I dunno what "flagged PvP" is supposed to mean. No Corruption for killing a purple or red. Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.
A toggle switch to be purple. Not just going purple by attacking.
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.
@Noaani@Azathoth If you attack a Non-Combatant, and they respond in kind, their status doesn't change. They don't become a Combatant, meaning that they retain the normal drop rate and death penalties as opposed to the half value that comes with being a Combatant.
Well, yeah, but your Corruption score would be stacking higher and higher each time you kill a green, so that doesn't seem like much of an incentive to keep killing greens. Unless you're playing with an alt who doesn't care about Corruption death penalties.
Someone walking away in the middle of a fight to avoid Corruption cannot break my immersion. That is part of the lore.
The thing is, it's more complicated than that. The current restrictions are, at this point, just another Karma system to be gamed - albeit a harsh one. Rather than encouraging positive player behavior, or truly discouraging negative behavior, it encourages players to find ways to work around Corruption gain as they go throughout their business in the world, whether that's mob farming, resource collecting, etc..
I dunno what "flagged PvP" is supposed to mean. No Corruption for killing a purple or red. Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.
Minimal or not.. you are now corrupted and on death suffer a penalty (assumed to be 4x the amount of a non-combatant) during which time if you defend yourself against additional greens it only serves to stack your corruption (because currently they don't flag purple for attacking a corrupted player).
That applies whether you attacked one person or 4 or someone your level or 15 below.
@Noaani@Azathoth If you attack a Non-Combatant, and they respond in kind, their status doesn't change. They don't become a Combatant, meaning that they retain the normal drop rate and death penalties as opposed to the half value that comes with being a Combatant.
Well, yeah, but your Corruption score would be stacking higher and higher each time you kill a green, so that doesn't seem like much of an incentive to keep killing greens. Unless you're playing with an alt who doesn't care about Corruption death penalties.
That's a fair point. But Corruption gain for players of similar level is fairly minimal. If you are harassing low-level players, you deserve all of the Corruption. The problem is that Non-Combatants are also taking a higher risk attacking a Corrupted target than they would by attacking a Non-Combatant or Combatant. They don't acquire reduced penalties as one would against the two non-Corrupted types of players. I'd imagine that this would lead to a lot of people attacking randoms to acquire a Combatant status before trying to take down a Corrupt player. Hardly makes sense logistically, but for the system, it works.
Non-Combatants that attack Corrupted players are still considered Non-Combatants. This means that anyone is now allowed to attack you without becoming a Combatant or Corrupted.
I'm going to address just this portion for now, though if you have anything else you'd specifically like me to address, just ask.
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.
I dunno what "flagged PvP" is supposed to mean. No Corruption for killing a purple or red. Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.
Minimal or not.. you are now corrupted and on death suffer a penalty (assumed to be 4x the amount of a non-combatant) during which time if you defend yourself against additional greens it only serves to stack your corruption (because currently they don't flag purple for attacking a corrupted player).
That applies whether you attacked one person or 4 or someone your level or 15 below.
Yeah, but what is the incentive for someone who is Corrupt to defend against greens?
Pride?
I dunno what "flagged PvP" is supposed to mean. No Corruption for killing a purple or red. Kill one green your own level or higher, Corruption score will probably be minimal.
Minimal or not.. you are now corrupted and on death suffer a penalty (assumed to be 4x the amount of a non-combatant) during which time if you defend yourself against additional greens it only serves to stack your corruption (because currently they don't flag purple for attacking a corrupted player).
That applies whether you attacked one person or 4 or someone your level or 15 below.
Yeah, but what is the incentive for someone who is Corrupt to defend against greens?
Pride?
Come on really? Pride? What about common sense? If someone attacks you i dont think its very far fetched that a person would defend themselves even in IRL situations....
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.
That is going to happen whenever they die. 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?
Come on really? Pride? What about common sense? If someone attacks you i dont think its very far fetched that a person would defend themselves even in IRL situations....
