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
Poison Pill - PVP Loot
Tacquito
Member
Gatherers keep a "poison pill" in their bags (a crafted item), creating risk for attackers. This poison pill would be disguised as a valuable gathered item, but if dropped and looted, would have severe consequences for the attacker. Maybe it would cause max corruption (regardless of the gatherer's corruption state before the gank), or maybe it would cause a one-hour debuff to health (giving the gatherer a chance to get payback), or maybe it would cause the attacker to immediately die and drop all gear.
This idea would not need to be limited to gatherers.
An added benefit of this approach is increased risk when killing non-combatants, because the poison pill would have a larger chance of dropping.
The idea is to balance risk/reward for both the attacker and gatherer.
This idea would not need to be limited to gatherers.
An added benefit of this approach is increased risk when killing non-combatants, because the poison pill would have a larger chance of dropping.
The idea is to balance risk/reward for both the attacker and gatherer.
1
Comments
Is there going to be a system in place so you can kill a player and have corruption gain removed to counter balance?
Getting "max" corruption would most likely mean literal days of clearing it by death, if not more (L2 had 9999 limit and that shit took houuurs to remove by death). And at that point you gonna have XP debt that pretty much makes you lvl1.
One-hour debuff to health is already linked to the corruption penalties. Unless it was the attacker's first PK - they'll have a pretty high chance to die while corrupted and get big death penalties, which include decreased stats.
That last one is literally just trolling so I won't even interact with that one.
im trying to take him serious instead of just saying this idea is trash lmao.
I didn't read that part was blind to it until you pointed it out lol.
Does this risk exist when killing a gatherer who fights back purely as a means to reduce the drop %?
But if he does decide to fight back - no matter what the reason for that was, the situation is no longer a PK, it's a pvp kill, because the victim decided to make it one.
So your thought is... "I should be able to remove the intended cost of staying green, and then also get the benefit of staying green"? You should just ask to remove the cost of staying green from the game.
Really? So if you attack someone, and they make the decision to run away, they can evade the kill and resulting loot drop? Hard to imagine you believe that, based on your MMO experience.
But yes, even then I've seen (and have done so myself) countless situations where the victim could just run away. When ttk is not 2 seconds it's even easier to do. AoC's ttk will supposedly be around 30 secs. If in that amount of time the victim has no way to run away (and iirc we can mount during combat) - there's a problem in the system. If every archetype doesn't have at least a single escape mechanism (that doesn't flag them up) - I'd consider that a bad design.
But even if all of that fails and the last choice of the victim is to either die green or flag up and lose half the stuff - the benefit is still on the green's side. The attacker gets fucked over in all cases but one. That one case being that their whole goal was to just kill the green. And with that kind of goal, the attacker won't be able to play for too long, precisely because of how the corruption system works currently.
Agree on the escape mechanism comment. It will be interesting to test and see how it works in practice. My current view is that the attacker has much less risk in the scenario we're discussing. It doesn't seem balanced. I suspect there will be a need to increase risk for the attacker. Seems like IS sees this too, TBH.
The risk you want if after the kill, which the risk exist already after the kill.....
At some point you need tor realize this is a PvX game, it is not meant for you to run around without ever getting pvp'd. They have their current systems in to lower the amount of pvp and have pvp more group focused than free for all and chaotic.
So i gather yuo currently don't feel the current system is enough risk where
1. you can't trade or put things in your storage
2. any player can freely kill you
3. you can't go to towns or guards attack you
4. You have x4 the death penalty meaning you drop more items than you gained, you lose far more xp
5. every time you pk it permanently increases how much corruption you gain per kill.
6. You are flagged by bounty hunters and they can find you anywhere on the map
7. Your stats get nerfed with higher corruption.
Tell me why again how the system needs more penalties in a game that is suppose to have competitive PvP?
Balance.
Ok so you want greens to never be attacked that is your balance as you avoid the question. Got it you are trolling and that is why you also suggest automatic death with full loot drop.
There are plenty of pve mmorpgs out there you should be good.
No.
No.
So you gank, turn red, and lose. You're dead and a bounty hunter's dancing on your corpse. You've lost...
