It just doesn't make sense to me that one's only option is dying on purpose. Or that that is the recommended path to take?? That doesn't seem like logical game design at all.
Except that isn't the case.
Dying on purpose is the last option, not the only option. Players will only find themselves in that situation if they have made a string of bad decisions leading up to that point - starting off with gaining corruption without a plan for working it off.
You seem to be forgetting that you have now created a very convoluted scenario here that is not likely to ever be seen in game.
Okay but dying on purpose should not be an option at all. But it is. And it's actually a viable one. You can avoid all of the actually punishing consequences of corruption by doing so.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose" so basically there is never a good time to go corrupted, because if you do then you're forced to exploit. But actually, through that exploitation, any time is a good time to go corrupted, because it doesn't really matter, because you can just die on purpose and avoid what would otherwise make corruption a big deal.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
To avoid the entire point of the corruption system.. Tangible consequences.
So making it so greens turn purple and you don't gain anymore corruption fixes that some how?
Interesting
What's to stop some one going red the fighting off a bunch of purples just to run off and kill him self anyway?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
If you die on purpose, nearby players can pick up your gear. You will respawn to a random location.
Feel free to go and search for your drops.
What new exploit are you talking about?
In almost 20 years of L2 I havent seen anything weird with the PK system.
Also don't conflate me with someone who wants to PK like a corrupted, I agree with you that corrupted players deserve big punishment.
Then why 3 pages?
Make that 4
Because it's not as black and white as "oh so you're against KOS? Well then you have to agree with me on absolutely everything about how to achieve that."
I love the corruption system. I love the concept, and I think players should be held accountable for what would typically be known as griefing. I just think there are specific aspects which wouldn't work as intended.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Okay but dying on purpose should not be an option at all. But it is. And it's actually a viable one. You can avoid all of the actually punishing consequences of corruption by doing so.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose" so basically there is never a good time to go corrupted, because if you do then you're forced to exploit. But actually, through that exploitation, any time is a good time to go corrupted, because it doesn't really matter, because you can just die on purpose and avoid what would otherwise make corruption a big deal.[/quote]
So maybe the answer your looking for is to have dying not remove corruption then.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
To avoid the entire point of the corruption system.. Tangible consequences.
So making it so greens turn purple and you don't gain anymore corruption fixes that some how?
Interesting
What's to stop some one going red the fighting off a bunch of purples just to run off and kill him self anyway?
No way. lmfao. I literally said TWICE now (technically three times because I said it in my original post and detailed why) that I DO NOT THINK THAT GREENS SHOULD TURN PURPLE when they fight red. You are not reading anything that I'm writing, why are you even bothering to respond?
Okay but dying on purpose should not be an option at all. But it is. And it's actually a viable one. You can avoid all of the actually punishing consequences of corruption by doing so.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose" so basically there is never a good time to go corrupted, because if you do then you're forced to exploit. But actually, through that exploitation, any time is a good time to go corrupted, because it doesn't really matter, because you can just die on purpose and avoid what would otherwise make corruption a big deal.
So maybe the answer your looking for is to have dying not remove corruption then.
Well okay then what are reds supposed to do when there's no way for them to rid of corruption? In the current system, they have to spend literal days to sneak around finding rare spots where they won't get attacked and can grind long enough to work off some of their corruption. That would be so difficult to do that there would be no point in playing once you become red. That's broken.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So what do you think they should do to remove the corruption?
Grinding mobs is not viable. Dying is an exploit. Can't do quests as the guards will kill you. Whats left?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
So what do you think they should do to remove the corruption?
Grinding mobs is not viable. Dying is an exploit. Can't do quests as the guards will kill you. Whats left?
That's my point... You really did not read my post, did you? I explain in it how you would achieve this.
If a green attacks a corrupted, the corrupted can defend themselves without risk of extra corruption. This means if he goes into a mob grind spot the greens won't automatically attack him because they know he can necessarily defend himself. It's no longer exploitable on that end. (It was exploitable before because greens knew that reds wouldn't fight back and therefore would chase them endlessly, with no repercussions) They could still attack him but at least he can defend himself so that it isn't impossible for him to find a mob grind spot.
If a red attacks a green first, then he will gain corruption if he kills the green. The green can then choose if he wants to stay green for the 100% death penalty or go purple for the 50% death penalty, of course sacrificing the red gaining corruption.
