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.
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.
You can fight back, you just want to fight back with fewer potential consequences, and fewer consequences means lowering the penalty for corruption by definition.
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.
You can fight back, you just want to fight back with fewer potential consequences, and fewer consequences means lowering the penalty for corruption by definition.
Why should there be consequences for self defense?
I take the consequences of the kill I did, if someone force my hand after that why should I get punished even more?
Don't give me that crap about choices, I already said:
It's like saying, you can slap that guy if you have a problem with him, but if you do so, you will be beheaded. Well, no one will do it, the choice doesn't really exist no matter how much you say it does.
There is only a choice if you have multiple options of equal or almost equal values.
the corruption system is in place to prevent griefing, Steven has said so himself in his ama as well as his interviews. getting back to non-combatant from combatant shouldn't be too difficult in theory. for example if you want to take a farming spot from someone so you kill them so they have to run back to it and u get the spot for a while (gaining exp and reducing the corruption you gained pk'ing to get the spot), that's within the rules of the game, and while you're farming you'll go back to non-combatant. It's not always going to be Griefing. But that's a big part of WHY the system is in place.
plus the chart shows if you're green the most u can go is purple. not red.
Why should there be consequences for self defense?
If you are red, and attacked by a green, and then fight back, that additional corruption you just got isn't only a result of the decision to fight back against the green player.
It is also (and primarily) still a consequence of the action that first turned you corrupt.
If you are in a chain of killing 100 green players, all of that corruption can be traced back to that first one kill.
That is the kill that needs some real thought put in to it, as the consequences "could be" dire. They could also be minimal.
the corruption system is in place to prevent griefing, Steven has said so himself in his ama as well as his interviews. getting back to non-combatant from combatant shouldn't be too difficult in theory. for example if you want to take a farming spot from someone so you kill them so they have to run back to it and u get the spot for a while (gaining exp and reducing the corruption you gained pk'ing to get the spot), that's within the rules of the game, and while you're farming you'll go back to non-combatant. It's not always going to be Griefing. But that's a big part of WHY the system is in place.
You seem to mix everyting up
Non combatant (green) ≠ Combatant (purple) ≠ Corrupted (red).
plus the chart shows if you're green the most u can go is purple. not red.
Player 1 and player 2 are both Green
Player 1 attacks player 2 = Player 1 becomes purple, player 2 stays green
Player 2 doesn't fight back = Player 2 stays green
Player 2 ends up dying to player 1 = Player 1 turns from purple to red, 1 kill only.
Player 1 and player 2 are both Green
Player 1 attacks player 2 = Player 1 becomes purple, player 2 stays green
Player 2 doesn't fight back = Player 2 stays green
Player 2 ends up dying to player 1 = Player 1 turns from purple to red, 1 kill only.
Ok i'll admit i misread the first chart. i thought u had to kill to go purple.
Also, I should add that having too heavy punishments for one PK is something that goes against consensual pvp, If two players want to fight in open world, it means there is a feud between them. If the punishment for PK is too heavy, then it's even more appealing for a guy to not fight back, so that the other goes corrupted and suffer much more than he did by dying once, so it's only gonna result in none of them flagging for pvp in the end.
If two players want yo fight, there won't be any corruption involved.
Corruption only comes in when someone doesn't fight.
Wanting to fight ≠ Starting to fight
If the first one who gets attacked can screw his opponent more by not fighting back rather than by fighting back, what do you think will happen?
In that scenario:
Fighting back would mean having a chance to win, but also a chance to lose.
Not fighting back would mean being sure to win or worst case to get a draw if the guy stops attacking, both cases you don't lose.
Allowing corrupted players to fight back means that not fighting will not always result in a win, because the guy could survive long enough to get rid of the corruption, thus adding value to the option of fighting back. With every player being able to jump on him freely without even flagging purple, that would be extremely unlikely.
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.
What's the fun in having top end game gear if you run around in garbage gear 95% of the time?
If two players want yo fight, there won't be any corruption involved.
Corruption only comes in when someone doesn't fight.
Wanting to fight ≠ Starting to fight
If the first one who gets attacked can screw his opponent more by not fighting back rather than by fighting back, what do you think will happen?
