I believe it is important that people comprehend that all PK actions don't have the same risk nor the same reward and that risk has tons of variable and varying degrees of risk.
Even tho mindlessly murdering people around will definitely have terrible results, there is strategic ways to increase your reward vs your risk
I believe the main risk assessment questions will be:
Is the target alone?
How strong is the target?
How much valuable resources do you believe the target have?
Is the area very populated or isolated?
Do you have back up?
Are you already corrupted or in a killing spree?
Are there monsters nearby for you to clean out your corruption?
Depending on the answers your risk vs reward equation drastically varies, but in the end there is a question you definitely have to ask yourself.
"I'm i feeling lucky today?"
No... For the most part, best way to go, risk v reward, for PvP has to be Caravans and Sieges - the PvP that won't result in Corruption.
I believe it is important that people comprehend that all PK actions don't have the same risk nor the same reward and that risk has tons of variable and varying degrees of risk.
Even tho mindlessly murdering people around will definitely have terrible results, there is strategic ways to increase your reward vs your risk
I believe the main risk assessment questions will be:
Is the target alone?
How strong is the target?
How much valuable resources do you believe the target have?
Is the area very populated or isolated?
Do you have back up?
Are you already corrupted or in a killing spree?
Are there monsters nearby for you to clean out your corruption?
Depending on the answers your risk vs reward equation drastically varies, but in the end there is a question you definitely have to ask yourself.
"I'm i feeling lucky today?"
No... For the most part, best way to go, risk v reward, for PvP has to be Caravans and Sieges - the PvP that won't result in Corruption.
I mean Caravans and Sieges have their own set of questions to assess risk vs reward, even tho generally their rewards (even tho we are still unsure about how valuable those rewards will be other than a share of the caravan) will almost always outclass the risks as Death penalties aren't applied in those events, it becomes more of a "time vs reward possibility".
But the thing about the pvp or pk kill in the open world, is that you never know what your target is carrying and there is always the alluring possibility of hitting a fat jackpot.
There's no way to win. The tagging idea doesn't work.
Okay, so let's say that I am out running around as a non-combatant. Someone attacks me to see if I'll fight back. I don't, so they back off. They weren't trying to PK me or anything, they just wanted to see what I'd do.
I yell out, "Enjoy your corruption you cheesehead!" Then I run into a pack of mobs above my level and shoot an AoE. They jump on me and rip me to shreds. The guy who backed off to avoid corruption gets corrupted.
That system allows for exploits that the planned system doesn't allow. I don't like it at all.
Two points with this.
The first is that if a tagging system were in place, it would likely have a very short duration. Unless that player is very close to those higher level mobs, chances are that tag timer would have run out before they are killed - meaning they died for literally nothing. This is a situation I find so amusing that I really hope it is in the game
Second point is - if this tagging system did exist - you simply wouldn't attack someone to see if they wanted to fight back if they were within 10 seconds of an easy death. Situational awareness before attacking.
There are a good number of exploits that a tagging system will fix, and very few that it would introduce - if implemented well. That's not to say it is the only way to fix said exploits - but it is absolutely a viable way.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean Caravans and Sieges have their own set of questions to assess risk vs reward, even tho generally their rewards (even tho we are still unsure about how valuable those rewards will be other than a share of the caravan) will almost always outclass the risks as Death penalties aren't applied in those events, it becomes more of a "time vs reward possibility".
But the thing about the pvp or pk kill in the open world, is that you never know what your target is carrying and there is always the alluring possibility of hitting a fat jackpot.
It's not a different set.
When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.
"You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue."
---Steven
"I think that the intent behind the Corruption is that, like, during a rise in passion and, like, anger and whatever, you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later."
---Steven
0
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'm not sure why someone accidentally running into mobs should penalize a person who attacked them?
If we had tagging then if you tag me, i could intentionally get killed by a mob or jump off a cliff, give you corruption, and have a chance at your gear. Another way someone could use tagging is if i see you attack someone, i could kill them to give you corruption and then kill you for a chance at your gear.