Reds can properly rid of corruption, meaning they don't have to exploit.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
But if the red goes and kill himself in the scenario then the exploit sill exists.
Why should a monster get bonuses against a green player?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
You are the only one with the issue.
Only you call it exploitable.
Everyone else calls it concequences.
Millions have been PKing for years.
1
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited March 2021
From your first post.
What’s the solution then? A common suggestion I have read is to simply make the non-combatant flag as a combatant if they decide to fight a corrupted player, regardless of who started the fight.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
You are the only one with the issue.
Only you call it exploitable.
Everyone else calls it concequences.
Millions have been PKing for years.
It's not consequences!! Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken. Alternatively, if you look at the dying on purpose as an exploit: Dying on purpose is anything BUT a proper consequence. You can literally skip over all of the meaningful consequences that I just listed. It's broken.
What’s the solution then? A common suggestion I have read is to simply make the non-combatant flag as a combatant if they decide to fight a corrupted player, regardless of who started the fight.
I keep telling you directly. Oh my god. I've typed this three times now. That is A COMMON SUGGESTION. I've seen other people suggesting this. That does not reflect my position. I literally state this 3 sentences down. I say "But this has serious negative implications" Implying that I DO NOT think that is a good idea.
No man. Everybody has been able to get rid of corruption. Only you take issue with the design.
Can they? How so? How so in spite of what I'm suggesting prevents them from getting rid of corruption? I am not including dying on purpose. That to me does not count as a proper way of getting rid of corruption.
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It's not consequences!! Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken. Alternatively, if you look at the dying on purpose as an exploit: Dying on purpose is anything BUT a proper consequence. You can literally skip over all of the meaningful consequences that I just listed. It's broken.[/quote]
Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken
What? There are several ways to get rid of corruption. Even Dying on purpose.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
No man. Everybody has been able to get rid of corruption. Only you take issue with the design.
Can they? How so? How so in spite of what I'm suggesting prevents them from getting rid of corruption? I am not including dying on purpose. That to me does not count as a proper way of getting rid of corruption.
Please tell me more about how all those times in L2 that I burned off my corruption it was impossible
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
[Can they? How so? How so in spite of what I'm suggesting prevents them from getting rid of corruption? I am not including dying on purpose. That to me does not count as a proper way of getting rid of corruption.[/quote]
Why? If dying gets rid of it does it matter if you rush a raid boss or die to a green?
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
It's not consequences!! Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken. Alternatively, if you look at the dying on purpose as an exploit: Dying on purpose is anything BUT a proper consequence. You can literally skip over all of the meaningful consequences that I just listed. It's broken.
Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken
What? There are several ways to get rid of corruption. Even Dying on purpose.
I don't know how many times I have to say this. What happens if all of the methods for getting rid of corruption are impossible because every time you try to do it you get attacked and chased away? What then?
Dying on purpose is an exploit!! This shouldn't be a thing you do! Especially because it is antithetical to what YOU and everyone else wants!! It's practically as if the devs were like "we're implementing the ability to click a button to respawn, lose a bit of xp, and no longer be corrupted." Because that's literally what you do with a few extra steps. I'll say it again. Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. You don't experience any of these if you can just cop out and rid of your corruption by dying on purpose.
No man. Everybody has been able to get rid of corruption. Only you take issue with the design.
Can they? How so? How so in spite of what I'm suggesting prevents them from getting rid of corruption? I am not including dying on purpose. That to me does not count as a proper way of getting rid of corruption.
Please tell me more about how all those times in L2 that I burned off my corruption it was impossible
Bro that is not an argument. How am I supposed to know if the system in Lineage 2 was actually good. Who tf knows, it could have been shit and you just put up with it.
Why don't you actually explain how it worked in that game and why it wasn't a problem, and compare that to what I'm saying and explain how what I'm saying wouldn't apply. How can you possibly think that saying "It just works because I said so" is a constructive argument?
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose"
What, wait?
You can chose exactly when and where you gain corruption. You can chose to not gain any corruption unless you are in an area with mobs that you can then grind to work it off.
I think you have lost sight of your original argument, you are clearly making things up now.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose"
What, wait?