In that scenario:
Fighting back would mean having a chance to win, but also a chance to lose.
Not fighting back would mean being sure to win or worst case to get a draw if the guy stops attacking, both cases you don't lose.
Allowing corrupted players to fight back means that not fighting will not always result in a win, because the guy could survive long enough to get rid of the corruption, thus adding value to the option of fighting back. With every player being able to jump on him freely without even flagging purple, that would be extremely unlikely.
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.
What's the fun in having top end game gear if you run around in garbage gear 95% of the time?
Yes this. When given the opportunity players will always take the path of least resistance. If the system works as implied here, the path of least resistance for all players would be to literally never attack anyone for fear that they just won't fight back. This effectively removes world pvp entirely which seems to be the antithesis of intrepid's design goals from what they have said in interviews.
They have said many times that they want players to fight over spawn camps and resources but a system like what has been stated would remove that entirely. Who would fight over a resource node when they can end up corrupted and just loose the resource to the next greenie that attacks them? Who would fight over spawn point with another group when that group can just let themselves die and then come back to kill your group when you've turned red or, if they cant beat you the first time, just keep dieing and coming back until your team is so far corrupted that your stats get lowered? If intrepid want a to make a game with no open world pvp then fine. Go ahead. Just don't add all of these convoluted systems then.
Yes this. When given the opportunity players will always take the path of least resistance. If the system works as implied here, the path of least resistance for all players would be to literally never attack anyone for fear that they just won't fight back. This effectively removes world pvp entirely which seems to be the antithesis of intrepid's design goals from what they have said in interviews.
Only if youre the kind of person who thinks "1% less damage AND i take 1% more damage? just kill me, this is unplayable"
As Steven said, the system is going to be tuned in a way that killing off that one dude who pissed you off is only slightly punishing, but manageable. It only should become really punishing if you continue on your killing spree.
And, just besides, if you kill someone in a bout of anger, you better run and hide in the woods in shame, you monster. Try playing a character with investment in the world or something. Your character should be thinking "oh fuck, i killed him, and he didnt put a hand on me! i better make this look like an accident and disappear for a bit."
The gods themselves look at you and say "what a rat", that's what corruption basically is. It's rattening. You're being a rat. Try acting like one.
Dude, this thread is like 'Well, murderers should be able to defend themselves against the police force and against public arrests. It's not their fault they killed 35 people in 3 days. Justice for murderers!! #istandwithyou'
Yes this. When given the opportunity players will always take the path of least resistance. If the system works as implied here, the path of least resistance for all players would be to literally never attack anyone for fear that they just won't fight back. This effectively removes world pvp entirely which seems to be the antithesis of intrepid's design goals from what they have said in interviews.
Only if youre the kind of person who thinks "1% less damage AND i take 1% more damage? just kill me, this is unplayable"
As Steven said, the system is going to be tuned in a way that killing off that one dude who pissed you off is only slightly punishing, but manageable. It only should become really punishing if you continue on your killing spree.
And, just besides, if you kill someone in a bout of anger, you better run and hide in the woods in shame, you monster. Try playing a character with investment in the world or something. Your character should be thinking "oh fuck, i killed him, and he didnt put a hand on me! i better make this look like an accident and disappear for a bit."
The gods themselves look at you and say "what a rat", that's what corruption basically is. It's rattening. You're being a rat. Try acting like one.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove world pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
I want to be honest here, you all say it's fair because you attacked a green, but I disagree.
Even a green has the choice to fight back. But if you are red and get attacked by a green you don't have the choice. In literally every aspect of the corruption system there's a choice involved, but not in this case. You could give me 10x death penalty and I could agree, but being attacked without being able to fight back is stupid. Regardless of the situation.
ITS NOT ABOUT GRIEFING OR KILLING LOW LEVELS.
Its exactly about griefing. Log into EVE with me and I'll show you. I have money and resources to blow you up over and over again. Why would I do it? To make your life miserable. Yeah I am going to die everytime I kill you but so what? I have the resources and money to continue on. Maybe you don't and you quit the game.
If there was a penalty in EVE for griefing people wouldn't do it. Now that game encourages all that stuff from their player base which is fine.
