Caravan PvP and guild/node wars are all open PvP, and will be much more prevelent than corruption based PvP.
One thing I've noticed, people that look at corruption PvP as the only open PvP tend to not want anything other than the ability to attack others at will. They don't want to actually have to fight over anything, they just want to piss off other players.
If you really want to fight over something that is actually worthwhile, hunt down a caravan.
Edit to add; there are also likely to be corruption free areas around the larger world bosses. There will likely be more world PvP involved in just them than there will be in the corruption system.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
Which comes back to the point: A choice is not a choice anymore if the consequences are too many and too severe to face. It's a fake option that doesn't exist, just an illusion of a choice that only madmans will use for a few short moments to create chaos before they quit the game permanently.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
LOL that's not open world pvp... That's zoned pvp or how ppl usually call it a pvp zone.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
LOL that's not open world pvp... That's zoned pvp or how ppl usually call it a pvp zone.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
Look harder.
Either way, going back to the caravan system - I'm not sure if you know how it works, so I'll tell you.
If you come across a caravan, you decide if you are an attacker or a defender. Then you fight. There is no zone or range, it is exactly as open as PvP that results in corruption - all it means is that if you kill someone that is on the opposing side of the caravan attack, you don't gain corruption.
No zones, and thus no PvP zone.
Same with guild and node wars. If you are out collecting corruption or what ever, and you come across someone your guild is at war with, you can kill that person without penalty.
Again, no zones.
Not sure how you consider either of these to not be open world PvP.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp. And that is way worse for everyone who wants to play the game normally. (Thats the case where the argument is why have open world pvp at all.)
If you instead make greens flag to attack reds, and keep deathpenalty high, chance to loose gear, and statdampening. you create a healthy system.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp.
LOL that's not open world pvp... That's zoned pvp or how ppl usually call it a pvp zone.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
Look harder.
Either way, going back to the caravan system - I'm not sure if you know how it works, so I'll tell you.
If you come across a caravan, you decide if you are an attacker or a defender. Then you fight. There is no zone or range, it is exactly as open as PvP that results in corruption - all it means is that if you kill someone that is on the opposing side of the caravan attack, you don't gain corruption.
No zones, and thus no PvP zone.
Same with guild and node wars. If you are out collecting corruption or what ever, and you come across someone your guild is at war with, you can kill that person without penalty.
Again, no zones.
Not sure how you consider either of these to not be open world PvP.
From wiki: "Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[56]"
LOL that's not open world pvp... That's zoned pvp or how ppl usually call it a pvp zone.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
Look harder.
Either way, going back to the caravan system - I'm not sure if you know how it works, so I'll tell you.
If you come across a caravan, you decide if you are an attacker or a defender. Then you fight. There is no zone or range, it is exactly as open as PvP that results in corruption - all it means is that if you kill someone that is on the opposing side of the caravan attack, you don't gain corruption.
No zones, and thus no PvP zone.
Same with guild and node wars. If you are out collecting corruption or what ever, and you come across someone your guild is at war with, you can kill that person without penalty.
Again, no zones.
Not sure how you consider either of these to not be open world PvP.
From wiki: "Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[56]"
Poor wording.
Edit; not poor wording, just a use of the word "zone" that is not the normal use in an MMO.
Rather than being a zone as in an instance, or new overland map, in this case the word zone is referring to an area.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
As it is now, you won't use it even if that player r*ped your family, allowing self defense atleast makes people think twice about giving a good reason to someone to do the kill.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp.
See, now you're catching on.
yes lower it so I can pvp and get corruption away in 5 minutes before anyone can actually attack me. good idea, consequences are high XD
LOL that's not open world pvp... That's zoned pvp or how ppl usually call it a pvp zone.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
Look harder.
Either way, going back to the caravan system - I'm not sure if you know how it works, so I'll tell you.
If you come across a caravan, you decide if you are an attacker or a defender. Then you fight. There is no zone or range, it is exactly as open as PvP that results in corruption - all it means is that if you kill someone that is on the opposing side of the caravan attack, you don't gain corruption.
No zones, and thus no PvP zone.
Same with guild and node wars. If you are out collecting corruption or what ever, and you come across someone your guild is at war with, you can kill that person without penalty.
Again, no zones.
Not sure how you consider either of these to not be open world PvP.