Healing/buffing a corrupted player or combatant turns you into a combatant.
If you can drag mobs onto players then you could do that without attacking them.
Taggin someone and them dying to mobs or falling to their deaths should give you full corruption.
Tagging someone and someone else killing them should give both parties full corruption.
Taggin someone while in a group and if someone tries to heal/buff you, they should get a prompt warning them and if they accept then they should get full corruption after that person is killed.
Its pretty simple really, if you attack or help in the attack of someone in real life and they run and get killed by traffic, falling or someone else you will also be held responsible. This system is simple and cannot be abused unlike the "final hit", "most dmg" "corruption split based on damage" which are both more complicated and easy to abuse.
You cannot accidentally tag or help kill someone. The moment you attack you should be willing to take the corruption hit or else don't do it, no pussy footing allowed.
I disagree. Attacking someone isn't supposed to be punished, killing them is. You can attack someone, see they aren't going to fight and back off.
When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.
Some will, some won't, it's a free world out there.
I will certainly most of the time choose pvp that won't result in Corruption,
but i, for certain, will prey upon the weak should i judge the odds and possible benefits in my favor.
I also believe that the main problem is not the kill itself, but the loss of some (up to 40% if I memorize correctly ?) of the gathered/carried material. I can imagine that somebody who spent just two hours with gathering materials, is not very happy to loose quiet a batch of his ore. … or more, if his corpse is camped for a while
This game is pretty deep man. First of all, the numbers are all going to be played with dramatically during alpha 2, so that 40% number you threw out is very likely to change. Even if it doesn't, the karma system has a feature in it, where if the person who gets attacked, defends themselves and attacks back, then they only lose a fraction of what they were originally supposed to lose (if they die). So, defending yourself is beneficial. Now let's say that this "griefer" comes and kills the guy before he can attack back, well he's going to gain corruption, and eventually his stats are going to be decreased (if he keeps killing non-combatants) to the point where anyone can kill him... so the latter part of what you were saying about "corpse camping", is utterly improbable, because the more that person becomes corrupt the lower his stats are AND... the higher the chance of dropping things other than raw materials, including but not limited to the equipment he's wearing. He'll be so weak that he can't even defend himself, and he'll drop gear potentially if he griefs after a few times. It all points in the same direction when it comes to griefing.
I disagree. Attacking someone isn't supposed to be punished, killing them is. You can attack someone, see they aren't going to fight and back off.
Attacking someone won't give you corruption but if they die shortly after then you will, I don't see what the disagreement is.
An attackers gets to pick the location that is to their advantage which means that they know for a fact the people at that location are either lower level or have worse gear. The attacker gets to pick the time which means they will pick the best possible time to attack, usually after they see someone struggle and survive a fight.
What's up with the whole victim attitude worrying about how those you attack but didn't kill might "abuse" the system and give you corruption hit?. You want them to just lower their head and take your love taps as you follow them around and get your ego boost at their expense?.
I mean Caravans and Sieges have their own set of questions to assess risk vs reward, even tho generally their rewards (even tho we are still unsure about how valuable those rewards will be other than a share of the caravan) will almost always outclass the risks as Death penalties aren't applied in those events, it becomes more of a "time vs reward possibility".
But the thing about the pvp or pk kill in the open world, is that you never know what your target is carrying and there is always the alluring possibility of hitting a fat jackpot.
It's not a different set.
When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.
"You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue."
---Steven
I don't know why you keep on bringing up this quote, Steven literally says there will be opportunities where the benefits outweigh the risks, and is just saying corruption will prevent griefing, not all open world PvP.
There will be huge open world fights over rare materials and prime hunting grounds, just as Steven experienced in Lineage II.
I believe it is important that people comprehend that all PK actions don't have the same risk nor the same reward and that risk has tons of variable and varying degrees of risk.
