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.
Comments
That is part of the lore.
I agree that Bounty Hunting should not inherently be against targets with dampened stats. Bounty Hunters are already able to track and locate Corrupt players. That in itself is a strong ability. For this reason among others, I made the suggestion in my proposed rework to separate Corruption into two different stats. Corruption would only be acquired by killing low level players, but at the same time, Corruption would *only* be stat dampening. Bounty Hunting value and negative actions would be measured using a different stat that I named Infamy. Infamy would work a little differently than corruption, but the effect would be similar. If you're interested, more information is available in the second half of my first and most extensive comment above.
- Sikuba
Unless you're playing with an alt who doesn't care about Corruption death penalties.
That applies whether you attacked one person or 4 or someone your level or 15 below.
If the green attacking a red scenario remains as we assume it is, I agree that would be an issue. However, I say "assume", because all we know right now is that a green attacking a red doesn't get flagged.
We don't know what happens based on the outcome of that engagement - Intrepid have not commented. Also, as the system is not yet play tested (to my knowledge), things like this are very, *very* likely to change. It could end up being that if a green attacks a red and the red fights back, no corruption is gained. They could even make it (and I would potentially support if abuse checks were put in place) that if a green attacks a red and the red wins, he loses a portion of his corruption.
The thing is - we don't know.
This system isn't final, and it never will be final even after release. This is an MMO, and systems like this get put in place so that they can be tweaked and re-balanced in order to influence player behavior.
Instead of looking at the "rules" of a system that isn't in place, has not been tested and has only even been talked about in many different small chunks, try looking at their stated objectives with PvP in relation to AoC.
First of all, they want the bulk of PvP to happen in sieges, caravans, arenas and guild wars. That is why these systems are in place, and why corruption doesn't apply to them.
However, they also want the world to have some form of danger to it in terms of PvP, but without allowing players to get too reckless. As has been stated in this thread many times, PvP'ers can ruin games if they act like dicks (which many do), so Intrepid put corruption in place over world PvP in order to stop people being dicks.
It isn't there to stop world PvP, as stopping it altogether would be easier. It is there to act as a moderator, and as with any moderating, the specifics change based on current need and context.
Pride?
That is the real penalty of corruption - it isn't the stat loss, it is the potential to lose that new sword or piece of armor you just had made.
The fact that we are talking about such situations, of so much punishment that people would rather die then fight back, should be highlighting some huge conceptual problems here for people.... Even if you are a carebear and dont like PvP, i dont think anyone can deny that there are some ridiculous risk vs reward issues and penalty issues.
I can see a new players that dont know the system getting punished by this the most.
With an increasing penalty as they raise their Corruption score - by killing more greens.
So, what is the incentive to keep raising the Corruption score rather than keeping loss of equipped items and inventory low?
Pride?
There was nothing in the rest of the post to alter the portion that I quoted.
You first painted to scenario in which people wouldn't fight back and tried to use it to prove your point, then you said that of course people would defend themselves.
It's OK if your opinions change, if people convince you that things are not as you thought they were. It is not OK to blindly argue by shifting your point as you think it fits your argument. Either people would fight back naturally and your first point is invalid, or people wouldn't fight back and your second point is invalid.
To summarize, the system regulates in a way that requires delicate balancing of Corruption and penalties. As it stands, many parts of it seem to contradict itself in various ways. It needs a lot of work. But beyond that, the regulation doesn't approach the core of the issue which is that it is just a set of rules placed over a game and doesn't actually discourage players from griefing - it just changes the ways you can grief. It gives people the opportunity to game the system and loses immersion in the process by forcing you to pay attention to arbitrary rules. A true solution requires changes to be made within the structure of the game itself to hold people accountable to their actions. To this end, I wrote about a system that I had come up with that uses Guilds and party affiliations to balance the issue, and also provide more weight and presence for Guilds in the world. This was in the latter half of my first comment on Page 5 of the discussion. I'll assist you by giving you the first line of the first relevant paragraph to paste into Ctrl + F:
We've gotten through most of the major complaints
- Sikuba
First you are using PvPer rather loosely, be specific, your're talking about killing a person without context. It used to be defined as Pk'er rather than PvP'er as the two acts are different. My Ideal game is UO, full loot, kill at any time with almost no consequence. However, those days are over as far as a mass market game goes. UO's problem was that without the boundary the balance becomes PK or nothing and eventually it takes over and drives other types from the game.
Node vs. Node conflicts as we've had allow for the sort of "open" PvP you are thinking of and has plenty of risk vs. reward. Again, the system of just some random person without any context being able to kill another doesn't appear to be what they are going for.
Being able to PK all times and full loot on gatherers is not the only means of controlling for resource balance. Also there isn't global AH's like there are in other games (or as stated so far) which in itself puts down . This post would be far longer if you want to have a basic crash course in controlling for resource balance without the need of PvP and full loot.
The closest system i'm thinking of here is Eve Online. While not the same in that Eve has Hi Sec, Low Sec, Null Sec etc but the basic underlying premise remains the same. The system determines when/how you can operate and kill without consequence and tip the "balance" in your favor.
Want to kill gatherers and loot? Go join a node that's at war with some others and kill/loot to your hearts desire
I wouldn't cite this as a representation of the community. Thus far, very few posts that I have seen have had any indication of toxicity. Instead, it feel a lot more like actual discussion. He overreacted to her comment, but such things are to be expected in any forum. It's hard to exactly interpret what someone means online, especially when that person quotes different things without commenting (him/her)self. Not trying to throw a shot at Noaani there, just stating a fact.
"Wear what you can afford to loose"
Rule #1 in games which have gear drops. So there is no need to run with your best gear to gank people. ;-)
Take Black Desert Online, for example. At a certain farming zone, Sausan's Garrison, there are established rotations for clearing mobs efficiently. Several exist within the zone, so if the primary rotation is occupied, one can either compete with the occupying party, or decide to take a secondary rotation. For new players, these rotations are unknown. That is, until the new players begin infringing on the rotations of more experienced players. Thus death occurs until the new players figure out what they are doing wrong. BDO still has a Karma system that does not discriminate between rightful and wrongful killing. But the punishments are less immediate, and can be negated without needing to die.
Regardless of the quantity, Corruption can only be removed through death, which can be very costly. Players with Corruption are also open to be killed by other enemies without any repercussions on their killers, making the act of simply defending your farm against an enemy who refuses to fight back a death sentence.
The solution is to design a system which holds players accountable for their actions and is enforced by other players. A system of assigned penalties can be manipulated and gamed. It doesn't prevent griefing, instead forcing players to work around it and creates different opportunities for them to grief. I outlined an example of a system in which players hold each other responsible for their poor behavior through the use of party affiliations and Guilds. If you are interested, I'd invite you to read the second half of the extremely lengthy prompt I wrote on Page 5 of this discussion. Feedback would be much appreciated!
- Sikuba
Nat