Ashes on the other hand does not want that to happen. They are not going for the super hardcore pvp crowd. You will think twice about continually gaining corruption.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
If you want ressources, for one, caravans and sieges are way more profitable, second, how about targeting ressource nodes that are appropriate for your level then? If you're level 40 and you run around iron nodes that lvl 10s work on instead of the mythril nodes that only lvl 40s dare to tap, try going for those more dangerous nodes instead.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
But the fix is so simple that I really feel like Intrepid will add it in when they realize the problem. Honestly it may already work this way since they haven't given many details on the interaction. Simply make it so that if a Greenie attacks a Corrupted player then they turn purple for specifically the player they attacked. That way they stay green for everyone else but the corrupted player can defend themselves without getting further and further corrupted. Thats all that needs to be added and the system is perfect in my book.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
But the fix is so simple that I really feel like Intrepid will add it in when they realize the problem. Honestly it may already work this way since they haven't given many details on the interaction. Simply make it so that if a Greenie attacks a Corrupted player then they turn purple for specifically the player they attacked. That way they stay green for everyone else but the corrupted player can defend themselves without getting further and further corrupted. Thats all that needs to be added and the system is perfect in my book.
I would revise that to instead of the green turning purple the corrupt player does not receive a combat penalty. The green player should not be punished as severely as the corrupt player upon death.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
But the fix is so simple that I really feel like Intrepid will add it in when they realize the problem. Honestly it may already work this way since they haven't given many details on the interaction. Simply make it so that if a Greenie attacks a Corrupted player then they turn purple for specifically the player they attacked. That way they stay green for everyone else but the corrupted player can defend themselves without getting further and further corrupted. Thats all that needs to be added and the system is perfect in my book.
I would revise that to instead of the green turning purple the corrupt player does not receive a combat penalty. The green player should not be punished as severely as the corrupt player upon death.
Purple players actually get a lower death penalty than green players in this game so my way would actually be beneficial for the attacking player. But honestly this is just arguing semantics. Either way is fine. Whatever is easiest to implement.
I don't think anyone is against the penalties against corruption. From the comments everyone is ok with them and they are harsh. It's the utter stupidity that you can't fight back if you get corrupted or you get more corrupted. I'm trying to lose my corruption and now I can't even defend myself? That's all i want. I just want to be able to fight back. You already have to die to lose corruption which screws you over no matter what. Just make someone become a combatant when they attack a corrupted. It's even beneficial to the attacker. If you stay non- combatant when you fight a corrupted and they kill you again then you receive harsher penalties by dying as a non-combatant than you would as a combatant. That's all we want. Hell even having diminishing stats would be fine as long as I could defend myself.
I don't think anyone is against the penalties against corruption. From the comments everyone is ok with them and they are harsh. It's the utter stupidity that you can't fight back if you get corrupted or you get more corrupted. I'm trying to lose my corruption and now I can't even defend myself? That's all i want. I just want to be able to fight back. You already have to die to lose corruption which screws you over no matter what. Just make someone become a combatant when they attack a corrupted. It's even beneficial to the attacker. If you stay non- combatant when you fight a corrupted and they kill you again then you receive harsher penalties by dying as a non-combatant than you would as a combatant. That's all we want. Hell even having diminishing stats would be fine as long as I could defend myself.
Exactly this. The penalties are fine. In fact I feel they are necessary to prevent griefing and add a very interesting risk vs reward for pking. But not allowing corrupt players to defend themselves will effectively kill all forms of world pvp which I don't think is Intrepid's goal.
The problem we have is we are outnumbered by certain factions. Certain factions do not want World PvP and claim IS don't want to encourage World PvP. Yet, the corruption system is World PvP and World PvP is lifeblood to an MMO in terms of PvP. Corrupted have no debuffs against Bounty Hunters, but, unless it is a Bounty Hunter you are fighting it makes no sense. It is fitting for a Heavily Corrupted Player to gain a PvP Debuff, but, it is a death sentence to even go Corrupted in the first place. There is no reason to copy flaws from other games, there is reason to revamp and improve aspects of other games. There is no point making a niche concept even more niche, one should enable counter play between all factions in terms of PvP.
