Greetings, glorious adventurers! If you're joining in our Alpha One spot testing, please follow the steps here to see all the latest test info on our forums and Discord!
Options
Let the Mayor decide!
akabear
Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A good number of game governance mechanics are static and worldwide; perhaps place some additional decisions in the hands of the players.
Let the Mayor decide:
But too easy to have all areas the same, so perhaps, a zone that wants to have a higher pk penalty or strong bounty rewards also must pay for it by drawing from the treasury taxes.
That is one idea for an area Mayor control, what are thoughts on this and others?
Let the Mayor decide:
- How much corruption penalty Pk`ing in the area of control receives
- How much bounty hunter reward
But too easy to have all areas the same, so perhaps, a zone that wants to have a higher pk penalty or strong bounty rewards also must pay for it by drawing from the treasury taxes.
That is one idea for an area Mayor control, what are thoughts on this and others?
0
Comments
I can agree with the second but not the first.
I say this as the sort of person who would immediately lower the first if I were a Mayor.
I think that it's fine to have more 'lawless' Nodes, where the Town Guards are underpaid or less in number, where Bounty Hunters 'aren't welcome', where that Node's community can just 'decide that being Red is ok and not bother anyone they know who has Corruption'.
But I don't think that being able to set the Corruption Penalty either lower OR higher is a good mechanic, it doesn't interact well with the other systems, imo.
However, if it were changed and I were a mayor, I would Increase the corruption penalty in my node's zone of control. Instead of the current gear/mat drop percentage for a corrupt player, I would set it near 90%. I would make the corrupt player have to die three times as many to wash themselves and would dampen their abilities even further.
I would do everything I could to keep the corruption away from my node.
some examples:
- broken economy with people having millions of gold in under the first year of game launch
- taxes abuse with no way to stop it.
- denying crafters by making it harder to craft higher teirs
forgot to mention world builing, mentioned below in response post.
So, if you had a neighboring node`s players farming your own node, you would not wish to lower the pk penalty to allow your node`s players to pk them to discourage them from coming into your zone?
Creating some variance in the penalty might just create a bit more dynamic to the zones.
But it would work both ways. Sometimes it would be clear cut enough to 'just be to my advantage to do that', but then the problem would be 'aiming for that to make the system favor my node as much as possible'.
I feel that this would get into conditions that would be a problem quite quickly even before we start talking about the pressure on 'peaceful' Node mayors to set extraordinarily high Corruption, which in turn would 'protect' the Node from most countereconomic activity other than 'actually getting the Siege scroll'.
yup and it basically ignores the games entire lore and world building to. basiclly saying a town mayor has the power of the the others/void/ancients
As far as mayors being able to set how much corruption penalty Pk'ing in the area receives, I think that'd be ultimately pointless. Everyone will just set it to max corruption. What mayor would want more corrupted kills in their node?
When you consider the fact that most of the STING of the corruption system penalties only happen when the corrupted player is killed, node citizens and their mayors already have a lot of player agency and control over just how much "corruption penalty" a corrupted killer in their node will face.
Because every node and it's citizens will have a choice. When word gets out on a given day that there's some corrupted killing going on in their node, do most of them pretend afk? Pretend it's time to walk their dog? Pretend a pre planned, top super secret guild meeting is taking place in 5 minutes?
Or do they fight. Do they actually protect their node. That is what will ultimately determine how risky it is for a corrupted player to pk in any given node.
With this as an adjustable choice though, it makes a lot of sense to add to the game. Some areas might just not have any real need for bounty hunters so the price can be kept at a minimum. Alternatively there will be areas that experience a spike in corrupted activities, requiring real-time action to fight back. If they can increase the value of bounty hunting in their node this will encourage bounty hunters to migrate there and solve the problem.
That's contradictory. if there is no or little need for bounty hunters then there is very little to no pking going on. also doesn't the bounty reward increase based on the level of corruption for the player that's being hunted - why do it need external input?
Let the Mayor decide within certain lower and upper limits on various scales but for each choice there is a tradeoff. ie
Let the Mayor decide:
Let the Mayor decide:
If a certain node's zone of influence rewards very little to bounty hunters, they all may not bother hunting in it. In that case then, you're essentially giving more of a free pass for PKing in your area. As Corrupted players won't have to flee from other players and risk losing their gear, they are freer to PK, and then simply wait out the corruption or kill themselves to a mob somewhere remote.
? Contradictory? I said this: " Some areas might just not have any real need for bounty hunters so the price can be kept at a minimum." I don't know how to be clearer than that.
As for bounties naturally increasing, perhaps someone is just so good at the game that their group of players are really good at fending off bounty hunters, so how do they solve this problem? Adding more value to their bounty through this easily accessible tool would be a good start. Having that option, why would that be a bad thing?
Being able to add some local tax revenue to bounties could certainly add weight no an area that wishes to remain PK-free.
I’m fine with Mayor having some personal calibration sliders on some of the node dynamics.
