No way. You will have nodes with an insane bounty for PK'ing to attract more farmers to develop their node. Needs to be all the same system everywhere.
Counter-debate: If pvp is just for fun and part of the game, wouldn't farmers focusing on profession and development would also be part of the game? While there are places within the game that grant better protections for that playstyle, there will be places where griefing / ganking / killing non combatants would also be encouraged because "it's just part of the game mah dude". So if people want to focus purely on pvp and nothing else while other players want to play the game a different way there are pro's and cons to both. After an explanation from Akabear i'm a bit more open to this idea. But also seeing your comment also makes it more believable that the people who are being attracted to this game are the very same people who are outcasted from societies for being bad people and now want to make this into a game where you can relish in the fact of committing bad deeds. Because if this wasn't true you wouldn't care how people, nations / guilds / nodes would play or develop as. But since you do have an issue it means it goes against how you want to play, and seeing how you want to kill non combatants as you wouldn't have an issue with this other wise in how you stated your comment I ask why do you enjoy tormenting other people?
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.
And I've only been following the game for the past 2 years. And there's been at least 5 "remove pvp" posts per each "reduce corruption penalties" one. So you're just seeing a small vertical slice of newcomer posts, while the whole picture is quite different.
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.
We know the penalties themselves, but not the details around them. Does stat dampening come on when you have 1k corruption or 10k? Do you get 200 corruption for killing a person on your own lvl or 2k? Does a mob kill remove 5 corruption or 50? And so on and so on.
And w/o those details we have no clue what the direct impact on the game will be. If I kill a dude on my own lvl, get 500 corruption, clear a pack of mobs and I no longer have that corruption - equal lvl PKing will be more prevalent. If I in the same situation I get 2k corruption and then have to die (which only removes 500), because mobs only remove 5 per each - barely anyone will ever risk PKing other people, because it'll be way too damaging for them.
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.
And I've only been following the game for the past 2 years. And there's been at least 5 "remove pvp" posts per each "reduce corruption penalties" one. So you're just seeing a small vertical slice of newcomer posts, while the whole picture is quite different.
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.
We know the penalties themselves, but not the details around them. Does stat dampening come on when you have 1k corruption or 10k? Do you get 200 corruption for killing a person on your own lvl or 2k? Does a mob kill remove 5 corruption or 50? And so on and so on.
And w/o those details we have no clue what the direct impact on the game will be. If I kill a dude on my own lvl, get 500 corruption, clear a pack of mobs and I no longer have that corruption - equal lvl PKing will be more prevalent. If I in the same situation I get 2k corruption and then have to die (which only removes 500), because mobs only remove 5 per each - barely anyone will ever risk PKing other people, because it'll be way too damaging for them.
Ah i was completely misguided about how the corruption system would work. I thought per player killed would increase the corruption. Like first kill is level 1 corruption regardless of level, second kill is level 2 corruption and so on. A very straightfoward way, i didn't think it would be a lot more complicated than that. So there would have to be a middle ground to where pvping non combatants (even though i don't agree with it) is hurtful, we don't want it to be to hurtful to where it kills the aspect of world pvp altogether because you never know if they are going to fight back or not. Sound like balancing thats way out of my pay grade. I appreciate the information and effort you have given me ^_^.