Dude, you dont see it as a problem that does not mean its not one...Whats gona happen is, you chose to attack some one, of even level farming resources next to you, that guy will run away because you got the jump on him, he will move 5 steps back, you will stop attacking, he will heal up, reset, and then attack you, in which case you will do the same, run back 5 steps, he will stop attacking for the fear of the stupid corruption debuff and on and on we go until someone feels like actually committing, in which case, you can only do that couple of times before you go red and start losing XP and LVLS and GEAR, all of which makes no sense for an Open world PvP game...
Come on really? Pride? What about common sense? If someone attacks you i dont think its very far fetched that a person would defend themselves even in IRL situations....
Dude, you dont see it as a problem that does not mean its not one...Whats gona happen is, you chose to attack some one, of even level farming resources next to you, that guy will run away because you got the jump on him, he will move 5 steps back, you will stop attacking, he will heal up, reset, and then attack you, in which case you will do the same, run back 5 steps, he will stop attacking for the fear of the stupid corruption debuff and on and on we go until someone feels like actually committing, in which case, you can only do that couple of times before you go red and start losing XP and LVLS and GEAR, all of which makes no sense for an Open world PvP game...
typical carebear, quotes only part of the post, actually quote the full post of me replaying to his specific situation. Not sure why you are even in this thread, we all know you will be sitting in the city playing with your hair and chewing bubble gum
Come on really? Pride? What about common sense? If someone attacks you i dont think its very far fetched that a person would defend themselves even in IRL situations....
Dude, you dont see it as a problem that does not mean its not one...Whats gona happen is, you chose to attack some one, of even level farming resources next to you, that guy will run away because you got the jump on him, he will move 5 steps back, you will stop attacking, he will heal up, reset, and then attack you, in which case you will do the same, run back 5 steps, he will stop attacking for the fear of the stupid corruption debuff and on and on we go until someone feels like actually committing, in which case, you can only do that couple of times before you go red and start losing XP and LVLS and GEAR, all of which makes no sense for an Open world PvP game...
typical carebear, quotes only part of the post, actually quote the full post of me replaying to his specific situation. Not sure why you are even in this thread, we all know you will be sitting in the city playing with your hair and chewing bubble gum
typical carebear, quotes only part of the post, actually quote the full post of me replaying to his specific situation.
Why?
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.
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.
I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your willingness to listen to further explanation on the matter. The system is by no means absolute, and will need to be extensively balanced to be functional. The flaws regarding the working and balancing of the system can be fixed by launch, or perhaps found to be non-issues when tested. But the most important issue doesn't concern how the system works. I voiced my thoughts in an earlier, much longer comment, and so I will now quote:
... The paragraphs before this spoke of the logistics of this system and how it is most likely to impact players. However, they did not mention the most critical shortcoming of this system: It is a system put into the game to regulate a game. A deliberate structuring that players must work around and make the most of. It doesn't work as a part of the world itself, but rather, as a rule in a game that players must follow. For a company that intends to revolutionize the world of MMOs, it's a very basic and old-style approach. Even if it is functional, it takes heavily from the immersion of the game. Although I recognize the effort to combine Bounty Hunting with Corruption levels and agree that that's a step in the right direction, it's not enough to distract from the fact that the system was designed to regulate a game.
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:
typical carebear, quotes only part of the post, actually quote the full post of me replaying to his specific situation.
Why?
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.
Come on really? Pride? What about common sense? If someone attacks you i dont think its very far fetched that a person would defend themselves even in IRL situations....
Dude, you dont see it as a problem that does not mean its not one...Whats gona happen is, you chose to attack some one, of even level farming resources next to you, that guy will run away because you got the jump on him, he will move 5 steps back, you will stop attacking, he will heal up, reset, and then attack you, in which case you will do the same, run back 5 steps, he will stop attacking for the fear of the stupid corruption debuff and on and on we go until someone feels like actually committing, in which case, you can only do that couple of times before you go red and start losing XP and LVLS and GEAR, all of which makes no sense for an Open world PvP game...
typical carebear, quotes only part of the post, actually quote the full post of me replaying to his specific situation. Not sure why you are even in this thread, we all know you will be sitting in the city playing with your hair and chewing bubble gum
TBH, I don't think that a community this new needs the level of toxicity that I am seeing from the Majority of your posts, coming from playing games like Overwatch and League of Legends, I was hoping that this community would be positive about a game that seems to be a lot of what people want. Instead I jump onto the forums straight into a toxic post about what appears to be a very specific situation, where if you listen to other members of this amazing community, doesn't seem to be an issue that the majority of them are concerned with. I will be flagging all your posts that seem to be toxic, as I would like to thrive in a community that wants to work together not flame each other. Please think before you speak in the future, as toxicity can ruin a game as much as bad game play.