✅ Done!
Yeah! You people should be ashamed of yourselves.
While I do not agree with the OP, there is nothing wrong with PVP. "unconcensual PvP" is a myth when you log into a game that allows for you to be killed by another player. People who get upset due to PvP shouldn't be playing PvP games, nor PvX seeing as PvP is a part of it. I myself will PK players in the open world and fully expect to gain corruption and consequentially have to deal with that system. I won't however go out of my way to camp or grief players for no reason, usually 1 or 2 PK's on a single player and move on to the next bit. Camping/griefing is reserved for toxic players, bots, and mega guilds.
I don't mind pvp, it was my main form of content in WoW. However I disliked World PvP because it was just who had the bigger group. 1v1's were rare as most pvpers don't want fair fights. Thats why most "pvp players" hate on instanced combat like warsong gultch because its usually more fair than world pvp. A lot of people in the MMORPG community want a new MMO to sink their teeth into, most companies don't even come close to the needs or wants of said community. Intrepid is doing a wonderful job with many things in the game that are getting pve players excited. I also know that the only 2 pvp mmorpg's that exist have failed pretty hard from New World to Lineage 1 and 2. When people can destroy you in any manner from out gearing, to out numbering, to just spawn camping or what ever as you admitted yourself it kills off the player base. Lets be really honest with ourselves though, fair 1v1 matches out in the world are going to be rare, most of the pvp will be done in massive groups like sieges, guild wars, or anything like that. So why should the focus be on pvp combat with out an option to toggle out when games that have done this have repeatedly failed?
It's not about having or not having owpvp in your game. It's about how you design your game around that. L2's content required you to be grouped up to clear it, so any pvp was party pvp. Intrepid seem to want to do the same, with corruption for killing non-combatants having a much bigger penalty than L2 did. So right now I don't see any issues with AoC's pvp system. It might come up during alpha2, but until then we wouldn't know if it's bad for the game or not.
I mean i'm bothered i can be attacked as a non combatant while out in the world, but its not a game breaker for me. What really bothers me is that people want to remove the consequences of killing non combatants. With some not even caring if they exist or not because they gonna slaughter people regardless of what anyone else says, and that in itself really bothers me.
Some closer reading 101 required, I think.
Original post and subsequent did not state nor imply removing consequences of pk`ing.
What was written was a suggestion to provide controls to the various mayors to scale the desired consequences and rewards but with some trade-off.
My reference is referring to the many threads that are placed out on removing or nerfing consequences of corruption. OP did state they wanted mayors to control the strength of corruption and bounty levels. Hence those who don't want severe consequences won't get them, and those that want severe consequences will get them all dependent on mayor and node. I'm pretty certain that this is just a stealth "nerf corruption" thread like many before it disguised as you said "controlling desired consequences with trade off". As i'm also pretty sure if I went to go make a thread about how corruption should even be more extreme than what it is now that it would get a lot of push back from pvpers and griefers alike.
However, say a like minded nodal group are being pK`ed alot by a neighboring node or a rogue guild.
Wouldn`t the ability to increase the penalty for pk`ing in your area be appealing.
But if there was ability to increase it, in keeping with the notion of consequences then there might be a trade off. Trade off being a portion of the treasury (taxes) requiring to be paid or maybe caravans are slower.. or something.. a series of sliders to create vary impacts/ changes in the hands of the players a little
The comment stems from own experience; in L2 our clan was small and not so great at pvp. The clan ninja`d a few castle seige wins from the big guilds..(which by the sounds of the AoC setup, can happen too ) As a castle owner we obtained revenue from the sales of the associated city for the period we held it and it also open doors to private instanced raids, which was why there were sometime betrayals and ninja`s wins at sieges as the revenue was a big game changer.. consequence sometimes was though that we were Pk`d by the strong clan that believed they were meant to take the castle and reap the benefits.. our desire was the raids and revenue and trade off was to payout the stronger clan to stop pk`ing...
I was there during the first kick starter. I donated to the first kick starter the aspect of pvp being always a thing was going to push me away but when i realized the corruption system was in place to prevent non combatants from being heavily targeted that was something I could work with. But then I come to these forums after years later trying to obtain any new information i see a lot of threads of "remove corruption, or nerf it so it isn't punishing, or make it a playstyle." and i'm like that reinforces ganking, griefing and so on and thats not what i agreed with when i donated. So it really bothers me when people ask these things hence why i said it would get a lot of push back if i countered that to the other extreme.
I thought the penalties were already up there like dampering stats, being placed on the map for people to target you, having your gear dropped if you have enough corruption and so on. And people talking about how bad these things were or how they were just gonna exploit it so they can reap the benefits of letting their guild kill them for the bounty or something. But when you describe it that way I would like for players to have tools in their own way to get people to do less world pvp if it becomes a problem (not sieges, guild wars and other big group content). And the trade offs would be interesting mechanics too.