Neurath wrote: » The game does not need to cater to such people. Where is the risk to someone who can turn someone corrupted and loses nothing in return? If a dude is farming the dude should be in a group. I have no pity for money bags who walk alone in a pvx world. Bounty Hunters are pvp players and not care bears for green players. In my view a guild who allows guild resources to go around unprotected deserve to lose the resources. Same for the merchants and crafters who venture out alone. The fact remains the gatherers take the risks and I would be a gatherer too. Does that mean I'll be on my tod? No. I'd be with my friends or my guild. It's not wise to keep molly coddling those players who want to be pve only and not pvx.
effusivemind wrote: » The problem is it's challenging to make accurate estimate of what combat will actually be from showcases of lvl 15 characters against mobs that haven’t been tuned yet, and fundamental combat mechanics are still unfinished/undecided. Basically, what we saw is a very rough draft. On top of that, because your abilities depend on where you spend ability points, one cleric's combat is going to (sometimes) look different than another’s. DarkTides wrote: » so, if not really a combat demo...we were shown a status effects demo Right. And to that at least I would say I really liked the direction they were going with that. Hearing from the combat team in the Dec. Dev Update was helpful. The focus on archetype identity, and how combat feels specifically, was reassuring. The only thing I can confidently say about combat right now is that it looks interesting
DarkTides wrote: » so, if not really a combat demo...we were shown a status effects demo
Solvryn wrote: » Bounty Hunters collect a bounty on a Corrupted, they're already going to loot the corrupteds gear from them and a portion of the plunder as payment. They incur zero risk for hunting bounties and already have a high stakes reward.
Solvryn wrote: » Most Corrupted players are going to go after soft targets which will not be able to win any exchange. Is a level 20 undeserving because a level 50 killed them?
Villefort wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Bounty Hunters collect a bounty on a Corrupted, they're already going to loot the corrupteds gear from them and a portion of the plunder as payment. They incur zero risk for hunting bounties and already have a high stakes reward. Unless the hunter becomes the hunted...would be a shame if we had a decoy corrupt player to illuminate brightly on the map...with several other players nearby ready to kill the BH... Solvryn wrote: » Most Corrupted players are going to go after soft targets which will not be able to win any exchange. Is a level 20 undeserving because a level 50 killed them? Hmm...we may have had different experiences in MMOs. from my experience the players that are running around killing lowbies are a small percentage of the PVPers. In this case since you can be corrupt by killing even people your own level, to say that most corrupted players are going to be people who kill lowbies I don't think will be true. But I'm excited to give it a try
NiKr wrote: » Strevi wrote: » But back to the BH viability. They should not be able in 100% of cases to take and give back the resources lost by the green because the PK-ers will have 0 reason to become corrupt. How do you balance the success rate? And once that is done, it still means that some greens will not get their resources back. This would obviously have to be tested. I would personally tweak the amount of corruption gained and corruption lost relative to XP gained. And then counterbalance that against the common distance between any given mob and the nearest node center. And if the design of how the bounties get given out (if I understand it correctly that is) remains the same, then BHs would have to get their targets at a tavern or a certain NPC only in a lvl4 military node. At which point there's definitely some amount of distance that a BH would have to travel from said tavern/npc to the PKer. And the time of that travel would have to determine how quickly the PKer can remove their corruption through grind. Military NPCs could give immediate info about any new PKer and might even make announcements in "BH chat" about a new PKer, so anyone in the vicinity of the NPC could quickly get the bounty from them and try to catch the PKer before they remove their corruption. Tavern-based bounties could maybe only work if the PKer was above some corruption threshold (or a PK count one), because taverns would most likely be closer to the killer. And we could have that only a BH kill would drop the victims resources rather than just any kill, which imo would strengthen the BHs' reputation amongst the people and would decrease the amount of greens just attacking the Red (because some maniacs consider that a bad thing). And again though, the BH still gotta kill the PKer in order to get the resources, which is never assured. This is just the surface-lvl first-thought kind of design, I'm sure it could be refined into something much better or there might even be able a better way to satisfy all 3 sides of this equation.
Strevi wrote: » But back to the BH viability. They should not be able in 100% of cases to take and give back the resources lost by the green because the PK-ers will have 0 reason to become corrupt. How do you balance the success rate? And once that is done, it still means that some greens will not get their resources back.
NiKr wrote: » You seem to really dislike any pvers. And while I do also want everyone to be the ultimate pvxer who pves as much as they pvp - that's a very unreasonable ask of the majority population of the mmo genre. Pvers (and obviously pure artisans) will most likely be the ones producing all the gear and food and potions and whatever else you'd use in your day-to-day gameplay for the pvpers, who will most likely just serve as mercs or just participate in pvp events most of the time. So saying that pvers are all freeloaders, just because they decline to fight back when they're already preoccupied with other content (that they prefer more than the pvp), seems quite unreasonable to me.
