Corruption workaround - murderer for hire

Trenker

There are many game mechanics designed to deter open world 'random' player killing (which I will call murder as opposed to griefing). Griefing is of course against the code of conduct and undesirable, but murder is being allowed to keep the feeling of 'risk v reward' as discussed by Steven. All the mechanics impose a cost on the murderer to deter this from happening too much and becoming griefing.

Now I suspect there will be players who want to be a "murderer for hire". The cost of hire needs to be greater than the cost imposed by the mechanics. So if someone is willing to pay for a murder, they will need to cover the cost of lost equipment and time spent clearing corruption. If a murderer has their corruption costs covered, then this would be an attractive, high risk v reward playstyle. Much of the reward being in the form of notoriety.

So I wonder...
> How many players will be attracted to the 'murder for hire' playstyle?
> Will there be too much murdering going on, perhaps to the extent of becoming griefing?
> Are all AOC's attempts at preventing unwanted PvP behaviours bound to fail if other players are prepared to pay the direct and indirect costs for murders?

NiKr

That just seems like the intended gameplay to me. Players spending a ton of their money to buy a single kill doesn't seem like something that would lead to mass scale griefing. Especially considering the PK count mechanic. The buyers would have to dish out even more money, to account for the killer's expenses on the PK count removal activities.

Strevi

Trenker wrote: »

... (which I will call murder as opposed to griefing)

Amazing how the word "murder" becomes easier to accept than "griefing".

According to Steven, players who attack caravans will gain a negative reputation and he called them "bandits":

There is a level of risk that comes with the attacker. We have progression paths that exist for bandits and that exists for defenders; and if you choose to opt into a caravan attack- you sign up for that attack and you fail that attack- it is detrimental to your path of progression down the bandit area.

Those will be affected to a lower degree by the corruption. So it makes sense to sell their services to other players.
But I don't see it profitable for looting normal players. Why would the bandit give those to the player who hired instead of keeping the loot?
It may work only if the one who hires him has inside information about when expensive resources are being transported. Traitors working against their own guild.