Corruption-less server option

Darktide

... and crap. first two lines.
There won't be separate roleplaying (RP) servers.
There won't be separate PvE and PvP servers.

Instead of flaming my suggestion, anyone could have simply sent me that link and I would have been like, cool thank you!

Whiskiz

As a pvp player myself, that isn't afraid of the monster hiding under my bed - where there's 20 pro korean players hiding just outside of the town i'm in to wait for me personally, and other such silly pvp related fears (like being perma farmed at low level: like people have nothing better to do in such a massive, sandbox game, let alone it being a common thing the entire world wide, let alone design decisions that can be made to counter that like Darkfall did) as well as someone that can handle losing to other people - i like the sound of the idea.

Then i realize this wouldn't need to be done if the Corruption system had a little tweaking, a little better balancing - if say you didn't instantly gain corruption after the first person you killed *regardless of similar level or anything else* Sure the amount of Corruption is apparently based on how many you've killed previously, so you don't instantly get alot of Corruption - but to pvp just one person out in the world, who's maybe similar level and then be any level of Corruption straight up, now showing up on the map for anyone to come kill, potentially losing gear etc i feel is a little overkill.

It could be something as simple as say if you kill 3 people or groups of people within an hour, or 1 person/group outside a level range or something like that, you then get Corrupted - To give at least a little leeway for open world pvp.

Otherwise there's really little reason implementing open world pvp in the first place. This, i think is the problem with current Corruption and it can be fixed, instead of needing a whole new server.

Isn't the goal to apparently have systems in place to not abuse/spam/grief with it? Not to stamp it out in its entirety otherwise face penalties like losing gear?

Because otherwise that could easily be achieved by removing the system altogether.

I'm all for risk vs reward, but not the instant you look at one person wrong. Lol.

novercalis

CaptnChuck wrote: »

I don't really like this idea at all. Even hardcore players will get tired of being constantly pked. Also, there is simply no reason to divide the community into hardcore and casual players and design servers for each specifically.

hardcore player here - wont get tired. I still play UO from time to time to PK. I live and breathe to PK all day long.

[UPK] - United Player Killers shall grief once more in a new mmo. Perma-red for life. All your loot belong to us.

Darktide

@Whiskiz Thank you. I'm not for griefing. But am in favor of open-world pvp and really couldn't have put it much better. There is a big difference in say.. defending your turf (I said your in a temporary sense), versus whole-sale manslaughter of everyone at the starter portal.

Switching modes since I know there is no pvp server option. Yes, the corruption system needs to be tweaked considerably if they intend to promote healthy open-world pvp, but care has to be taken to maintain that protection they are looking for. I get it, I really do.

But after you get some xp under your belt and aren't a noob anymore, that constant conflict is really fun. NO, not guild x you've been at war with for 100 years. I mean, what about the caravan system?

So we go rob a caravan that has, say 10 people defending it... Now we're all super corrupt and the next harvester that walks by can kill us all? Because I assume corruption carries over to anyone attacking (a group lets say). So this leads to not wanting to rob caravans and going after the individual player. Wait, there's no incentive for that because he doesn't drop anything...

Am I painting a bad picture of pvp? This is my initial impressions. Game is kick azz and very solid sounding, but pvp... not seeing the big picture, personally.

mrwaffles

Jexz

@Flagg We don't know what tweaks it will need if any until we actually get to try it out. I had similar concerns
Someone pointed out to me that I don't know how much corruption I gain when someone else is close to my level. nor do I know how fast I can grind it off. If I can lose the corruption in the time it takes for that player to return I see nothing wrong with the corruption system.

NelsonRebel

I dont see the point.


Corruption is kind of part of the entire lore of the game. (From what we've been told)


This request just feels selfish

Darktide

I agree with that, @jexz. There are still some concerns. When talking about larger encounters.. You can't lay siege to a town outside of the raiding mechanic, of course. I'm assuming these will be virtually safe zones. But like you said, we won't know until we see it.

I am interested to see how it plays out. I have a split opinion on the system as I understand it to date. Bringing the pve and pvp communities together is a good thing. But practically discouraging all but consensual pvp isn't perfectly appealing. We'll have to see how it plays out.

However, I see pvp mostly utilized in games in an open-world setting as a method of environmental control. I don't see this as a possibility in this game. But then again, without this control in place, there would be nothing standing to prevent someone like us from dominating a server by brute force.That would be no fun in the long-run.

@nelsonrebel Not selfish, but it's not going to happen so it's a moot point anyway.

bloodprophet

I personally am against any kind of special server of any flavor. Adding or changing things for a server leads to mission creep and delays launch. All this stuff has to be planned out and thought through as to how it effects all the other systems. So much of what they have shown so far is tightly intermingled.

Jexz

@Flagg you should read the wiki... The only forms of PvP that give corruption are when you kill someone that does not fight back. Caravans are a pvp event there is no corruption. You wouldn't have to assume a node is a safe zone if you read the wiki . You indeed can kill players in towns. As far as large scale goes out side of sieges . There will be the ability to declare war on other guilds to fight open world. As well as you can bet there will be fights for open world raid bosses.
If you understood the death penalties you would also see there is more incentive to fight back than bend over and die.

Nexmagus

If they ever did a server with no corruption, there should also be one where non-flagged can not be attack in the open world. The normal rules would still apply for siege and caravans

IllusionTokomi

I don't have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me, there is no reason to gainsay @Flagg 's idea.
Simply: if one doesn't like it: don't roll a character on that server. No problem exists, no problem to solve. No problem. Why would someone be so passionate about it if they ultimately do not care?

Nevertheless, we've been informed: it is a No Go.