- Some or all of the stolen materials (and none of your own because you didn't bring any).
- XP debt (this one's real)
- Occasionally, the gear you're wearing (that you selected specifically to be gambled on ganking)
And... that's about it for penalties. The rest is just "preventing you from avoiding these penalties before you grind it off". This is the sort of thing that will discourage 'good' players from trying out ganking, but won't make an actual 'evil' player even flinch.
Loss of xp really can make lose some levels or you are kidding?
Not directly, but he's definitely not kidding. Your level number won't go down, but XP debt has all of the following effects:
(ref: Player death)
Note that we have no data on how severe these penalties will be.
@NiKr To elaborate on balancing the risk/reward ratio for the gatherer and attacker...
For the gatherer, I believe I have read they are risking 50% of their inventory if they don't fight back. Half that (25%) if they do. Their potential reward is 100% of inventory. So R/R = .25-.50
For the attacker, they're not really risking anything for the potential reward. If they gatherer doesn't fight back, they can disengage and lose nothing. If the gatherer does fight back, the entire scenario is heavily weighted toward probability that the attacker will prevail (too wordy to elaborate on this, but let me know if you want it). So if the gatherer fights back and loses, the attacker gains 25% of the gatherer's inventory. If the gatherer fights back and wins, the attacker's loss is limited to a portion of what they're carrying. As @songrune pointed out, they are unlikely to bring much anything of value if you're attacking. So Risk is 0, reward is .25 of gatherer inventory. R/R = 0.
I think where your point does stand is when a player attacks someone they should gain some sort of debug/corruption even if they don’t full kill there target. That is something I can get behind.
But to say no risk is involved to the red player is misleading. I think severe skill damping and chance of gear drop is severe.
1- no
2- ill kill you and not loot you and take the spot
3- ill kill you with my alt and loot you
Except I said no risk in the context of being able to disengage before the kill, and in that scenario there is no skill damping or gear drop.
True which I agree a system for that and that alone needs to be developed but in terms of pvp to the death should remain until tested.
As long as PvE players can wear PvP gear on top there farming gear there should be no issue
Two gatherers fighting for a spot absolutely needs to be able to happen. Definitely don't want to do anything that will discourage this kind of conflict. Honestly, this is just another reason why the poison pill would be a good approach; it doesn't discourage this kind of PVP.
BTW, I'm probably going to be a crafter.
It's funny that people saying I want gatherers to have no risk seem to be blind to the fact they are asking for people to be able to hunt gatherer's with no risk.
if the pvp is gonna happen anyways, all u want is someone to not take ur loot if u lose. basically u gonna be bitter and resentful that someone beat u and u dont want them taking the loot reward. shame on u!
Was it to just kill the green? Was it his resources? Was it the farming location?
If it's the first: as I said, the attacker won't be able to do it for too long, because they'll get hunted or get too much stat dampen due to high corruption.
If it's the second: I'd assume the goal would be to get as much as possible, right? So anything that is not a green kill would be a hit against the goal. Either you stop or the victim runs away - and you have no loot at all. If the victim fights back and you die - you've lost time (in the context of you having low-mid gear and no mats on you). If victim dies - you only got half as much as they had on them.
And in case you did manage to kill the green and loot their mats, you're now a hunted player with a ticking bomb on you. The mats you got would most likely get lost if you die and you'll lose even more gameplay time. And depending on how Intrepid designs gathering locations, you might not even be able to find mobs to clear corruption in a short amount of time, so the chances of you dying as a red go way up. So the risk gets higher.
And if it's the third: you'd only benefit from your victim running away, because the kill was never the goal. But in every other situation you'll risk more stuff. If victim fights back - you're now at lower hp and any thirds party player can kill you easier (or mob could too). If they don't fight back and die to you - you have a timer, in which you must clear corruption or your good gear will decay (assuming good gear because you came to farm). If the victim only hits you back once, guess that'd be the same as them running away, in terms of risk, but I don't see this happening as often cause imo that'd be waaay too illogical on the green's part.
Also, you don't see how much hp your victim has, so you still risk becoming a Red if you keep attacking, even if you think that your attacks shouldn't kill the victim from their lowest nameplate decay state.