Corruption VS Gathering

worddog

If choosing to make your attacker corrupted costs you 2x the resources you would normally drop on death, than the amount of resources gatherers will collect will reflect the severity of the corruption status.

If corruption is easily removed and not that big of a deal, than gatherers will make shorter trips and carry less resources between runs.

If corruption is difficult to remove and brings great risk to the corrupted player, than gatherers will be more willing to make longer trips and collect more resources on each trip.

From a PvPer and Gatherer perspective, a harsher corruption system seems to be a win-win. More risk and more reward is what both types of players want.

I'm okay with losing a bunch of resources if I know my attacker will be a known target among the community because of it. But if I die and no one cares than the whole thing feels pointless.

Ludullu

worddog wrote: »

If choosing to make your attacker corrupted costs you 2x the resources you would normally drop on death, than the amount of resources gatherers will collect will reflect the severity of the corruption status.

Green death is the normal death. It's if you flag up that you lose the half.

And balancing of corruption gain will need to be tested in alpha2.

Taleof2Cities

@NiKr is right.

It has to be balanced between the attacker and farmer.

Testers will, indeed, be doing some heavy lifting for Alpha 2.

Strevi

worddog wrote: »

If corruption is difficult to remove and brings great risk to the corrupted player, than gatherers will be more willing to make longer trips and collect more resources on each trip.

Longer trips will hurt the caravan system.
Nobody will use caravans if expensive resources and materials are protected by corruption and if the caravans have only 10 times more space than a mule.

RunningRiot

worddog wrote: »

If choosing to make your attacker corrupted costs you 2x the resources you would normally drop on death, than the amount of resources gatherers will collect will reflect the severity of the corruption status.

If corruption is easily removed and not that big of a deal, than gatherers will make shorter trips and carry less resources between runs.

If corruption is difficult to remove and brings great risk to the corrupted player, than gatherers will be more willing to make longer trips and collect more resources on each trip.

From a PvPer and Gatherer perspective, a harsher corruption system seems to be a win-win. More risk and more reward is what both types of players want.

I'm okay with losing a bunch of resources if I know my attacker will be a known target among the community because of it. But if I die and no one cares than the whole thing feels pointless.

I see your logic here and it seems to check out. But like others were saying, it needs to be tested and a balance needs to be found. Corruption penalties cannot be too harsh. More corruption should make you more desirable to kill, rather than debuff you IMO. Let the community have a large role in what happens to corrupted players.