From wiki: "Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[56]"
Poor wording.
literally stevens wording. Btw how do you belive ppl suddenly turn purple, is it if you enter the proximity of the caravan? thatd be a zone. how else would you program that.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp.
See, now you're catching on.
yes lower it so I can pvp and get corruption away in 5 minutes before anyone can actually attack me. good idea, consequences are high XD
Again, now you're getting it.
It is vital for the game that penalties for corruption be low enough that "some" people will particpate in corruption based PvP.
As it stands now if a non combatant attacks a corrupted they don't flag.
Resulting in a situations where the corrupted cannot defend himself without getting more corruption.
I personally don't get the reasoning, nor do I think this is the correct approach.
Corrupted already have massive death penalty, statdampening(which also is arguable but NOT the point of the post), and potential gear loss. I think that's enough alrdy.
Don't come at me with "you shouldn't have killed someone in the first place as reasoning" just imagine I killed a bot. And now ran into a random green that attacks me and I have to pray he doesn't attack me, or if he does I have to pray I'm faster than him?
I don't see how this aspect makes sense. Pls enlighten me!
Keep in mind, in order to get to red corruption you have to KEEP killing non-combatants while flagged as a combatant. I feel like this system discourages random killings because if u get to red level it means you kept killing non-combatants outside of the world pvp systems already in place. It's meant to be this way to stop griefing outside of the MANY different available "LEGAL" PvP systems in place.
I personally completely agree with the system, because you have to actively choose to continue griefing to get to a red corruption level, and then EVERYONE can kill you free of corrupting themselves. Essentially, you chose to be a villian in a world of heroes. Not the smartest move imo.
As it stands now if a non combatant attacks a corrupted they don't flag.
Resulting in a situations where the corrupted cannot defend himself without getting more corruption.
I personally don't get the reasoning, nor do I think this is the correct approach.
Corrupted already have massive death penalty, statdampening(which also is arguable but NOT the point of the post), and potential gear loss. I think that's enough alrdy.
Don't come at me with "you shouldn't have killed someone in the first place as reasoning" just imagine I killed a bot. And now ran into a random green that attacks me and I have to pray he doesn't attack me, or if he does I have to pray I'm faster than him?
I don't see how this aspect makes sense. Pls enlighten me!
Keep in mind, in order to get to red corruption you have to KEEP killing non-combatants while flagged as a combatant. I feel like this system discourages random killings because if u get to red level it means you kept killing non-combatants outside of the world pvp systems already in place. It's meant to be this way to stop griefing outside of the MANY different available "LEGAL" PvP systems in place.
I personally completely agree with the system, because you have to actively choose to continue griefing to get to a red corruption level, and then EVERYONE can kill you free of corrupting themselves. Essentially, you chose to be a villian in a world of heroes. Not the smartest move imo.
you get more corruption the more you kill, that is correct and the way it should be. But if you kill 1 guy for X reason and a green shows up, just because you're red he will attack you and you cant attack back because you gain more corruption. Not talking about arenas. Also if the fact you killed in the first place makes it so all greens are allowed to attack yout without repercussions, it kind of makes no sense to have open world pvp at all.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp.
See, now you're catching on.
yes lower it so I can pvp and get corruption away in 5 minutes before anyone can actually attack me. good idea, consequences are high XD
Again, now you're getting it.
It is vital for the game that penalties for corruption be low enough that "some" people will particpate in corruption based PvP.
are you trolling? that will make it so ppl will actually grief???? Why would you want that lol.
If you can get corruption away in 5 min theres an insanely high chance you will kill on sight that player you dont like.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp.
See, now you're catching on.
yes lower it so I can pvp and get corruption away in 5 minutes before anyone can actually attack me. good idea, consequences are high XD
Again, now you're getting it.
It is vital for the game that penalties for corruption be low enough that "some" people will particpate in corruption based PvP.
are you trolling? that will make it so ppl will actually grief???? Why would you want that lol.
If you can get corruption away in 5 min theres an insanely high chance you will kill on sight that player you dont like.
I'll almost always kill players I don't like on sight.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
You remember back when I was talking about those built in adjustments that the system has?
How long it takes to work it off is another one that I forgot to mention (I only mentioned how much was lost on PvP death).
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
You remember back when I was talking about those built in adjustments that the system has?