Solvryn wrote: » Seems to me you are focusing on people rather than systems, which as of right now the corruption system offers very little in returning anything back to the game. Which in turn, will not have very many bounty hunters to begin with. Completing gameplay loops and making sure there aren't any parasitic designs. Bounty Hunters collect a bounty on a Corrupted, they're already going to loot the corrupteds gear from them and a portion of the plunder as payment. They incur zero risk for hunting bounties and already have a high stakes reward. The system itself needs to complete a gameplay loop and return something back to the game. Most Corrupted players are going to go after soft targets which will not be able to win any exchange. Is a level 20 undeserving because a level 50 killed them? By the time a Corrupted player ends up on a BH bounty, they'll have PK'd and looted many soft targets, not just one or two.
Neurath wrote: » Solvryn wrote: » Seems to me you are focusing on people rather than systems, which as of right now the corruption system offers very little in returning anything back to the game. Which in turn, will not have very many bounty hunters to begin with. Completing gameplay loops and making sure there aren't any parasitic designs. Bounty Hunters collect a bounty on a Corrupted, they're already going to loot the corrupteds gear from them and a portion of the plunder as payment. They incur zero risk for hunting bounties and already have a high stakes reward. The system itself needs to complete a gameplay loop and return something back to the game. Most Corrupted players are going to go after soft targets which will not be able to win any exchange. Is a level 20 undeserving because a level 50 killed them? By the time a Corrupted player ends up on a BH bounty, they'll have PK'd and looted many soft targets, not just one or two. The gear drop chance for corrupted players is only slight. Its never a guarantee. The risks for hunting bounties is being outnumbered, facing your hard counter or simply facing a more skilled opponent - the corrupted player has no loss of efficiency against a bounty hunter. Its as if it was two purples duking it out. I do not know what the bounty quests will state - perhaps very little, however, it is not the bounty hunters who should replenish the lost tokens and resources. No one forces a player not to engage. The environment is a safe environment to flag and lose less resources overall. I would agree with your stance if there was no option of reducing the losses and no option to prevent corruption but there is, thus, it is down to player agency whether a player turns corrupted or how much tokens and resources are lost. No one drops tokens or resources they don't have in their inventories. At present the bounty hunter doesn't receive all the loot in a corrupted inventory. If the corrupted could lose all the resources and tokens in their inventories there would be no game loop because they simply wouldn't risk going corrupted in the first place.
Dygz wrote: » I think I may be misunderstanding the hypothetical, but... Dying as a Non-Combatant in PvP is just normal death penalties, so... I don't think it's necessary for resources to returned when a Corrupted dies to a BH. A Corrupted is basically treated like a hostile mob/monster - and we don't expect to have resources returned when a mob/monster is killed. (I think "freeloader" could be a response to the hypothetical of 100% return of lost resources if someone else kills the Corrupted?)
Neurath wrote: » You keep mentioning how it's unfair that a green is minding their own business and gets 'attacked and killed' but a whole night might be spent clearing the corruption by a bounty hunter. Thus, the bounty hunter time investment must be worthwhile.
Neurath wrote: » Well, I brought up the difficulties originally around bounty hunters and corrupted both being attached to a military node. Thankfully, the corruption link to military nodes were removed. I can't speak for all bounty hunters but most bounty hunters will have the best gear possible before they face a corrupt player. It is true people will game the system but any system will be gamed. If it only takes one death to clear corruption then friends can clear the corruption before bounty hunter is even informed. A bounty hunter has to flag which means friends of a corrupted player can also kill a bounty hunter. I think I will have to make bounty hunter contacts to be fully operational. The rewards are based on kills not combat. Thus, bounty hunters are already unlikely to group up unless it is imperative.
Neurath wrote: » I can't speak for all bounty hunters but most bounty hunters will have the best gear possible before they face a corrupt player. It is true people will game the system but any system will be gamed. If it only takes one death to clear corruption then friends can clear the corruption before bounty hunter is even informed.
Neurath wrote: » A bounty hunter has to flag which means friends of a corrupted player can also kill a bounty hunter. I think I will have to make bounty hunter contacts to be fully operational. The rewards are based on kills not combat. Thus, bounty hunters are already unlikely to group up unless it is imperative.
Neurath wrote: » We are agreed for the need to control the low level gankers but not much of worth would be taken from low levels anyway. What happens if a lvl 25 has killed a load of level 10s but all bounty hunters are level 50. The rewards would be negligible.
Neurath wrote: » However, the system needs to be tested and the exact punishments for corruption are ill defined right now.
