Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
@hleV Does this explain for you between the last three post with Nikr and I why the corruption system is so punishing, to allow pvp be more focused on the other system but still allow people to pk whoever they want?
I see your aim, with that explination, but your purposed conversation leading to that is kinda out of left feild, so its hard to corrilate your posts to a goal of conversation. It felt very leading and without substance, making it hard to respond too. I dont mean to be hostile, and if you need sleep, you sleep.
Well, I still stay the same for now which a green player initiate fight on a red player should treat both as red player no matter who kills who, just green stays as green and red stays as red when they dead.
If need further tune, maybe green will have potential PK score which means when some day the green player become red the green player will start from higher corruption penalties than a pure green player, and if a green player initiate the fight and red fight back end with kill the green player that red will randomly gain less corruption score with RNG like less 10~70% corruption score than usual and maybe a small chance that clean amount of corruption score that slightly less than killed by green or refer other baseline of clean corruption score.(If the concern about green abusing the role to attack red is that heavy)
What @NiKr posted (the post you quoted) is not negated, in any way, if my proposed change is implemented:
You can continue killing, but if you're doing this as a griefer (opponent doesn't fight back), you continue to suffer more severe penalties for that. In order to work the corruption off, you're gonna want to be avoiding people and running away from them so as not to risk being killed.
Only the part of "The system works just as intended and works just fine" is where I'll disagree. I'd love to hear from a developer if the decision to treat aggressive greens as victims was the point, or is this rule more meant for those cases where red is going on a murder spree, and is not just self-defending while working off their crime.
People need to stop treating this as if the proposal is to reduce punishment for red. This is to adjust one specific part of it, that in my opinion isn't correctly designed/fleshed out - to not punish corrupted for non-immoral activity of self-defense, while it would still punish all the same if the corrupted continued their wrong ways. And this isn't solely from the PKer's perspective. I wouldn't want to be a green attacked by red and have no option to flag myself as purple by fighting back, in order to reduce my losses on death.
You didnt automatically turn non-combatant for touching a red.
In the current system any green is free to attack you because they're sure they can hasten your punishment no matter what the result of the fight is. They either win and you lose a big chunk of your corruption or they die and you gain even more corruption which just means that you'll now have to die more times to get rid of all the corruption. This interaction deters any of your future attempts at becoming red.
In your suggestion that would never be the case. Players would only ever get a single stack of corruption because no matter how many times they kill any of their attackers - they'll never receive more corruption due to the game seeing all of those attackers as combatants.
There's no potential spiral of corruption gain and no true deterrent against going red in the first place. Which, in turn, defeats the purpose of the corruption system.
Is that interaction true or did I forget how it worked?
If you turn back to non-combatant, well, he just killed yet another non-combatant.
This thread has gone for way too long, because of the wording given by Steven since the announcement of the flagging system..
Non-combatant..
Combatant...
Corrupted...
I wish it had stayed to green purple red and karma points. That way people wouldnt confuse corrupted players with the lore, nor would people claim that "gaining corruptiom for killing non-combatants that attack me is wrong".
Steven should have said: the game is open world pvp, but not a survival, it's an mmo. Here are some colors...
People hook onto the tiniest things, create a whole theory and are entitled to accomodations even though they miss the forest in the tree. Oh well.
It is suppose to be punishing that is the point to attempt to greatly reduce that kind of pvp. That is why its not incentivized. They don't want people pking everyone aroud the world with the corruption system.
The point i feel we were trying to get across is there other avenues of PvP that will be the main focus of it node / guild wars where you can fight without punishment. The point of the corruption system is to make sure that doesn't overtake more organized pvp.
Ferraris arent for everyone.
I have listened to the actual interview with Steven, the one that's marked as a reference in the wiki where it's described that greens remain greens against reds, and when asked "do you get combatant status when you attack a player who's corrupted?" Steven says "you do not". However, when talking about accumulating corruption score, he does mention that "if you go around and you killed 10 people who didn't fight back and you gain a corruption score of...", implying that your corruption score wouldn't increase if you killed someone who fought back.
Yes for the "I'll never acquire more corruption again" (if you decided not to PK any more greens that didn't consent to PvP).