You can chose exactly when and where you gain corruption. You can chose to not gain any corruption unless you are in an area with mobs that you can then grind to work it off.
I think you have lost sight of your original argument, you are clearly making things up now.
What if my plan doesn't go to plan? I think to myself "yeah I kill this guy then work it off at this mob grinding spot" and that spot is already occupied and then my whole scenario begins. What then? This also doesn't address the fact that I can skip all of this anyway by dying on purpose. Do you not think that as a corrupted I should be forced to have to work it off? Should I be able to easily cop out and kill myself?
This isn't productive at all, what's the point in having a discussion with you when your only argument is "it's already worked before" If the systems are carbon copies, that doesn't mean the rest of the games' systems are. They might interweave differently and the opportunities you have to rid of corruption might be much more difficult in one scenario vs another.
How am I supposed to derive something meaningful from what you're saying? I'm saying being able to die on purpose is a blatant exploit. You say "nah it's been done before" how does that offer a solution to the exploit or even explain why it isn't one?
0
bloodprophetMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
So remove dying for away to get rid of corruption so your forced to be in the world until you can work it off.
This seems like your only answer to a problem that might exist at some point somewhere at some time.
Seems very much like a non-issue to me.
Will someone at some point put on crap gear and go on a killing spree. Maybe hell probably. Maybe they will Fippy it up to clear their corruption.
Most people never listen. They are just waiting on you to quit making noise so they can.
The same thing that happens when any plan doesn't go to plan, there are consequences.
Chances are though, if your plan doesn't go to plan, it would result in you being killed, which would remove that corruption anyway.
Yes, you can skip all of this by dying on purpose, that is absolutely viable if that is the way you want to go. I am not addressing this point because it is not a point needing to be addressed.
Comments
Then why 3 pages?
Make that 4
Okay but dying on purpose should not be an option at all. But it is. And it's actually a viable one. You can avoid all of the actually punishing consequences of corruption by doing so.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose" so basically there is never a good time to go corrupted, because if you do then you're forced to exploit. But actually, through that exploitation, any time is a good time to go corrupted, because it doesn't really matter, because you can just die on purpose and avoid what would otherwise make corruption a big deal.
So making it so greens turn purple and you don't gain anymore corruption fixes that some how?
Interesting
What's to stop some one going red the fighting off a bunch of purples just to run off and kill him self anyway?
Feel free to go and search for your drops.
What new exploit are you talking about?
In almost 20 years of L2 I havent seen anything weird with the PK system.
Because it's not as black and white as "oh so you're against KOS? Well then you have to agree with me on absolutely everything about how to achieve that."
I love the corruption system. I love the concept, and I think players should be held accountable for what would typically be known as griefing. I just think there are specific aspects which wouldn't work as intended.
You say "without a plan for working it off" and I'm saying "the only viable plan is dying on purpose" so basically there is never a good time to go corrupted, because if you do then you're forced to exploit. But actually, through that exploitation, any time is a good time to go corrupted, because it doesn't really matter, because you can just die on purpose and avoid what would otherwise make corruption a big deal.[/quote]
So maybe the answer your looking for is to have dying not remove corruption then.
No way. lmfao. I literally said TWICE now (technically three times because I said it in my original post and detailed why) that I DO NOT THINK THAT GREENS SHOULD TURN PURPLE when they fight red. You are not reading anything that I'm writing, why are you even bothering to respond?
Well okay then what are reds supposed to do when there's no way for them to rid of corruption? In the current system, they have to spend literal days to sneak around finding rare spots where they won't get attacked and can grind long enough to work off some of their corruption. That would be so difficult to do that there would be no point in playing once you become red. That's broken.
Grinding mobs is not viable. Dying is an exploit. Can't do quests as the guards will kill you. Whats left?
That's my point... You really did not read my post, did you? I explain in it how you would achieve this.
If a green attacks a corrupted, the corrupted can defend themselves without risk of extra corruption. This means if he goes into a mob grind spot the greens won't automatically attack him because they know he can necessarily defend himself. It's no longer exploitable on that end. (It was exploitable before because greens knew that reds wouldn't fight back and therefore would chase them endlessly, with no repercussions) They could still attack him but at least he can defend himself so that it isn't impossible for him to find a mob grind spot.
