Corrupted players can't /trade or use storage.

If the game allowed players to to live as criminals then bounty hunters would have a purpose within it.

Currently, the option for caravan raiding exists, but it is uncertain how successful it will be. It is doubtful that caravan raiding alone will provide sufficient entertainment. Plus, I suggested a few times that bounty hunters could have a specialization that let them work as mercenaries in sieges and wars.

The game lacks features such as kidnapping, slavery, smuggling, player killing, thievery, sabotage, and more.

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

It could lead to less of a specific loop that I prefer and maybe make Bounty Hunting even more of a pointless afterthought, but it certainly ramps up the risk/reward for a Solo PK-er.

Bring on the Bandit Gangs.

Why do you think this makes BHs more useless? Cause the change would lead to more group-based PKing, that BHs can't really do anything about?

They certainly could do stuff about it, and they wouldn't even need a group of BHs to do it.

I'm referring to the other issue, the 'massive reduction in random Solo PK' which is George's original point.

But even moreso, things like "I'm going to kill this bot."

Now you can't even kill that sort of bot near your own 'house in the forest', because if you were gathering and you got annoyed at a bot and killed it, now you have to go work off your corruption before you can even store your own gatherables in your own storage nearby. Sure, you're safe, but you might want to stay in.

So my point is only 'a meaningful reduction in actual PK will be achieved through this change', and ofc my bias is that I expected Bounty Hunting (of Solo Red Players) to be mostly a random niche activity anyway.

It's a change alright. Untested for. Unasked for. Random. If anything, recently the only thing that I've seen asked for is the opposite, lawless towns, which I also don't agree with.

But I don't follow this game nearly as much as I used to. So I may be out of the loop of what's been asked for recently.

Just a continuation of Steven panic mode as far as I'm concerned. Certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

Okeydoke wrote: »

It's a change alright. Untested for. Unasked for. Random. If anything, recently the only thing that I've seen asked for is the opposite, lawless towns, which I also don't agree with.

But I don't follow this game nearly as much as I used to. So I may be out of the loop of what's been asked for recently.

Just a continuation of Steven panic mode as far as I'm concerned. Certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

idk, I feel like I follow it fairly closely and this is another 'entirely out of the blue change' for me.

I just hope whatever the reason for it, it's worth it.

I feel we could still get the 'lawless town' because we have NOT seen any signs of changing it so that people other than the last-hitter get Corruption. Hence the 'bandit gang'. It seems like a specific change meant to target only the 'solo bandit', since it's not 'alongside' a change to the whole 'I didn't kill you but I can still loot you'.

Maybe we're supposed to RP our 'lawlessness'. I'm down for that, I only care about other emergent stuff.

Songcaller

Azherae wrote: »

'entirely out of the blue change' for me.

RIP Crossbow too lol.

Neurath wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

'entirely out of the blue change' for me.

RIP Crossbow too lol.

Yeah that one was pretty 'wut???'

Ludullu

Yeah, one of my main fears rn is that Intrepid will gimp the corruption system before alpha2 to such an extent that the anti-pvp crowd will grow even bigger and keep supporting that hardcore gimping (if not push even further). And by the time the game releases we'll see a situation similar to NW in effect, even if it's not a direct toggle.

It's already really damn harsh on paper and I doubt that we'll get to really test it out before the later stages of alpha2 (if not even betas). And the counterbalance seems to come from pvp locations instead, which kinda defeat the whole purpose of even having the corruption system in the first place.

In other words, it's all really messy and I don't see any singular direction in the design.

Azherae wrote: »

I just hope whatever the reason for it, it's worth it.

I don't know the reason. No reason was given to make the change. There is no reason that I can think of to not allow a red player to use his own freehold storage. Other than just "fuck reds."

There's an argument to be made that a red shouldn't be able to strip off his equipped gear. But you can't empty your bags of materials in your own freehold? You can't restock yourself with potions or other consumables? Just seems like punishment with no purpose. It seems like pandering and panic mode that started right around the time of the LuckyGhost video.

Multiple, random, nonsensical anti open world pvp changes/statements since that video. The severity of the corruption system, in my estimation, is no longer about stopping dipshit reds from killing newbs endlessly. It's severe to a point where it's going to substantially reduce just regular open world pvp period.

I hope I'm wrong. Hope some of these decisions are revisited through an intellectual lens instead of what appears to me to be a very emotional lens.

NiKr wrote: »

Yeah, one of my main fears rn is that Intrepid will gimp the corruption system before alpha2 to such an extent that the anti-pvp crowd will grow even bigger and keep supporting that hardcore gimping (if not push even further). And by the time the game releases we'll see a situation similar to NW in effect, even if it's not a direct toggle.

It's already really damn harsh on paper and I doubt that we'll get to really test it out before the later stages of alpha2 (if not even betas). And the counterbalance seems to come from pvp locations instead, which kinda defeat the whole purpose of even having the corruption system in the first place.