How long it takes to work it off is another one that I forgot to mention (I only mentioned how much was lost on PvP death).
Well, if it takes long and green can attack you its dumb.
If its short and greens are allowed attack you without repercussions, you invite griefers.simply because of the short time. Thats how you can talk balance on a systembasis without numbers...
So solution: Long without allowing greens to attack you ? No, seems unreasonable for you for some reason i still dont know.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
You remember back when I was talking about those built in adjustments that the system has?
How long it takes to work it off is another one that I forgot to mention (I only mentioned how much was lost on PvP death).
Well, if it takes long and green can attack you its dumb.
If its short and greens are allowed attack you without repercussions, you invite griefers.simply because of the short time. Thats how you can talk balance on a systembasis without numbers...
That isn't balance, that is general, obvious thoughts.
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
If they lower the penalties at all for it (greens being able to attack reds without penalty IS one of the penalties for corruption), they make it so you only need a reason to use it, not a good reason.
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
See, there is a lot of things that are subjective on top of what you are thinking of.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
You remember back when I was talking about those built in adjustments that the system has?
How long it takes to work it off is another one that I forgot to mention (I only mentioned how much was lost on PvP death).
Well, if it takes long and green can attack you its dumb.
If its short and greens are allowed attack you without repercussions, you invite griefers.simply because of the short time. Thats how you can talk balance on a systembasis without numbers...
That isn't balance, that is general, obvious thoughts.
Lol, but for some fkd up reason you argue against that??????? for 3 pages on a forum. Well, atleast we agree at this point and couldve saved 3 pages of writing. And then i want to add but i wont argue it: ITS RISK VS REWARD BALANCING.
EDIT: Risk vs Reward is a ratio, you can naturally balance ratios relative to eachother...
Go and try to play LINEAGE 2 ---- This is totaly same sysetm that works in that game for more than decade....
Green attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Green attack Green and they dont deffendt them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Green Attack Purple and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they dont deffend them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Purple attack purple = NO PENTALY
Purple attack RED = Purple still be Purple
Red Attack Green and they both fight each other = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption if kill
= Green player stays Green if dead or sucessfuly kill RED
Red attack Green and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption
Red attack Purple and they both fight each oter = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Purple and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Red = NO PENALTY for the one who survive, the dead one will lose EXP and possibly drop items
Conlucison....
Green player dies = No penalty
Purple players dies = No pentalty
Red player dies = Loss EXP, Chance to lose some items
Go and try to play LINEAGE 2 ---- This is totaly same sysetm that works in that game for more than decade....
Green attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Green attack Green and they dont deffendt them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Green Attack Purple and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they dont deffend them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Purple attack purple = NO PENTALY
Purple attack RED = Purple still be Purple
Red Attack Green and they both fight each other = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption if kill
= Green player stays Green if dead or sucessfuly kill RED
Red attack Green and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption
Red attack Purple and they both fight each oter = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Purple and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Red = NO PENALTY for the one who survive, the dead one will lose EXP and possibly drop items
Conlucison....
Green player dies = No penalty
Purple players dies = No pentalty
Red player dies = Loss EXP, Chance to lose some items
It is true the system applies, but, they are arguing against gaining corrupted from Green Players, or more specifically are arguing Greens should turn Purple when fighting Reds.
It is not based on any other logic except the desire to lessen the penalties. I gave up arguing ages ago.
Always be ready to drag your argument in some giant circle or something before you let them in on the piece of information they are missing.
That way, by the time you're done, they will have forgotten what their original argument even was, and think that they were arguing the thing that you were actually arguing.
Always be ready to drag your argument in some giant circle or something before you let them in on the piece of information they are missing.
That way, by the time you're done, they will have forgotten what their original argument even was, and think that they were arguing the thing that you were actually arguing.
As it stands now if a But if you kill 1 guy for X reason and a green shows up, just because you're red he will attack you and you cant attack back because you gain more corruption.
You don't go from green to red, you go green to purple, my point is you don't just kill 1 guy to get to red corruption. u have to KEEP killing people without waiting for it to go away via questing or resting.
Go and try to play LINEAGE 2 ---- This is totaly same sysetm that works in that game for more than decade....