0
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I should have written all Mayor control thoughts as I was actually trying to elicit a variety of opinions on more than corruption control
Let the Mayor decide:
High Taxes / Shorter Election Period
Med Taxes / Regular Election Period
Low Taxes / Longer Election Period
Let the Mayor decide:
Higher corruption for Pk`ing / Higher cost from Node Treasury = higher security, less wealth
I should have written all Mayor control thoughts as I was actually trying to elicit a variety of opinions on more than corruption control
Let the Mayor decide:
High Taxes / Shorter Election Period
Med Taxes / Regular Election Period
Low Taxes / Longer Election Period
Let the Mayor decide:
Higher corruption for Pk`ing / Higher cost from Node Treasury = higher security, less wealth
and then reverse
Let the Mayor decide:
- Caravan load capacity
High capacity / Slow travel
Med capacity / Med speed of travel
Low capacity / High speed of travel
I myself don't have a lot of information about the details that go into a lot of these systems because every time I look into it, I hype myself up so bad that the only thing i wanna do is play this game only and then i wait for years feeling sad I can't play it still. Anyways I apologize for my ignorance if the information is out, but when it comes to node siege warfare the defenses you can put in, is that all player focused or mayor focused? If the mayor wants to say increases taxes so he can purchase defenses before a siege or something to that extent. Defenses for monster wars or what ever they are called too? Can the guards be better equipped by tax money or player contribution? I feel like the amount of options and power we give the mayor should be dependent on how well the mayor can protect its subjects with examples like above.
Ah i was completely misguided about how the corruption system would work. I thought per player killed would increase the corruption. Like first kill is level 1 corruption regardless of level, second kill is level 2 corruption and so on. A very straightfoward way, i didn't think it would be a lot more complicated than that. So there would have to be a middle ground to where pvping non combatants (even though i don't agree with it) is hurtful, we don't want it to be to hurtful to where it kills the aspect of world pvp altogether because you never know if they are going to fight back or not. Sound like balancing thats way out of my pay grade. I appreciate the information and effort you have given me ^_^.
The death penalty multiplier starts as soon as you gain corruption and goes away once you've gotten rid of it. So in that regard it's a binary system. But outside of that there's a wide range of balancing possibilities that require a shitton of testing to find the middle ground that would appease both sides.
The lvl difference will influence how much corruption you get. Potentially your artisan lvl might do the same, cause there's been discussions about abuses related to that. "XP gain rate to corruption removal rate" ratio will have to be tested, so that BHs still work as a system while the ability to remove your corruption through XP gain is not completely abandoned in favor of just dying to a mate. The ability of that mate to kill you when you're corrupted could also be a subject to change, cause there's quite a few abuses of the system related to that. And there's a ton more stuff that's gotta be figured out.
This pvp system is an old one and the only thing that matters is the right balancing for what Intrepid is going for. And I'm fairly sure that your average non-combatant will rarely get PKed out of the blue.
Ah i was completely misguided about how the corruption system would work. I thought per player killed would increase the corruption. Like first kill is level 1 corruption regardless of level, second kill is level 2 corruption and so on. A very straightfoward way, i didn't think it would be a lot more complicated than that. So there would have to be a middle ground to where pvping non combatants (even though i don't agree with it) is hurtful, we don't want it to be to hurtful to where it kills the aspect of world pvp altogether because you never know if they are going to fight back or not. Sound like balancing thats way out of my pay grade. I appreciate the information and effort you have given me ^_^.
Potentially your artisan lvl might do the same, cause there's been discussions about abuses related to that.
Speaking of this, go like my question on page 2. It almost made it last week for the dev talk.
Why are you so hyper focused on making sure you can kill people who don't fight back as much as you want?
It's not really about that. Maybe for some people it is.
For the people who just want a healthy open world pvp/pvx environment, it's about not having a pvp toggle or what amounts to effectively being a pvp toggle. Ashes won't have an actual pvp toggle.
But you can imagine a corruption system so harsh on the killers that virtually no one becomes corrupted. The system being just too risky or outright punishing to engage in at all. That would effectively be a pvp toggle.
It's Intrepid's job to find the right balance in testing and feedback. I'd say most people are expecting them to find a reasonable middle ground that allows ow pvp and contesting of resources to occur, but without constant murder, or anywhere even close to it.
We don't want stealth PvE Zones via this system. I admit stealth PvP Zones via this system would be good. However, in the attempt to maintain harmony between all factions I don't believe either should be player control. How would one balance the system if the system is controlled by players? Also, some Mayors could really do damage to a node already. I think giving these Mayors abilities to increase the length before Mayor Selection, the ability to underfund Bounty Hunters and the ability to increase Corrupted Players would just cause Nodes to die much faster.
