Let the Mayor decide!

Dolyem wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

Why do you people who support less to no consequences to unconsensual pvp willing to die on this hill? Why are you so hyper focused on making sure you can kill people who don't fight back as much as you want? That's not pvp at all, there is no challenge to it or fun to it. Unless you guys actually enjoy upsetting people, making them feel bad, and just feed off the negativity you create out in the world? Because if thats a case I believe there are some irl diagnosis you should probably check out.

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?

Zlade wrote: »

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?

Except L1 and UO are quite popular for what they are (that is 20+ y.o. games with janky controls for current times). L2 and NW were destroyed by their respective dev companies. And that's not even considering that NW was in fact a toggleable pvp game and still failed gloriously.

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.

NiKr wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

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?

Except L1 and UO are quite popular for what they are (that is 20+ y.o. games with janky controls for current times). L2 and NW were destroyed by their respective dev companies. And that's not even considering that NW was in fact a toggleable pvp game and still failed gloriously.

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.

Zlade wrote: »

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.

akabear wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

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?

Except L1 and UO are quite popular for what they are (that is 20+ y.o. games with janky controls for current times). L2 and NW were destroyed by their respective dev companies. And that's not even considering that NW was in fact a toggleable pvp game and still failed gloriously.

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.

Zlade wrote: »

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.

I mean, both sides get pushback. Both "no corruption" and "no pvp" suggestions usually get the standard "gettatahere" response exactly because the usual forum crowd follows the game because of its current design, while all the newcomers are just trying to change it to their preferences.

Right now, nobody knows the scale of the penalties. So all discussions are hypothetical.

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...

In L2, 95% of the pk`ing was orientated towards

bots,
professional farmer groups (not always bots)
killing farmer enforcers (high level bot or farmer pk`er which often used 3rd party apps and hard to beat)
killing players that decided to Xp in an area already spoken for,
Retribution for players that stole items or funds from the clan
Players that shared intel about the clan to enemy clans
Players that smack talked or harassed to clan member
Very rarely, but did happen, pk`ing the weak members of a waring clan to influence the strong waring clan to cease the war
Tit for tat pk`ing an individual that had killed our own clan member

NiKr wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

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.

I mean, both sides get pushback. Both "no corruption" and "no pvp" suggestions usually get the standard "gettatahere" response exactly because the usual forum crowd follows the game because of its current design, while all the newcomers are just trying to change it to their preferences.

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.

akabear wrote: »

Right now, nobody knows the scale of the penalties. So all discussions are hypothetical.

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 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.

Theplague4u

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.

DrPlague wrote: »

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?

Zlade wrote: »

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.

Zlade wrote: »

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.

NiKr wrote: »

Zlade wrote: »

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.

Zlade wrote: »

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 ^_^.

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

akabear wrote: »

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.