Green attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Green attack Green and they dont deffendt them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Green Attack Purple and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they dont deffend them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Purple attack purple = NO PENTALY
Purple attack RED = Purple still be Purple
Red Attack Green and they both fight each other = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption if kill
= Green player stays Green if dead or sucessfuly kill RED
Red attack Green and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption
Red attack Purple and they both fight each oter = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Purple and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Red = NO PENALTY for the one who survive, the dead one will lose EXP and possibly drop items
Conlucison....
Green player dies = No penalty
Purple players dies = No pentalty
Red player dies = Loss EXP, Chance to lose some items
Funny how you mentionned every case beside the one we're discussing, which is Green attacking RED (not the other way around) without getting flagged purple so that the RED can defend himself.
And L2 is not really a good model to copy from, there is a reason this game was never really popular outside of korea and has always been a niche game in EU/NA.
you have to actively choose to continue griefing to get to a red corruption level, and then EVERYONE can kill you free of corrupting themselves. Essentially, you chose to be a villian in a world of heroes. Not the smartest move imo.
Ah there we go again, another white knight that considers every PK "griefing", always assuming that the guy who didn't fight back is the pure innocent maiden that didn't deserve such a cruel fate.
And we didn't ask for green to corrupt themselves by attacking/killing corrupted players, just for them to be flagged for pvp if the greens decide to attack, so that corrupted players can fight back.
Comments
I don't think we look at corruption as the only open pvp or even the main one, we just want to be able to use it without screwing over our character completely should there be a good reason to engage in it.
Which comes back to the point: A choice is not a choice anymore if the consequences are too many and too severe to face. It's a fake option that doesn't exist, just an illusion of a choice that only madmans will use for a few short moments to create chaos before they quit the game permanently.
So, Archeage didn't have open world PvP?
As it is now, you need a good reason to use it - and if you are smart, you can mitigate the consequences a little bit, meaning you can use it with a slightly less good reason.
never played archage, but just checked a forum where they said, you could pvp in certain zones, but no1 actually called it open world pvp. An example of open world pvp is wow classic. even tho its faction based. you can attack any1 (of opposing faction) anytime anywhere.
Look harder.
Either way, going back to the caravan system - I'm not sure if you know how it works, so I'll tell you.
If you come across a caravan, you decide if you are an attacker or a defender. Then you fight. There is no zone or range, it is exactly as open as PvP that results in corruption - all it means is that if you kill someone that is on the opposing side of the caravan attack, you don't gain corruption.
No zones, and thus no PvP zone.
Same with guild and node wars. If you are out collecting corruption or what ever, and you come across someone your guild is at war with, you can kill that person without penalty.
Again, no zones.
Not sure how you consider either of these to not be open world PvP.
My take is the following on that:
IF you allow the green attacks red thingy, they will have to lower the other things otherwise there wont be any open world pvp. And that is way worse for everyone who wants to play the game normally. (Thats the case where the argument is why have open world pvp at all.)
If you instead make greens flag to attack reds, and keep deathpenalty high, chance to loose gear, and statdampening. you create a healthy system.
From wiki: "Caravans create an open PvP zone that flags players for combat (purple).[56]"
Poor wording.
Edit; not poor wording, just a use of the word "zone" that is not the normal use in an MMO.
Rather than being a zone as in an instance, or new overland map, in this case the word zone is referring to an area.
A good reason is always subjectively good, it depends of each player, there is already severe consequences for PKing someone, even if you allow corrupted to fight back without piling up more corruption, the consequences are still really severe and people won't go around killing someone without a subjectively good reason.
As it is now, you won't use it even if that player r*ped your family, allowing self defense atleast makes people think twice about giving a good reason to someone to do the kill.
yes lower it so I can pvp and get corruption away in 5 minutes
literally stevens wording. Btw how do you belive ppl suddenly turn purple, is it if you enter the proximity of the caravan? thatd be a zone. how else would you program that.
Again, now you're getting it.
It is vital for the game that penalties for corruption be low enough that "some" people will particpate in corruption based PvP.
Keep in mind, in order to get to red corruption you have to KEEP killing non-combatants while flagged as a combatant. I feel like this system discourages random killings because if u get to red level it means you kept killing non-combatants outside of the world pvp systems already in place. It's meant to be this way to stop griefing outside of the MANY different available "LEGAL" PvP systems in place.