I'm for Green to Purple against ALL Combatants in World PvP. I do not believe a Corruption Spiral is a good game concept, the only exception would be if a Red Player continues to kill Green Players WHO DO NOT FIGHT BACK.
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
I can assure you this was not the reason. Things like horrible class balance, 400h of grind for single level, mandatory party which required spesific classes etc. are the reason.
Like I say I love the L2 PvP system but the defending yourself when corrupted part I could be onboard as suggested here. Again I understand what people are saying here but it depends very much on the world design.
In Division where the system is very similiar when I went rogue (killed player) with my friends and the only way to clear it was to run. it was stupid cuz you could be seen on the map AND the map was so small that all you did was run for 3minutes AND you party mates got corrupted by your actions so partying with randoms was just silly. So there was:
1. no way to escape the situations
2. You could be seen everywhere
3. killing built more "corruption" and you had to do it in order to survive.
However in L2 I didn't have such problems because:
1. I was able to hide since I wasn't show on map so I could hide and clear karma.
2. Go to an area where they cant come due to harder enemies and clear karma
3. Let your friends guard you / Let your friends kill you and then ress you to clear karma.
4. use "scroll of escape" which TPs you to nearest town (in case you are PK teleports you next to it) and thus you would be able to bail "unnoticed"
So it depends on many other factors so I'd just test it out in alpha and see how it pans out.
The problem we have is we are outnumbered by certain factions. Certain factions do not want World PvP and claim IS don't want to encourage World PvP. Yet, the corruption system is World PvP and World PvP is lifeblood to an MMO in terms of PvP. Corrupted have no debuffs against Bounty Hunters, but, unless it is a Bounty Hunter you are fighting it makes no sense. It is fitting for a Heavily Corrupted Player to gain a PvP Debuff, but, it is a death sentence to even go Corrupted in the first place. There is no reason to copy flaws from other games, there is reason to revamp and improve aspects of other games. There is no point making a niche concept even more niche, one should enable counter play between all factions in terms of PvP.
I'm for Green to Purple against ALL Combatants in World PvP. I do not believe a Corruption Spiral is a good game concept, the only exception would be if a Red Player continues to kill Green Players WHO DO NOT FIGHT BACK.
I'm fairly certain we aren't outnumbered. It just the ultra anti-pvp snowflakes tend to be very very vocal. The funny part about this is that I'm not even that hardcore of a pvp player and even I find the idea of making corrupted players unable to defend themselves absolutely ludicrous.
A death penalty should be avoidable in a general sense
It is.
Yes it's decided by the RNG of running into greens. And that's my problem.
But you’re also assuming the worst of those RNG greens because it is how you have chosen to interact with them in the first place, by killing people for the sake of your amusement and entitlement. And you earn consequence for your actions.
Most of those greens stay green because they’re off doing their thing. You get a little corruption, for whatever reason you think valid, and you work it off for a few quests and continue to progress. That’s called self-responsibility.
What you’re assuming is that, because you’ve gone into the red, that all greens will see you, revert to primal bloodlust, and come after you forever and ever until you’re no longer red.
Most will probably be like: Damn, I didn’t want to be forced into PVP by someone harassing me for no better reason than because they can. So they’ll leave; or, they’ll get some friends and organize against the PK-er, which is where the social aspect of the game makes a huge difference.
How can you assume that is unfair when you chose to engage in vicious behaviour? From other posts and videos, it’s not an instant: oops, I killed a player and now I need to reroll my red character. It’s about consequence, intention, and choice.
If you walk into a coffeeshop and treat your barista like trash, how idiotic is it than to turn around and expect polite interaction? In the real world, a barista has no recourse but to take the verbal abuse, in the fantasy one you earn a penalty for your actions (and are given options to work it off).
Corrupted will only be visible by a Bounty Hunter, however, due to the lack of debuffs against a Bounty Hunter, and the threat to Greens, as a Bounty Hunter I would create Posses. While the corrupted players can escape a standard posse, a posse led by a Bounty Hunter can track the corrupted players.
In Lineage 2 Bounty Hunter was a playable class and not a hunting class per say, there were corrupted players who appeared on the mini map with enough corruption though.