Even tho mindlessly murdering people around will definitely have terrible results, there is strategic ways to increase your reward vs your risk
I believe the main risk assessment questions will be:
Is the target alone?
How strong is the target?
How much valuable resources do you believe the target have?
Is the area very populated or isolated?
Do you have back up?
Are you already corrupted or in a killing spree?
Are there monsters nearby for you to clean out your corruption?
Depending on the answers your risk vs reward equation drastically varies, but in the end there is a question you definitely have to ask yourself.
"I'm i feeling lucky today?"
No... For the most part, best way to go, risk v reward, for PvP has to be Caravans and Sieges - the PvP that won't result in Corruption.
I mean Caravans and Sieges have their own set of questions to assess risk vs reward, even tho generally their rewards (even tho we are still unsure about how valuable those rewards will be other than a share of the caravan) will almost always outclass the risks as Death penalties aren't applied in those events, it becomes more of a "time vs reward possibility".
But the thing about the pvp or pk kill in the open world, is that you never know what your target is carrying and there is always the alluring possibility of hitting a fat jackpot.
I think the risks with caravans are a lot subtler. If I attack a caravan near my node, there's less chance that caravan will return to my node, really hurting the local economy. So what will end up happening is there will be people going to other nodes to raid caravans, and then you get a whole political situation where another region is pissed at you for messing with their local economy.
I disagree. Attacking someone isn't supposed to be punished, killing them is. You can attack someone, see they aren't going to fight and back off.
Attacking someone won't give you corruption but if they die shortly after then you will, I don't see what the disagreement is.
An attackers gets to pick the location that is to their advantage which means that they know for a fact the people at that location are either lower level or have worse gear. The attacker gets to pick the time which means they will pick the best possible time to attack, usually after they see someone struggle and survive a fight.
What's up with the whole victim attitude worrying about how those you attack but didn't kill might "abuse" the system and give you corruption hit?. You want them to just lower their head and take your love taps as you follow them around and get your ego boost at their expense?.
The disagreement is that they shouldn't be at risk of losing their gear because they attacked someone. This is how the system is designed. You are supposed to be able to attack people without penalty.
This isn't wow. The main reason to fight in the open world is for resources or spawn locations. In these locations, you will be fighting people who are your level and around your gear. If someone wants to waste their time with low levels then they can risk getting corruption by accidentally bursting their target or getting killed by someone who notices they are a combatant while passing by.
You are supposed to be able to attack people without penalty.
You are not supposed to be able to attack other players with impunity.
Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.
3
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.
That’s why I understand why Steven says he doesn’t want mobs getting the last hit on someone to give corruption, but that sure sounds like a great way to grief people. Do it on tag and now the attackie gets to do the griefing like Atama’s example.
In my eyes they have to find a system somewhere in the middle.
You should be able to take your hands off the keyboard and say “I’m not doing this” if you view dying and the normal loss of resources worth not fighting back, you should be able to try to attack someone to see if they’ll play with you and stop if they don’t and you don’t think corruption is worth, you should be able to say “idgaf this person is dying” if you view the corruption as worth.
If you can’t attack someone to see if they’ll fight back without risk of them suiciding into a mob that really breaks those dynamic choices and interactions from my perspective.
You can’t purposefully set yourself to combatant status without attacking someone first based on Steven’s comments, so at this time you can’t say “well if they wanted to PvP they would have been flagged”.
0
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
Why not just make combatant the baseline, and non-combatant an opt in flag. Then you will clearly know when approaching someone that “this dude is probably not gonna flag combatant, can I deal with the corruption right now”.
Sure takes a bit of the mystery out of the interaction though when compared to Steven’s vision. I kinda like that “will they or won’t they” question you have to ask yourself every time you force attack a player.
Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.
I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.
The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.
Some will, some won't, it's a free world out there.
I will certainly most of the time choose pvp that won't result in Corruption,
but i, for certain, will prey upon the weak should i judge the odds and possible benefits in my favor.