Caeryl

IllusionTokomi wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me, there is no reason to gainsay @/Flagg 's idea.
Simply: if one doesn't like it: don't roll a character on that server. No problem exists, no problem to solve. No problem. Why would someone be so passionate about it if they ultimately do not care?

Nevertheless, we've been informed: it is a No Go.

Niche servers (of all kinds) cost $$$, niche servers aren’t equal in appeal, niche servers require dedicated moderation and development time due to having specific needs a general server does not.

Basically, niche servers leech resources from the general servers to appeal to a narrow audience.

novercalis

Caeryl wrote: »

IllusionTokomi wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me, there is no reason to gainsay @/Flagg 's idea.
Simply: if one doesn't like it: don't roll a character on that server. No problem exists, no problem to solve. No problem. Why would someone be so passionate about it if they ultimately do not care?

Nevertheless, we've been informed: it is a No Go.

Niche servers (of all kinds) cost $$$, niche servers aren’t equal in appeal, niche servers require dedicated moderation and development time due to having specific needs a general server does not.

Basically, niche servers leech resources from the general servers to appeal to a narrow audience.

good thing steve seems to be in the concept of - we dont cater to carebears and seems he himself is a pvper / pker and - based on the wiki seems we will be getting a pvp server.
also steve seems to have fuck you money since he is basically funding this game.

Caeryl

novercalis wrote: »

Caeryl wrote: »

IllusionTokomi wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this fight. But it seems to me, there is no reason to gainsay @/Flagg 's idea.
Simply: if one doesn't like it: don't roll a character on that server. No problem exists, no problem to solve. No problem. Why would someone be so passionate about it if they ultimately do not care?

Nevertheless, we've been informed: it is a No Go.

Niche servers (of all kinds) cost $$$, niche servers aren’t equal in appeal, niche servers require dedicated moderation and development time due to having specific needs a general server does not.

Basically, niche servers leech resources from the general servers to appeal to a narrow audience.

good thing steve seems to be in the concept of - we dont cater to carebears and seems he himself is a pvper / pker and - based on the wiki seems we will be getting a pvp server.
also steve seems to have fuck you money since he is basically funding this game.

The wiki very clearly states there’s not gonna be any split PvE / PvP servers.

Kohl

I'm loving this.
People will quickly band under such system. Make their own "safe places" that needs defending.

Jahlon

Flagg wrote: »

@Jahlon Another example of someone who has no knowledge of game design. It's not entrenched as much as you make it out to be. A simple toggle that disables corruption gain and boom, you have a corruption less server. Wait, just lock the database field.

And I have a better idea than that, which would appeal to many likely.. A reverse-corruption server. Start out corrupted and have to work to become good. This disables weakness as well as the BH system and starts everyone at max corruption.

If the game relies on corruption, then it's not a good idea. You do not design a game to hinge on a pvp metric like this. It's one of those, this is cool, aspects. Because if everything is tied to it, bad things would happen if (god forbid) someone figured out how to exploit the system. *Cough, Bounty-hunters*

The game does rely on corruption to ensure the server does not become a gang box.

The corruotion system cannot just be turned off, because if you turn off that system, you also eliminate the Bounty Hunter system.

Without the bounty hunter system, you have eliminated one theme of the game, amd one source horizontal progression, source of enchants, etc.

Darktide

The way that Steven designed a sandbox is how they should have always been, period. I love that he gets it, too. Even AC was super flawed, which was the first sandbox, I think. The devs did provide some content monthly, and that worked, but other copy-cats lost sight of that and sandbox games evolved into nothing more than arenas. I mean, sadly they look like the test world before you implement your content. That's how I've always felt, like so much was missing from sandboxes. Take Life is Feudal, Mortal Online. They always die because they're expecting the players to write the story for them. We're paying you to write your narrative?

Steven got it right and this game will not fail for that reason, if it does it's because they failed to deliver it.

The corruption system is such a small piece of the game. I will admit that it's an important one to the pvp and non-pvp community alike. For opposite reasons. The non-pvp community wants harsh restrictions so they can freely roam and mine and smack talk without consequence. The pvp community likes to have that control factor, strength, skill, power matters as it should.

My main concerns is the risk/reward for a pk. It's biased highly toward risk unless it's predefined pvp content (Caravans, raids, sieges). So basically you pvp the way they intend for you to pvp (rails) or you are penalized. I can't decide without much, much more detail, whether this is a good or bad thing.

Steven is a VERY smart guy and has been playing games almost as long as I have, so I don't think he'll let us down on the pvp front, but if any game is to be successful, he has to account for the non-pvp people and even protect them to a degree. I get that.

See, that's the beauty of a server option to cater to different audiences without compromise (they're not offering this, btw).

There is a valid point that different server types do require a different level of attention. Exploiting a system that would otherwise work perfectly on a non-pvp server is commonplace. So there is added effort. In a sandbox of the AC1/Rust style, it's not as common, because those are set-and-forget servers. It took months for Turbine to fix the pocket lifestone exploit. It was available on all the other servers, but they weren't pvp centric, so who cares, right. It was a HUGE advantage on Darktide, a PvP server, however.

So ultimately, I think that Steven has made the right decision not to include various server types from a design decision standpoint. Will the corruption system be too harsh? Will it be highly exploitable? I know if someone attacked me and I was not corrupt, I'd just surrender and let them get the max penalty, I assume their corruption would be worth more than what small amount of xp I lost. Fighting back cuts their corruption down considerably. Why on earth would I want to do that as a Non-pvp player? It's not like I'm losing my gear or anything, just some xp. The aggressor is losing more in comparison, so yeah, here's some cheese to go with that.