Military nodes enable Bounty hunters and reduced duration of corruption.[3][4]
BH rewards and other settings will probably be decided by players anyway, because you can only have a BH guild in a Military Node. I'm guessing the higher your rank in the BH guild, the more you can influence it.
Bounty rewards should scale based on number of kills time alive, players contributing. Combine gta's star system for cops and map awareness with their bounty system its already fine.
Comments
Counter-debate: If pvp is just for fun and part of the game, wouldn't farmers focusing on profession and development would also be part of the game? While there are places within the game that grant better protections for that playstyle, there will be places where griefing / ganking / killing non combatants would also be encouraged because "it's just part of the game mah dude". So if people want to focus purely on pvp and nothing else while other players want to play the game a different way there are pro's and cons to both. After an explanation from Akabear i'm a bit more open to this idea. But also seeing your comment also makes it more believable that the people who are being attracted to this game are the very same people who are outcasted from societies for being bad people and now want to make this into a game where you can relish in the fact of committing bad deeds. Because if this wasn't true you wouldn't care how people, nations / guilds / nodes would play or develop as. But since you do have an issue it means it goes against how you want to play, and seeing how you want to kill non combatants as you wouldn't have an issue with this other wise in how you stated your comment I ask why do you enjoy tormenting other people?
And w/o those details we have no clue what the direct impact on the game will be. If I kill a dude on my own lvl, get 500 corruption, clear a pack of mobs and I no longer have that corruption - equal lvl PKing will be more prevalent. If I in the same situation I get 2k corruption and then have to die (which only removes 500), because mobs only remove 5 per each - barely anyone will ever risk PKing other people, because it'll be way too damaging for them.
Let the Mayor decide:
Let the Mayor decide:
Let the Mayor decide:
- Caravan load capacity
I myself don't have a lot of information about the details that go into a lot of these systems because every time I look into it, I hype myself up so bad that the only thing i wanna do is play this game only and then i wait for years feeling sad I can't play it still. Anyways I apologize for my ignorance if the information is out, but when it comes to node siege warfare the defenses you can put in, is that all player focused or mayor focused? If the mayor wants to say increases taxes so he can purchase defenses before a siege or something to that extent. Defenses for monster wars or what ever they are called too? Can the guards be better equipped by tax money or player contribution? I feel like the amount of options and power we give the mayor should be dependent on how well the mayor can protect its subjects with examples like above.
The lvl difference will influence how much corruption you get. Potentially your artisan lvl might do the same, cause there's been discussions about abuses related to that. "XP gain rate to corruption removal rate" ratio will have to be tested, so that BHs still work as a system while the ability to remove your corruption through XP gain is not completely abandoned in favor of just dying to a mate. The ability of that mate to kill you when you're corrupted could also be a subject to change, cause there's quite a few abuses of the system related to that. And there's a ton more stuff that's gotta be figured out.
This pvp system is an old one and the only thing that matters is the right balancing for what Intrepid is going for. And I'm fairly sure that your average non-combatant will rarely get PKed out of the blue.
Speaking of this, go like my question on page 2. It almost made it last week for the dev talk.
It's not really about that. Maybe for some people it is.
For the people who just want a healthy open world pvp/pvx environment, it's about not having a pvp toggle or what amounts to effectively being a pvp toggle. Ashes won't have an actual pvp toggle.
But you can imagine a corruption system so harsh on the killers that virtually no one becomes corrupted. The system being just too risky or outright punishing to engage in at all. That would effectively be a pvp toggle.
It's Intrepid's job to find the right balance in testing and feedback. I'd say most people are expecting them to find a reasonable middle ground that allows ow pvp and contesting of resources to occur, but without constant murder, or anywhere even close to it.
We don't want PvE zones, it would be bad for the game.
BH rewards and other settings will probably be decided by players anyway, because you can only have a BH guild in a Military Node. I'm guessing the higher your rank in the BH guild, the more you can influence it.
You're playing a dwarf, right?