Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
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.