If a red attacks a green first, then he will gain corruption if he kills the green. The green can then choose if he wants to stay green for the 100% death penalty or go purple for the 50% death penalty, of course sacrificing the red gaining corruption.
Reds can properly rid of corruption, meaning they don't have to exploit.
Why should a monster get bonuses against a green player?
Only you call it exploitable.
Everyone else calls it concequences.
Millions have been PKing for years.
What’s the solution then? A common suggestion I have read is to simply make the non-combatant flag as a combatant if they decide to fight a corrupted player, regardless of who started the fight.
It's not consequences!! Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken. Alternatively, if you look at the dying on purpose as an exploit: Dying on purpose is anything BUT a proper consequence. You can literally skip over all of the meaningful consequences that I just listed. It's broken.
I keep telling you directly. Oh my god. I've typed this three times now. That is A COMMON SUGGESTION. I've seen other people suggesting this. That does not reflect my position. I literally state this 3 sentences down. I say "But this has serious negative implications" Implying that I DO NOT think that is a good idea.
Can they? How so? How so in spite of what I'm suggesting prevents them from getting rid of corruption? I am not including dying on purpose. That to me does not count as a proper way of getting rid of corruption.
It's not consequences!! Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken. Alternatively, if you look at the dying on purpose as an exploit: Dying on purpose is anything BUT a proper consequence. You can literally skip over all of the meaningful consequences that I just listed. It's broken.[/quote]
Not being able to get rid of your corruption isn't a consequence. It's broken
What? There are several ways to get rid of corruption. Even Dying on purpose.
Please tell me more about how all those times in L2 that I burned off my corruption it was impossible
Why? If dying gets rid of it does it matter if you rush a raid boss or die to a green?
I don't know how many times I have to say this. What happens if all of the methods for getting rid of corruption are impossible because every time you try to do it you get attacked and chased away? What then?
Dying on purpose is an exploit!! This shouldn't be a thing you do! Especially because it is antithetical to what YOU and everyone else wants!! It's practically as if the devs were like "we're implementing the ability to click a button to respawn, lose a bit of xp, and no longer be corrupted." Because that's literally what you do with a few extra steps. I'll say it again. Being killed on sight is a consequence, being attacked by NPCs is a consequence, being unable to do certain things in the world is a consequence. You don't experience any of these if you can just cop out and rid of your corruption by dying on purpose.
Bro that is not an argument. How am I supposed to know if the system in Lineage 2 was actually good. Who tf knows, it could have been shit and you just put up with it.
Why don't you actually explain how it worked in that game and why it wasn't a problem, and compare that to what I'm saying and explain how what I'm saying wouldn't apply. How can you possibly think that saying "It just works because I said so" is a constructive argument?
You can chose exactly when and where you gain corruption. You can chose to not gain any corruption unless you are in an area with mobs that you can then grind to work it off.
I think you have lost sight of your original argument, you are clearly making things up now.
Millions of players. Millions of pks. Millions of successful burn offs. All since 2003.
Okay? And how does it tackle the issue that I'm proposing?
What if my plan doesn't go to plan? I think to myself "yeah I kill this guy then work it off at this mob grinding spot" and that spot is already occupied and then my whole scenario begins. What then? This also doesn't address the fact that I can skip all of this anyway by dying on purpose. Do you not think that as a corrupted I should be forced to have to work it off? Should I be able to easily cop out and kill myself?
This isn't productive at all, what's the point in having a discussion with you when your only argument is "it's already worked before" If the systems are carbon copies, that doesn't mean the rest of the games' systems are. They might interweave differently and the opportunities you have to rid of corruption might be much more difficult in one scenario vs another.
How am I supposed to derive something meaningful from what you're saying? I'm saying being able to die on purpose is a blatant exploit. You say "nah it's been done before" how does that offer a solution to the exploit or even explain why it isn't one?
This seems like your only answer to a problem that might exist at some point somewhere at some time.
Seems very much like a non-issue to me.
Will someone at some point put on crap gear and go on a killing spree. Maybe hell probably. Maybe they will Fippy it up to clear their corruption.
Chances are though, if your plan doesn't go to plan, it would result in you being killed, which would remove that corruption anyway.
Yes, you can skip all of this by dying on purpose, that is absolutely viable if that is the way you want to go. I am not addressing this point because it is not a point needing to be addressed.