Um. Yeah. Primarily inherently means that some people will.
But, the frequency needs to reflect Steven's statement: "You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system."
It's a free world... with significant penalties for Corruption.
0
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Why not just make combatant the baseline, and non-combatant an opt in flag. Then you will clearly know when approaching someone that “this dude is probably not gonna flag combatant, can I deal with the corruption right now”.
Sure takes a bit of the mystery out of the interaction though when compared to Steven’s vision. I kinda like that “will they or won’t they” question you have to ask yourself every time you force attack a player.
This runs into the red = dead mentality that we don't want.
Fights are supposed to happen over objectives that are naturally easier to take if you don't fight. If i'm farming, i'm not going to flag so people know i'll fight back but if attacked, i will fight back.
I'd recommend waiting for the game and seeing how it plays since there is a lot of behavior aspects to the system that are hard to understand until you have experienced it for yourself.
2
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
"You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue."
---Steven
I don't know why you keep on bringing up this quote, Steven literally says there will be opportunities where the benefits outweigh the risks, and is just saying corruption will prevent griefing, not all open world PvP.
There will be huge open world fights over rare materials and prime hunting grounds, just as Steven experienced in Lineage II.
Um. It won't be just like Steven experienced experienced in Lineage II because he's made Corruption more debilitaitng than Karma.
Steven's quote does not state that it will prevent griefing. It states that griefing will be rare - due to the Corruption mechanic.
If you want rare resources, the best place to get them is from Caravan attacks, where Corruption is not a factor; not from PKing Non-Combatants.
If you want to understand why I posted that quote, you can't simply ignore the other quote in the same post: "I think that the intent behind the Corruption is that, like, during a rise in passion and, like, anger and whatever, you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later."
Hence, why I said people should primarily be choosing other forms of open world PvP, like Caravans and Sieges, rather than PKing Non-Combatants.
You need to take the post as whole. Not just cherry-pick portions out of context in order to strawman.
What would be nice if there was some sort of toggle you could turn on "Don't want to be bothered" or "Busy". A toggle that would make you neutral somewhat so you can go about your day without being interrupted by others. Because sometimes we have things to do and places to be and simply not in the mood to PvX. Because if you are a casual, you most likely lead a busy life and don't have the time to play as much, and you don't want your limited fun time to play to be stuck at one spot being killed over and over by campers. Having this toggle could pretty much just make you non-targetable, like an NPC. I don't see the issue with this at all.
0
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
That toggle completely bypasses the degree of risk Steven wants as the foundation of the game...
0
mcstackersonMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.
I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.
The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.
Just because i'm telling you the issue with your solution (at least as i see it) doesn't mean i don't understand the issue you are trying to solve. If they are doing damage, they are risking getting that last hit and gaining corruption. I'm not against someone getting corruption if they CC someone and the person dies in the CC. To me, the issue is the penalty for corruption is steep and because of that, should only be handed out if the person intended to kill someone.
I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.
I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.
I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.
Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.
I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.
1
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited April 2022
We need to test to learn how the devs will be preventing those easy to imagine exploits.
Comments
I mean Caravans and Sieges have their own set of questions to assess risk vs reward, even tho generally their rewards (even tho we are still unsure about how valuable those rewards will be other than a share of the caravan) will almost always outclass the risks as Death penalties aren't applied in those events, it becomes more of a "time vs reward possibility".
But the thing about the pvp or pk kill in the open world, is that you never know what your target is carrying and there is always the alluring possibility of hitting a fat jackpot.
Aren't we all sinners?
People have to earn their way on to my KOS list. 😉
I saw what you did there.
Two points with this.
The first is that if a tagging system were in place, it would likely have a very short duration. Unless that player is very close to those higher level mobs, chances are that tag timer would have run out before they are killed - meaning they died for literally nothing. This is a situation I find so amusing that I really hope it is in the game
Second point is - if this tagging system did exist - you simply wouldn't attack someone to see if they wanted to fight back if they were within 10 seconds of an easy death. Situational awareness before attacking.