More than likely one group is going to be sour and my current bet is on the people who want to be able to kill anyone, anywhere without any penalty.
The corruption system seems to be designed to prevent the REPEATED killing of non combatants. You see somebodies face you don't like? Kill him, but you'll get some corruption. We don't know HOW much you will get yet, but the assumption is that it won't be TOO much initially. Only after repeatedly killing non-combatants will you then start gaining enough corruption to affect skills/xp loss.
There's still some danger always at getting killed by a random out there, but the game appears to be trying to encourage consensual combat without outright banning non-consensual combat.
Thats the wrong assumption and it seems like half of you dont read and just respond.
No one here wants to kill without any consequence, its that the risk vs reward is currently unbalanced and extremely one sided.
Right now a resource gatherer has ALMOST no negatives.... besides some % of resources lost, which lets be honest, will be under 50% with the way the current balance has been from these dev's towards gatherers.
So we have these PvP players losing tons of stats and gear and TIME, hell they are the ones getting harassed by pretty much the entire game...Especially since greens can attack for free....Thats not risk vs reward, because a person gathering resources has no risk, its all reward, and that makes for a poor balanced game where the market will be flooded with resources, and the caravans wont even be worth PvPing for if the resources are so abundant, PvP players actually would be helping the economy in this scenario, from over stocking resources.
This especially applies if you are in Late game content area harvesting rare resources This kind of unbalanced system would quickly over flood the economy and ruin the game, it has happened so many times im sure even some of you carebears have experienced this.
Your assumption is still incorrect based on what we've heard for a couple of reasons.
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
@KillJoy226 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.
@KillJoy226 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.
She specifically quoted 2 different posts of mine, picked and chose random things out of them without any context and made it seem like i responded 2 different ways to same topic, even though its 2 different scenarios that i responded in 2 different ways. She knows what she was doing, and she can play the victim game all she wants, she might get pity from some of you, but not from me.
My issue with a system like this that uses a statistic to measure a player's malicious behavior is that it does not consider PKing a necessary part of the game. Rather, it views it as a negative behavior that must be reprimanded. In many cases, PKing is the result of other negative interactions such as infringements on farm or mobs by other players.
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!
Still waiting first appropriate open world PvP thread.. Maybe next year?
No kidding this thread is about an idea, none of us have actually played the game with this feature yet so we cant say anything yet. Pointless thread, everyone is restating their same points repeatedly.
Still waiting first appropriate open world PvP thread.. Maybe next year?
No kidding this thread is about an idea, none of us have actually played the game with this feature yet so we cant say anything yet. Pointless thread, everyone is restating their same points repeatedly.
Idea? This thread is based of developers facts... This is their system... not like we invented these punishments out of thin air... this is what has been put in by the dev's, and hopefully its early enough to make them change some of these absurd punishments for simply playing their game. Its better to debate these things early then when its too late to do anything about it.
It's not "unthought" at all. I actually want something in place to prevent stupid kids from not letting me play the game the way I want to. I hate PVP, I don't care about it and I don't want to be involved in it in any way, shape or form. Why should I suffer from the lack of a mechanic that punishes someone that wants to not leave me alone? There will be other ways to do PVP - use them - while letting the others be.
Let's not even start on the idea of copse camping and such...
Everyone should play the game how they want to. If both PVPers and PVEers have stuff to do, then all should be fine. I don't see the reason for ganking people that want to be left alone. How would you feel if I broke into your home, ate your peanut butter, threw your milk in your face, then left without giving a shit? Now, if you invited me over for a party and I did that because I was drunk, then it's totally different
It's the same with ganking. PVP with those who want to PVP.
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