In other words, it's all really messy and I don't see any singular direction in the design.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Not only that, but the longer this game takes to develop, the more money it costs, the more Steven will probably be willing to go more and more carebear to rope in more players to recoup costs.

Furthermore, everyone who's already here, and donated their money, should generally at the very least be pro pvp, or pvp neutral. Because that's what the game is, or was. We haven't even gotten to the point where it becomes apparent that the game is actually going to launch. Full blown carebear holy war campaign starts there. Intense, piercing pressure that Intrepid will be under. Hasn't even started yet. Not even close. God knows what changes are coming when changes like this that no one asked for just randomly happen.

My confidence in what I bought into a few years ago is absolutely shot. I mean it's just not there anymore. We're 5-7 years in, in an "open" development process. I'm 800 dollars in myself. And I can't honestly tell you, or myself, how much pvp is going to be in this game, in what form, and from what systems. Zero idea. Kind of ashamed of myself.

Edit: I guess you could say I made the decision to support that much through an emotional lens, not an intellectual one lol. Woops

and people thought that the IRS is bad, if we list all the cons in being a PK it is way worse

Okeydoke wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

Yeah, one of my main fears rn is that Intrepid will gimp the corruption system before alpha2 to such an extent that the anti-pvp crowd will grow even bigger and keep supporting that hardcore gimping (if not push even further). And by the time the game releases we'll see a situation similar to NW in effect, even if it's not a direct toggle.

It's already really damn harsh on paper and I doubt that we'll get to really test it out before the later stages of alpha2 (if not even betas). And the counterbalance seems to come from pvp locations instead, which kinda defeat the whole purpose of even having the corruption system in the first place.

In other words, it's all really messy and I don't see any singular direction in the design.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better. Not only that, but the longer this game takes to develop, the more money it costs, the more Steven will probably be willing to go more and more carebear to rope in more players to recoup costs.

Furthermore, everyone who's already here, and donated their money, should generally at the very least be pro pvp, or pvp neutral. Because that's what the game is, or was. We haven't even gotten to the point where it becomes apparent that the game is actually going to launch. Full blown carebear holy war campaign starts there. Intense, piercing pressure that Intrepid will be under. Hasn't even started yet. Not even close. God knows what changes are coming when changes like this that no one asked for just randomly happen.

My confidence in what I bought into a few years ago is absolutely shot. I mean it's just not there anymore. We're 5-7 years in, in an "open" development process. I'm 800 dollars in myself. And I can't honestly tell you, or myself, how much pvp is going to be in this game, in what form, and from what systems. Zero idea. Kind of ashamed of myself.

Edit: I guess you could say I made the decision to support that much through an emotional lens, not an intellectual one lol. Woops

My largest (currently unfounded) concern here, is that this is the first sign of what I would consider an actual slippery slope. Most of the time it's just a random, as you said, emotional argument, from someone, myself included, about why they don't like something that the interaction will lead to.

This is the first one (not even the Open Seas thing counted, for me) where I think it actually changes the concept of the game itself.

If I kill player A every time I see them and take their stuff, and imagine that somehow I keep managing to survive this while red, if that player eventually argues 'why is she attacking me? this is griefing, clearly she is not achieving anything other than disrupting my gameplay because she can't trade or store all the items she is taking from me anyway if she is so Corrupted'...

I feel like that person now has a 'valid argument'. Of the type that could 'need to be reviewed'. Whereas before, I could have been 'killing them every time I see them just because' but ALSO because I could reasonably be profiting from doing so, it was 'part of the game'. My target would have to accept 'Azherae stands to benefit from killing you if you happen to have items she wants, so PK is valid and Corruption should handle this, it is not griefing'.

Now, I'm not sure it would pass. For now I'll just assume that it will. But this seems like an easy way to make the argument that 'A Perma-Red Bandit is just a griefer because they could never reasonably escape with their loot anyway'.

Azherae wrote: »

If I kill player A every time I see them and take their stuff, and imagine that somehow I keep managing to survive this while red, if that player eventually argues 'why is she attacking me? this is griefing, clearly she is not achieving anything other than disrupting my gameplay because she can't trade or store all the items she is taking from me anyway if she is so Corrupted'...

Yeah that's true. I mean, I think the general idea is that it's upon you, as the red, to see to it that you survive long enough to become green and thus deposit your loot into storage.

But to your point, yeah if the corruption system is so harsh that you have little chance of survival and depositing loot, then when you kill someone you're essentially engaged in random redistribution. You are redistributing the loot of the person you killed to the person that ultimately kills you.

I personally don't view this corrupted/freehold storage change as a huge deal, isolated to itself. I think it's dumb. And that's putting it diplomatically. But to some extent, it's edge case. Theoretically, there would be people who go red who do not have access to a freehold in the first place. Or people who are so far away from their freehold when they kill someone that there's no realistic chance of them getting back there while red anyway.