There are a good number of exploits that a tagging system will fix, and very few that it would introduce - if implemented well. That's not to say it is the only way to fix said exploits - but it is absolutely a viable way.
When players are contemplating PvP risk v reward, they should primarily be choosing PvP that won't result in Corruption.
"You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system. The corruption mechanics are based around disincentivizing a griefer or PKer but still offering the opportunity, should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so. If you gain corruption, which is killing a non-combatant - a player who is not fighting back basically - if you gain that corruption, your world has changed. It is not going to be a very beneficial place to be and you have the potential of losing your gear. Your combat efficacy decreases based on the amount of corruption you accrue."
---Steven
"I think that the intent behind the Corruption is that, like, during a rise in passion and, like, anger and whatever, you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later."
---Steven
I disagree. Attacking someone isn't supposed to be punished, killing them is. You can attack someone, see they aren't going to fight and back off.
Some will, some won't, it's a free world out there.
I will certainly most of the time choose pvp that won't result in Corruption,
but i, for certain, will prey upon the weak should i judge the odds and possible benefits in my favor.
Aren't we all sinners?
This game is pretty deep man. First of all, the numbers are all going to be played with dramatically during alpha 2, so that 40% number you threw out is very likely to change. Even if it doesn't, the karma system has a feature in it, where if the person who gets attacked, defends themselves and attacks back, then they only lose a fraction of what they were originally supposed to lose (if they die). So, defending yourself is beneficial. Now let's say that this "griefer" comes and kills the guy before he can attack back, well he's going to gain corruption, and eventually his stats are going to be decreased (if he keeps killing non-combatants) to the point where anyone can kill him... so the latter part of what you were saying about "corpse camping", is utterly improbable, because the more that person becomes corrupt the lower his stats are AND... the higher the chance of dropping things other than raw materials, including but not limited to the equipment he's wearing. He'll be so weak that he can't even defend himself, and he'll drop gear potentially if he griefs after a few times. It all points in the same direction when it comes to griefing.
Attacking someone won't give you corruption but if they die shortly after then you will, I don't see what the disagreement is.
An attackers gets to pick the location that is to their advantage which means that they know for a fact the people at that location are either lower level or have worse gear. The attacker gets to pick the time which means they will pick the best possible time to attack, usually after they see someone struggle and survive a fight.
What's up with the whole victim attitude worrying about how those you attack but didn't kill might "abuse" the system and give you corruption hit?. You want them to just lower their head and take your love taps as you follow them around and get your ego boost at their expense?.
I don't know why you keep on bringing up this quote, Steven literally says there will be opportunities where the benefits outweigh the risks, and is just saying corruption will prevent griefing, not all open world PvP.
There will be huge open world fights over rare materials and prime hunting grounds, just as Steven experienced in Lineage II.
I think the risks with caravans are a lot subtler. If I attack a caravan near my node, there's less chance that caravan will return to my node, really hurting the local economy. So what will end up happening is there will be people going to other nodes to raid caravans, and then you get a whole political situation where another region is pissed at you for messing with their local economy.
Sure but if they die like that i would automatically get their pked drops in my inventory and they would get PK death penalty.
Aren't we all sinners?
The disagreement is that they shouldn't be at risk of losing their gear because they attacked someone. This is how the system is designed. You are supposed to be able to attack people without penalty.
This isn't wow. The main reason to fight in the open world is for resources or spawn locations. In these locations, you will be fighting people who are your level and around your gear. If someone wants to waste their time with low levels then they can risk getting corruption by accidentally bursting their target or getting killed by someone who notices they are a combatant while passing by.
Wholesome feedback, agreed.
Rise from the Ashes
Attacking another player turns you to a combatant which opens you to being killed for free but the act of attacking someone is not supposed to give you a corruption penalty. Yes, it's my fault i didn't specify if you want to get me on that technicality.