I will play a Bounty Hunter in Ashes, but, it will be be DOA if no-one goes corrupted. Of course, I will test the systems - even the corruption system, in the coming tests I'm in, but I am thinking long term sustainability and not short term gains.
Few people are saying 'Can't wait to go corrupted' few Bounty Hunters are saying 'Can't wait to be Hard Countered by a Corrupted Player' and few people are saying 'Can't wait to World PvP'. PvP on rails is fine but sporadic PvP is far more enjoyable. Fortunately, at least there will be some fights, at least at first.
If green attacks red and red kills green in defense then gains more corruption. This can be a form of griefing inside a griefing system. One party of players could bait a player into becoming corrupted or find someone corrupted and then send waves of green players to let him kill them and give a higher form of corruption. I think if a noncombatant attacks first they should go into a new state where they wont give the corrupted more corruption but still not get flagged for pvp. Personally I think anyone who PvPs should get flagged regardless but that is just me.
The problem we have is we are outnumbered by certain factions. Certain factions do not want World PvP and claim IS don't want to encourage World PvP. Yet, the corruption system is World PvP and World PvP is lifeblood to an MMO in terms of PvP. Corrupted have no debuffs against Bounty Hunters, but, unless it is a Bounty Hunter you are fighting it makes no sense. It is fitting for a Heavily Corrupted Player to gain a PvP Debuff, but, it is a death sentence to even go Corrupted in the first place. There is no reason to copy flaws from other games, there is reason to revamp and improve aspects of other games. There is no point making a niche concept even more niche, one should enable counter play between all factions in terms of PvP.
I'm for Green to Purple against ALL Combatants in World PvP. I do not believe a Corruption Spiral is a good game concept, the only exception would be if a Red Player continues to kill Green Players WHO DO NOT FIGHT BACK.
I'm fairly certain we aren't outnumbered. It just the ultra anti-pvp snowflakes tend to be very very vocal. The funny part about this is that I'm not even that hardcore of a pvp player and even I find the idea of making corrupted players unable to defend themselves absolutely ludicrous.
I can see that you are not hardcore PvPer.
This system is in game that is widely known for OwPvP
PKing is not PvP. It's Player killing. There is no other P as the person didn't attack back and that's why you are corrupt. Seems that ignorants are just being vocal.
This is "should I be able to kill more innocent players when I already were a dick and killed one". Like I said above. Maybe you should be able to defend yourself maybe not. Depends how the game is designed. If it's possible to bale I'd rather have you bale because you PKed someone.
edit: Still a hars penalty while dieing when PK should be in place otherwise PvP would always be initiated with PKing the other partys healer. Because why not?
Comments
You do turn red from just one kill.
Why should there be consequences for self defense?
I take the consequences of the kill I did, if someone force my hand after that why should I get punished even more?
Don't give me that crap about choices, I already said: There is only a choice if you have multiple options of equal or almost equal values.
plus the chart shows if you're green the most u can go is purple. not red.
It is also (and primarily) still a consequence of the action that first turned you corrupt.
If you are in a chain of killing 100 green players, all of that corruption can be traced back to that first one kill.
That is the kill that needs some real thought put in to it, as the consequences "could be" dire. They could also be minimal.
You seem to mix everyting up
Non combatant (green) ≠ Combatant (purple) ≠ Corrupted (red).
Player 1 and player 2 are both Green
Player 1 attacks player 2 = Player 1 becomes purple, player 2 stays green
Player 2 doesn't fight back = Player 2 stays green
Player 2 ends up dying to player 1 = Player 1 turns from purple to red, 1 kill only.
Ok i'll admit i misread the first chart. i thought u had to kill to go purple.
Corruption only comes in when someone doesn't fight.
Edit; again if you attack and they don't fight back, you still have the option to stop.
If the first one who gets attacked can screw his opponent more by not fighting back rather than by fighting back, what do you think will happen?
In that scenario:
Fighting back would mean having a chance to win, but also a chance to lose.
Not fighting back would mean being sure to win or worst case to get a draw if the guy stops attacking, both cases you don't lose.