I personally completely agree with the system, because you have to actively choose to continue griefing to get to a red corruption level, and then EVERYONE can kill you free of corrupting themselves. Essentially, you chose to be a villian in a world of heroes. Not the smartest move imo.
you get more corruption the more you kill, that is correct and the way it should be. But if you kill 1 guy for X reason and a green shows up, just because you're red he will attack you and you cant attack back because you gain more corruption. Not talking about arenas. Also if the fact you killed in the first place makes it so all greens are allowed to attack yout without repercussions, it kind of makes no sense to have open world pvp at all.
are you trolling? that will make it so ppl will actually grief???? Why would you want that lol.
If you can get corruption away in 5 min theres an insanely high chance you will kill on sight that player you dont like.
Because I'm an above average player in terms of smarts, if I am not running top end content, I will not have my best gear on me - it will be back at home.
If someone annoys me, that subjective reason as to whether it is worth me attacking and killing them or not is lower than for other players - as I don't have any items on me that would be overly painful to lose.
This means that my first plan to get rid of corruption will be a basic grind to work it off. If that fails and I am killed, then I lose an item that is easily replaced by a little bit of grinding, and have some experience debt that will be worked off with a little bit of grinding.
When I am making decisions as to whether to attack a player and gain corruption, and whether to defend myself or let someone kill me so that I lose an item I don't care about and gain experience debt - the only thing I'll be thinking of is how much grinding each option will see me need to do.
Why wouldn't you?
why not make corruption last longer so bounty hunter have to do sth, meanwhile not allowing greens to attack without flagging and also having a bigger timeloss?
You remember back when I was talking about those built in adjustments that the system has?
How long it takes to work it off is another one that I forgot to mention (I only mentioned how much was lost on PvP death).
Well, if it takes long and green can attack you its dumb.
If its short and greens are allowed attack you without repercussions, you invite griefers.simply because of the short time. Thats how you can talk balance on a systembasis without numbers...
So solution: Long without allowing greens to attack you ? No, seems unreasonable for you for some reason i still dont know.
Lol, but for some fkd up reason you argue against that??????? for 3 pages on a forum. Well, atleast we agree at this point and couldve saved 3 pages of writing. And then i want to add but i wont argue it: ITS RISK VS REWARD BALANCING.
EDIT: Risk vs Reward is a ratio, you can naturally balance ratios relative to eachother...
It was mine.
You wanted to stop greens being able to attack reds without gaining corruption - that was your argument.
Green attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Green attack Green and they dont deffendt them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Green Attack Purple and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they both fight each other = NO PENALTY
Purple attack green and they dont deffend them selfs = ATTACKER BECOME CORUPTED
Purple attack purple = NO PENTALY
Purple attack RED = Purple still be Purple
Red Attack Green and they both fight each other = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption if kill
= Green player stays Green if dead or sucessfuly kill RED
Red attack Green and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED and increase his corruption
Red attack Purple and they both fight each oter = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Purple and they dont deffend them self = Red player stays RED without increasing corruption
Red attack Red = NO PENALTY for the one who survive, the dead one will lose EXP and possibly drop items
Conlucison....
Green player dies = No penalty
Purple players dies = No pentalty
Red player dies = Loss EXP, Chance to lose some items
It is true the system applies, but, they are arguing against gaining corrupted from Green Players, or more specifically are arguing Greens should turn Purple when fighting Reds.
It is not based on any other logic except the desire to lessen the penalties. I gave up arguing ages ago.
Always be ready to drag your argument in some giant circle or something before you let them in on the piece of information they are missing.
That way, by the time you're done, they will have forgotten what their original argument even was, and think that they were arguing the thing that you were actually arguing.
You don't go from green to red, you go green to purple, my point is you don't just kill 1 guy to get to red corruption. u have to KEEP killing people without waiting for it to go away via questing or resting.
Funny how you mentionned every case beside the one we're discussing, which is Green attacking RED (not the other way around) without getting flagged purple so that the RED can defend himself.
And L2 is not really a good model to copy from, there is a reason this game was never really popular outside of korea and has always been a niche game in EU/NA.
Ah there we go again, another white knight that considers every PK "griefing", always assuming that the guy who didn't fight back is the pure innocent maiden that didn't deserve such a cruel fate.
And we didn't ask for green to corrupt themselves by attacking/killing corrupted players, just for them to be flagged for pvp if the greens decide to attack, so that corrupted players can fight back.