That’s why I understand why Steven says he doesn’t want mobs getting the last hit on someone to give corruption, but that sure sounds like a great way to grief people. Do it on tag and now the attackie gets to do the griefing like Atama’s example.
In my eyes they have to find a system somewhere in the middle.
You should be able to take your hands off the keyboard and say “I’m not doing this” if you view dying and the normal loss of resources worth not fighting back, you should be able to try to attack someone to see if they’ll play with you and stop if they don’t and you don’t think corruption is worth, you should be able to say “idgaf this person is dying” if you view the corruption as worth.
If you can’t attack someone to see if they’ll fight back without risk of them suiciding into a mob that really breaks those dynamic choices and interactions from my perspective.
You can’t purposefully set yourself to combatant status without attacking someone first based on Steven’s comments, so at this time you can’t say “well if they wanted to PvP they would have been flagged”.
Sure takes a bit of the mystery out of the interaction though when compared to Steven’s vision. I kinda like that “will they or won’t they” question you have to ask yourself every time you force attack a player.
I never stated that attacking should give you corruption but if you attack someone and they die shortly after then you should. I see people worried about attacking someone and then having that person go die to give the other person corruption. I'm just surprised they can't see the abuse potential from the victim's side, someone can use low-dmg/no-dmg skills to slow, root, stun, blind you if they see you running away from a group of mobs to get you killed and then loot your corpse without any corruption penalty.
The abuse will happen a lot more from the attacker's side than from the victim's and the attacker has the choice to take the risk or not, the victim doesn't therefore I don't see anything wrong with having a timer since your last attack that decides if you count as a helper in a player's death.
But, the frequency needs to reflect Steven's statement: "You're not going to see griefing in the game very often; and that's because our flagging system."
It's a free world... with significant penalties for Corruption.
This runs into the red = dead mentality that we don't want.
Fights are supposed to happen over objectives that are naturally easier to take if you don't fight. If i'm farming, i'm not going to flag so people know i'll fight back but if attacked, i will fight back.
I'd recommend waiting for the game and seeing how it plays since there is a lot of behavior aspects to the system that are hard to understand until you have experienced it for yourself.
Steven's quote does not state that it will prevent griefing. It states that griefing will be rare - due to the Corruption mechanic.
If you want rare resources, the best place to get them is from Caravan attacks, where Corruption is not a factor; not from PKing Non-Combatants.
If you want to understand why I posted that quote, you can't simply ignore the other quote in the same post:
"I think that the intent behind the Corruption is that, like, during a rise in passion and, like, anger and whatever, you want to make this decision and do something and you'll suffer the repercussions later."
Hence, why I said people should primarily be choosing other forms of open world PvP, like Caravans and Sieges, rather than PKing Non-Combatants.
You need to take the post as whole. Not just cherry-pick portions out of context in order to strawman.
Just because i'm telling you the issue with your solution (at least as i see it) doesn't mean i don't understand the issue you are trying to solve. If they are doing damage, they are risking getting that last hit and gaining corruption. I'm not against someone getting corruption if they CC someone and the person dies in the CC. To me, the issue is the penalty for corruption is steep and because of that, should only be handed out if the person intended to kill someone.
I think most of us are waiting for the testing to see how it plays in game so we can understand the scenario and how it should be handled.
But i like it
I 100% agree there is a certain level of wait and see to this in the how it feels department, but we do have a clear indication of where Steven is going to set that baseline at with this going off his comments, and that is: if you don’t deal the killing blow, you’re not getting corruption.
Doesn’t matter if you buffed/healed the attacker, dealt any damage to a person yourself, or any other scenario you can think of; if you didn’t get the kill you don’t get corruption.
I don’t need to test that to see the varying ways to exploit it. Of course he could be asked about this on the next live stream and adjust his stance on this, but currently those are the parameters he has set for us.