Allowing corrupted players to fight back means that not fighting will not always result in a win, because the guy could survive long enough to get rid of the corruption, thus adding value to the option of fighting back. With every player being able to jump on him freely without even flagging purple, that would be extremely unlikely.
Cringe
What's the fun in having top end game gear if you run around in garbage gear 95% of the time?
Yes this. When given the opportunity players will always take the path of least resistance. If the system works as implied here, the path of least resistance for all players would be to literally never attack anyone for fear that they just won't fight back. This effectively removes world pvp entirely which seems to be the antithesis of intrepid's design goals from what they have said in interviews.
They have said many times that they want players to fight over spawn camps and resources but a system like what has been stated would remove that entirely. Who would fight over a resource node when they can end up corrupted and just loose the resource to the next greenie that attacks them? Who would fight over spawn point with another group when that group can just let themselves die and then come back to kill your group when you've turned red or, if they cant beat you the first time, just keep dieing and coming back until your team is so far corrupted that your stats get lowered? If intrepid want a to make a game with no open world pvp then fine. Go ahead. Just don't add all of these convoluted systems then.
Only if youre the kind of person who thinks "1% less damage AND i take 1% more damage? just kill me, this is unplayable"
As Steven said, the system is going to be tuned in a way that killing off that one dude who pissed you off is only slightly punishing, but manageable. It only should become really punishing if you continue on your killing spree.
And, just besides, if you kill someone in a bout of anger, you better run and hide in the woods in shame, you monster. Try playing a character with investment in the world or something. Your character should be thinking "oh fuck, i killed him, and he didnt put a hand on me! i better make this look like an accident and disappear for a bit."
The gods themselves look at you and say "what a rat", that's what corruption basically is. It's rattening. You're being a rat. Try acting like one.
Fucking hilarious...
This has never been about killing someone in a bout of anger. I have never and will never do that in games like this. But i do kill players over resources. But if greenies can then just come swarm me and I either have to just run away or get more and more corruption if I defend myself then there is no real reason for me to even attempt to world pvp over resources. The risk vs reward is just way too high. Thus you end up with literally zero world pvp. At that point just remove world pvp from the game instead of adding the corruption system.
Its exactly about griefing. Log into EVE with me and I'll show you. I have money and resources to blow you up over and over again. Why would I do it? To make your life miserable. Yeah I am going to die everytime I kill you but so what? I have the resources and money to continue on. Maybe you don't and you quit the game.
If there was a penalty in EVE for griefing people wouldn't do it. Now that game encourages all that stuff from their player base which is fine.
Ashes on the other hand does not want that to happen. They are not going for the super hardcore pvp crowd. You will think twice about continually gaining corruption.
If you want ressources, for one, caravans and sieges are way more profitable, second, how about targeting ressource nodes that are appropriate for your level then? If you're level 40 and you run around iron nodes that lvl 10s work on instead of the mythril nodes that only lvl 40s dare to tap, try going for those more dangerous nodes instead.
This is why Lineage 2 wasn't a wide spread game in the west. In the west we prefer straightforward applications. I can appreciate the nuances of Lineage 2, and, more to the point, the similar systems for UO back in the day, but, the concept itself is a niche concept and even backers are pensive about the whole concept. The corruption system will cause players to burn-out...when people who do go corrupted burn-out then the Bounty Hunter Systems will burn-out. Sure we may get new players who don't understand the corruption system and go corrupted by accident but most wouldn't do it twice lol.
But the fix is so simple that I really feel like Intrepid will add it in when they realize the problem. Honestly it may already work this way since they haven't given many details on the interaction. Simply make it so that if a Greenie attacks a Corrupted player then they turn purple for specifically the player they attacked. That way they stay green for everyone else but the corrupted player can defend themselves without getting further and further corrupted. Thats all that needs to be added and the system is perfect in my book.
I would revise that to instead of the green turning purple the corrupt player does not receive a combat penalty. The green player should not be punished as severely as the corrupt player upon death.
Purple players actually get a lower death penalty than green players in this game so my way would actually be beneficial for the attacking player. But honestly this is just arguing semantics. Either way is fine. Whatever is easiest to implement.
