweigh the rewards - but I do think the game is better off if it's a factor, and that we could refine corruption a bit more to hit that balance.
In Gun Gale Online, they apparently found it fair to possibly lose equipment worth over 2000$ in real life (super rares that few people (think 0.01%) in the server even own) upon death. Without being corrupted or a PK, just dying in a non-competition setting (tournament don't drop). It seems you can't even stats reset in that game and it must be long to level, because the bad guy of this chapter kills because he was convinced to make a bad build and now is stuck without enough STR to carry heavier guns. This in a game with legit RMT where the same guy bought a 3000$ worth invisibility cloak.
In Overlord's Yggdrasil (and presumably the new world), you can lose 5 levels upon any death (which would normally take days straight to get back if you knew where to hunt - which is apparently nowhere in the new world), and it's full-loot drop on death where world items seem more iffy (they're so OP, you might keep them on respawn).
So either the authors of those 2 didn't think things through, or they thought super-hardcore lose-everything-on-death would be mainstream in MMOs in the near or not-so-near future. Yggdrasil is said to be one of the most popular games (in the 2130s), even though it gets closed after just 12 years for no specified reason (like a sequel or a bankrupcy). I mean in the current market, a 'lose everything on death' game would only get a tiny market share from very very hardcore gamblers and pvp enthusiasts. No higher share than Eve Online compared to all MMOs.
The point I'm trying to make is that at a certain point, if you punish a game mechanic too severely, it's likely to disappear. If your aim is simply to deter pking, then why not just disallow it entirely? The fact that it's included at all implies that the Devs want PKing to play some role in the game, and in my opinion, the mechanics as proposed will reduce that role to almost zero, which is self-defeating.
Personally I'd be happy with both corruption and gear dropping - it just seems to me that having a PVP death as the only way out is overkill, as it leaves only a single outcome on the table, and is likely to snuff the mechanic out entirely (which doesn't seem to be their aim, but of course I could be wrong about that).
Whether the game would be better/worse off with zero PKing is just a matter of opinion, but doesn't it seem a tad too early to decide that the proposed mechanics have already resulted in the best possible balance?
No, and stop claiming falsehood pls.
The goal was not to make someone else's play time suck. The goal was to steal from him 20 iron that you needed yourself.
It's a game that advertises to feature a theft of resources.
Now a MMO should either, make stealing viable (not ganking and griefing, but attacking player on occasion, single time for the loot he has), without breaking your game play with reduced stats OR it should not advertise that it's a conflict base game with stealing of resources.
This question comes from my lack of understanding of the system as a whole. I know PVP is encouraged through Sieges and what not, but why is small scale PVP punished so? Or does the "corruption" system only arise when you kill low level people and camp them?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fvr9KYT104i8WYppCup1v6SUTZFJTobVz8uRHDas4YM/edit
But instead of farming iron you kill the player. If you need the iron yourself can you just farm it?
Maybe that player farmed the last bit in the area and you don't have time, or maybe someone is being lazy *maybe* and they just want to kill the player and take it. Do you know for sure that iron will drop? We don't know precisely how loot mechanics in this way will play out yet. You drop materials, are they the materials that were most recently harvested? The ones you have the most of? Do looters get to pick?
Okay, so maybe my assumption that deciding to kill a player to take something you wanted that you either watched them collect or are gambling on them having as being intentionally disruptive to their gameplay was a bit far. But are you assuming that when they don't fight back, and you kill them, they don't think that sucks? Do you believe they enjoy it, or are neutral to the whole thing? Maybe some are.
Maybe I should have said "...which you knew would be part of the outcome" as opposed to "...which was clearly the goal." Unless you honestly believe that players that don't fight back when attacked by other players enjoy the experience.
Edit: Also didn't they say on stream you could reduce your corruption through PvE?