No for the "I can take my time".
You can still be hunted down and receive your punishment, not receiving additional penalty for self-defense doesn't change that.
Which is a bad system design that leaves you no choice against greens specifically, unless you can manage to escape.
So it is your honest belief that this specific rule that "reds are penalized for self-defense vs greens (who may want to flag, but can't against red), but can freely murder purples and BHs" is essential for the corruption system to work? As in, the other known penalties, however high they're cranked up to deter PKing, fail to make players think twice before PKing ever again?
Perfect.
Nope. The system still properly works against mass PKing and won't put people who had reasons other than griefing to kill that one particular green in an endless loop of corruption gain with no way out other than death.
If you think that "no choice but death" is the right way to design a game system, then we can just leave it at that: agree to disagree.
In the current system you're disadvantaged against him because you'll get more corruption. So you either have to run away or have your friends heal you while you kill mobs with that green attacking you constantly. In case of running away you give the BHs more time to try and catch you, which justifies that system (I've got my own problems with it). In the case of you being with a group of people, there's a high chance that the green attacker also has a group of people with them, at which point you're dead either way because you'll just get attacked by 8 people all at once, no matter if they flag up against you or not. Imo this is what makes the whole system work as intended and even makes the BH system work on top of that.
In your suggestion, if you're alone and the green is alone, you can just fight back w/o any problems and immediately keep farming the mobs. You do not get more corruption so the time to remove your present corruption is really short. This invalidates the BH system and doesn't punish the red in any way. And again, if you're attacked by a group of greens there'd be no difference between the 2 systems. To me this system doesn't work because it doesn't deter people from going red, because they know they can just keep killing mobs w/o ever gaining more corruption in the process. And, in turn, that would invalidate the BH system because in order for any BH to catch you in time, they'd have to be very close to your initial murder location.
Now both of those example operate under the assumption that killing mobs will be at all valid as a way to remove corruption. We don't have the details about that part of the balancing of this system, and we won't know anything concrete until after extensive testing of it. If after the testing the balancing comes down to "dying is the only valid way to remove corruption, because killing mobs would require you to avoid people for an hour, after just one kill" - I wouldn't really care how the greens interact with the red because the end result will always be "red dies". While the balancing I'd personally want would be smth like "30% of the time the red becomes green through XP gain and 70% it's death at the hands of BHs because the red was on the run from the greens and they lost him". If you can't outrun some greens it's either a skill issue or decision making one. If you PKed a green in a crowd of people - you deserve to die. If you killed a green somewhere in a dungeon and couldn't remove your corruption before any new greens come for you (or didn't relocate in time) - it's a skill issue and you still deserve to die.
Otherwise, I've explained my position on what I want from the system already.
I think he was talking more about effects like "getting hit from behind applies a slow"
That have been quite common
The Wolves of Verra
are recruiting: https://discord.gg/Rt8G3sNYac
This topic is yet again a sample of people missing the bigger picture, thinking in the usual solo gameplay that they have been accustomed to in games like wow eso ff14 etc etc.
"I am a lone guy. I kill some green. I become red. Greens start chasing me, and I can either die or get more corruption". Nobody mentioned that AoC will be a group gameplay.
Someone who has asked for reasons why the system is the way it is, has been provided said reasons and has dismissed them every time?
At this point it's like arguing about logic to someone who's religious. They can justify whatever they want by supernatural (unreasonable) reasons, and it is thus impossible to change their point of view.
If he fears he'll be "griefed" by greens, let him not play the game. And he plays the game anyway, then let him be served justice by whomever he happens to piss off, their friends, and the horses they rode in on.
Now he will insult us and call us carebears.
The red player already gets his penalties when he killed the previous green, those penalties should already be more than plenty.
The only thing that happens in this scenario is that the choice of fighting back as the red player is a double negative which seems excessive to me. Not to mention that since it can be abused, it will be, to what extent however is another question.
Becoming red isnt really the penalty or at least its only part of it. Being does 5 things as is currently stands:
The first penalty is the true punishment. Penalty 2 - 5 merely exist to make the first more likely.