Exactly this. The penalties are fine. In fact I feel they are necessary to prevent griefing and add a very interesting risk vs reward for pking. But not allowing corrupt players to defend themselves will effectively kill all forms of world pvp which I don't think is Intrepid's goal.
I'm for Green to Purple against ALL Combatants in World PvP. I do not believe a Corruption Spiral is a good game concept, the only exception would be if a Red Player continues to kill Green Players WHO DO NOT FIGHT BACK.
I can assure you this was not the reason. Things like horrible class balance, 400h of grind for single level, mandatory party which required spesific classes etc. are the reason.
Like I say I love the L2 PvP system but the defending yourself when corrupted part I could be onboard as suggested here. Again I understand what people are saying here but it depends very much on the world design.
In Division where the system is very similiar when I went rogue (killed player) with my friends and the only way to clear it was to run. it was stupid cuz you could be seen on the map AND the map was so small that all you did was run for 3minutes AND you party mates got corrupted by your actions so partying with randoms was just silly. So there was:
1. no way to escape the situations
2. You could be seen everywhere
3. killing built more "corruption" and you had to do it in order to survive.
However in L2 I didn't have such problems because:
1. I was able to hide since I wasn't show on map so I could hide and clear karma.
2. Go to an area where they cant come due to harder enemies and clear karma
3. Let your friends guard you / Let your friends kill you and then ress you to clear karma.
4. use "scroll of escape" which TPs you to nearest town (in case you are PK teleports you next to it) and thus you would be able to bail "unnoticed"
So it depends on many other factors so I'd just test it out in alpha and see how it pans out.
I'm fairly certain we aren't outnumbered. It just the ultra anti-pvp snowflakes tend to be very very vocal. The funny part about this is that I'm not even that hardcore of a pvp player and even I find the idea of making corrupted players unable to defend themselves absolutely ludicrous.
But you’re also assuming the worst of those RNG greens because it is how you have chosen to interact with them in the first place, by killing people for the sake of your amusement and entitlement. And you earn consequence for your actions.
Most of those greens stay green because they’re off doing their thing. You get a little corruption, for whatever reason you think valid, and you work it off for a few quests and continue to progress. That’s called self-responsibility.
What you’re assuming is that, because you’ve gone into the red, that all greens will see you, revert to primal bloodlust, and come after you forever and ever until you’re no longer red.
Most will probably be like: Damn, I didn’t want to be forced into PVP by someone harassing me for no better reason than because they can. So they’ll leave; or, they’ll get some friends and organize against the PK-er, which is where the social aspect of the game makes a huge difference.
How can you assume that is unfair when you chose to engage in vicious behaviour? From other posts and videos, it’s not an instant: oops, I killed a player and now I need to reroll my red character. It’s about consequence, intention, and choice.
If you walk into a coffeeshop and treat your barista like trash, how idiotic is it than to turn around and expect polite interaction? In the real world, a barista has no recourse but to take the verbal abuse, in the fantasy one you earn a penalty for your actions (and are given options to work it off).
In Lineage 2 Bounty Hunter was a playable class and not a hunting class per say, there were corrupted players who appeared on the mini map with enough corruption though.
I will play a Bounty Hunter in Ashes, but, it will be be DOA if no-one goes corrupted. Of course, I will test the systems - even the corruption system, in the coming tests I'm in, but I am thinking long term sustainability and not short term gains.
Few people are saying 'Can't wait to go corrupted' few Bounty Hunters are saying 'Can't wait to be Hard Countered by a Corrupted Player' and few people are saying 'Can't wait to World PvP'. PvP on rails is fine but sporadic PvP is far more enjoyable. Fortunately, at least there will be some fights, at least at first.
I can see that you are not hardcore PvPer.
This system is in game that is widely known for OwPvP
PKing is not PvP. It's Player killing. There is no other P as the person didn't attack back and that's why you are corrupt. Seems that ignorants are just being vocal.
This is "should I be able to kill more innocent players when I already were a dick and killed one". Like I said above. Maybe you should be able to defend yourself maybe not. Depends how the game is designed. If it's possible to bale I'd rather have you bale because you PKed someone.
edit: Still a hars penalty while dieing when PK should be in place otherwise PvP would always be initiated with PKing the other partys healer. Because why not?