Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Hives of Scum and Villany
ArchivedUser
Guest
There's been quite a bit of talk recently about PvP and concerns with corruption, vs concerns open world PvP will impact gameplay of non-pvpers.
This post is not about that, but rather it ponders a topic near and dear to my heart. I would be hugely in favor of a mechanic allowing a node to be "corruption friendly".
As my many followers and admirers will tell you, I favor the scoundrel over the saint yet hold a soft spot in my heart for the downtrodden. I enjoy PvP but not necessarily ganking. In most PvP debates, I stead on the side of PvPers, yer I'm not unsympathetic to people who just want to farm in peace.
With the long teased "Nodes 3" coming "Soon", speculation has run wild over what mechanics each node type will accommodate. It's been a long time dream of mine that is rarely seen in MMOs to have a "Pirate Island" or a "Thieves Forest" where all crime is basically legal. This was probably closest to being accomplished by Archeage with their Pirate Faction, which took players who accumulated a large amount of crime points out of their faction and into (in my opinion) the best faction for PvP.
However, this was seen more a form of punishment than it was anything else because you were removed from access to a small amount of content, specifically faction content.
Although, no factions exist in AoC. Instead Intrepid's system with nodes will encourage "city states" to emerge, each with their own government. What's to say a few of these nodes don't open themselves up as "corruption nodes"?
The most obvious choice would be a Military Node, with its perks to reduce the effects of corruption. I'm going to wager that a system is planned to allow a Military Node to basically open itself to full PvP, allowing players to avoid corruption accumulation.
So, before people get too heated over the harshness or lack there of in regards to corruption, it's entirety possible we see vast parts of the map that are basically the Wild West.
And I look forward to it.
Edit: spelling
This post is not about that, but rather it ponders a topic near and dear to my heart. I would be hugely in favor of a mechanic allowing a node to be "corruption friendly".
As my many followers and admirers will tell you, I favor the scoundrel over the saint yet hold a soft spot in my heart for the downtrodden. I enjoy PvP but not necessarily ganking. In most PvP debates, I stead on the side of PvPers, yer I'm not unsympathetic to people who just want to farm in peace.
With the long teased "Nodes 3" coming "Soon", speculation has run wild over what mechanics each node type will accommodate. It's been a long time dream of mine that is rarely seen in MMOs to have a "Pirate Island" or a "Thieves Forest" where all crime is basically legal. This was probably closest to being accomplished by Archeage with their Pirate Faction, which took players who accumulated a large amount of crime points out of their faction and into (in my opinion) the best faction for PvP.
However, this was seen more a form of punishment than it was anything else because you were removed from access to a small amount of content, specifically faction content.
Although, no factions exist in AoC. Instead Intrepid's system with nodes will encourage "city states" to emerge, each with their own government. What's to say a few of these nodes don't open themselves up as "corruption nodes"?
The most obvious choice would be a Military Node, with its perks to reduce the effects of corruption. I'm going to wager that a system is planned to allow a Military Node to basically open itself to full PvP, allowing players to avoid corruption accumulation.
So, before people get too heated over the harshness or lack there of in regards to corruption, it's entirety possible we see vast parts of the map that are basically the Wild West.
And I look forward to it.
Edit: spelling
0
Comments
It's simple, caters to a main portion of the community while allowing those uninterested by opting out.
We've paid off the local government to allow our own policing inside and around the establishment, so you won't have to worry - you will eat and drink in peace!
...at least from the law.
What you do to each other is none of our business... unless it interferes with the rule.
The only rule: No stealing from the establishment or harming the staff.
Other guests are allowed to enforce punishment on those breaking the rule.
I would be okay if corruption still had random spawn points. So just because you were a corrupted citizen in a corrupted node it doesn't mean you get to spawn there on death. That wasn't suggested, I would just be opposed to that. I would also prefer some sort of indicator when entering the zone of influence of said node.
I don't think the comparison to other node types, even religious, being able to take a 'perk' to prevent PvP {Edit} is relevant. Corruption doesn't, as far as we know, prevent PvE. Corrupted players might actually be less likely to kill greens in that zone due to gaining more corruption. However, in the example I provided above from Gothix that would be a fair alternative.
If the suggestion was 'can't gain corruption in node' I would be 100% against it.
If you were to have a corrupted node you would either need:
- Corrupted players that would be the only contributor to the nodes experience
- A node that is already developed which then "falls" into corruption.
Point 1 just isn't right. It would encourage players to become corrupted which means killing non-combatants. In the eyes of Intrepid that is meaningless PvP.Point 2 is more possible. Perhaps there is a chance that a failed defence against a PvE siege puts the node"into a state of corruption". For a period of time it could be swarmed with enemies. It could be a temporary sanctuary for corrupted players where on death they don't suffer the normal penalties. In order to put the node back to a non-corrupted state players must complete quests/fight enemies/fight corrupted players.
However I think @Azathoth is on the correct lines. I personally don't think "corruption" is the answer to a player created "bad guy faction".
The aim should be to create as many opportunities as possible for meaningful PvP in the open word - and maybe some of those areas could be player influenced such as with Node Leader perks.
This means your "badguy" could be a Node Leader and you can show your support by being a citizen of that node.
Vice versa if you don't support you can leave the node or do what you can to bring it down.
Player Agency? I dunno...
I don't really know how it can work but I think that is more in the right direction.
Having a node/town where everyone is flagged means, as pointed out before, then you would have to have the PvE equivalent where there is no PvP.
I would be opposed to areas that somehow prevent gain, or even loss, of corruption because of a 'perk' granted by the node or an affect granted by an environment.
If corruption prevents players from buying/selling or otherwise interacting with NPC's or players (outside of combat), then I can see maybe a node 'perk' to allow those things. Even then that would be counter intuitive to the whole point of corruption, assuming corrupted players can't do those things, so I wouldn't expect it to be an option.
In the end I agree with a few others here in that having a place/location/node/etc. specifically set up to cater to corrupted players will only encourage gaining corruption in a less than meaningful way. I do not consider "I really want to be part of that node" as a meaningful reason to gain corruption (unless you had to be corrupt to benefit or be a citizen to the node).
Besides wanting a place to hide from being hunted due to having corruption what is the positive benefit to having such a place?
(you can read that as having to hide among other corrupt individuals because although you are brave enough to gain corruption you are not brave enough to face bounty hunters)
This would have the added benefit of creating an area in the game where these kinds of players can focus, while the ones who have no interest in this can just not go there.
I see waaaaay to much on this forum the mentality of "Well this play style is not what I like to play, therefore it's not as important and these people shouldn't be allowed to do this.". And oddly enough, this seems to come mostly from the PVE crowd who spend hours complaining about a system that would essentially help provide PvP for PvPers that is away from them.
The real issue people seem to be having with this idea is that it benefits PvPers and not them, and therefore they see no value in it overall.
I see your point, but I don't believe one crowd deserves to be catered too more than another. A pirate island for corruption should be balanced by an equally large area where PvE players would have to worry less about PvP. I believe in balance, and I think the current system is designed to shoot for that.
My biggest problem with the suggestion is along the lines of "Corruption is in place to encourage meaningful PvP and persuade against unnecessary PvP, however in this one location it's fine and doesn't have to be meaningful."
I don't think one crowd should be catered to more or less. People will play the game and stick around for the game if they like it, if they don't like it we shouldn't be compelled to make the game different so a specific group likes it more.
I am a PvE player, I do not like PvP, but in Ashes I plan on accepting that and adapting my play style to fit the game. I am not sure why others are not willing to try and do that.