In cases like those, and many others, you have to grind off the corruption before you can deposit anything. And theoretically, there would be a LOT of cases like this. Most cases would be like this probably.

But in the event where a red does get back to his freehold, why is he being punished from using his storage? And by extension, potentially almost everything on his freehold. More than likely can't craft at his crafting stations, can't take mats in and out of storage. Can't do anything. Why.

There would be instances I'm sure where a red kills someone in their own node, and it's just a quick and fairly easy ferrying of the loot back to his freehold. So what? Good for him. There will be just as many cases where a red doesn't make it back to their freehold before being killed. And I don't know how much corrupted killing people will be doing in their home node anyway. Killing outsiders maybe. But for most people, you're in your home node, where you have your freehold. You generally don't shit where you sleep.

I'm rambling. But my bigger issue is open world pvp itself, not reds. And this is the logic train. Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstanding something, anyone.

I'll use a Steven quote from the LuckyGhost video era to illustrate. I'm not looking it up right now, but this is roundabout what it was - "The vast majority of people will not go red."

This is the exact opposite of how it should be. But we have to unpack it a little. The vast majority will not go red, why? Because the corruption system is so harsh. Ok. What is the definition of vast majority? Quick googling, bare minimum 75%. In common use though, vast majority tends to denote more than 75%. More along the lines of 90%+. "The greatest part of something, to the point where alternatives are nearly irrelevant in size."

I'm dissecting a quote here. Maybe it was off the cuff. Maybe he didn't include all the context he could have. But just going off the bare quote, the vast majority of people will not go red. Why? Because they're not willing to go red. Why? Because the systems/mechanics, too harsh.

Again, exact opposite of how it should be for an open world pvp game. The vast majority SHOULD be willing to go red, just not deep red. Not even moderately red maybe. But at the very least, most people should be willing to go 1 kills worth of red. That's what keeps the whole system kosher. That's what encourages pvp.

If I have no fear when I'm randomly attacked in the open world that the person attacking me will ACTUALLY kill me, what compels me to fight back? If there's a, lets just split the difference of the definition of "vast majority," 85% chance that any time I'm randomly attacked in the world, the guy is not actually going to kill me, then who cares? I can just eat the 15% of the time I'm actually killed. Don't lose much anyway. There's a respawn button. Back at it. Open world pvp flops. Not even pvpers will take it seriously. They'll take advantage of that kind of system just as much as carebears will.

But that's the quote. The vast majority of people will not go red. As in, they're not willing to go red, as in they're not willing to go red period, not even 1 kill's worth.

Almost a pvp toggle. Now I realize there are a whole lot more variables involved in all of this. I'm not trying portraying this as gospel. Just thought.

But you take that quote. Then it's like oh, reds cant CC. Oh, reds can't use their own freehold storage. Oh, corruption systems going to be significantly harsher than Lineage II. Bounty hunters with radar hacks (fat chance of BH's even exisiting at this point), stat dampening, finished gear loss, mega XP penalties on death. That's just lately. Where does it stop. We're not even in Alpha 2 yet. Nothing's been tested. The carebear horde hasn't even arrived yet. Asmongold hasn't even made a video bitching yet.

And again, it''s not about the reds. Fuck em. It's about keeping the open world pvp system functioning. Encouraging people to fight back instead of just ignoring people they know won't kill them anyway.

This isn't really all in response to you Azherae. I kinda just went off with it. I didn't intend to write this much earlier today because I don't care all that much anymore. I think I see where this is all heading, and the inevitability of it.

But I can't lie, I'm gonna be playing either way lol

The Corruption system is so harsh that the system itself is a griefing machine while player killing is not

In the future always report Steven for griefing, since it's his system

Ludullu

What if?! WHAT IF?! This was just a preparation for a reveal of Intrepid following my suggestion and making corruption cleansing pace faster and linking victim loot to them and adding a BH system that promotes returning of that loot, and PKer's items will only start dropping after all of the victim's loot drops?!?!

Hinotori

NiKr wrote: »

What if?! WHAT IF?! This was just a preparation for a reveal of Intrepid following my suggestion and making corruption cleansing pace faster and linking victim loot to them and adding a BH system that promotes returning of that loot, and PKer's items will only start dropping after all of the victim's loot drops?!?!

We'll get you help for that copium overdose.

Xenra

Seems like so many are crying that they cant have their cake and eat it too. You want to kill those who are gathering materials to steal their materials then run to your base to safely deposit them in your storage. Sounds like a cowardly hit and run to protect your spoils. Likely the locking of access to storage is to make you hold onto the hot merchandise to be then stripped from you in counter pvp. But if the trolls want their storage so bad why not let them have access to it. However if they are killed while red let those BH and players seeking revenge have access to loot from their storage via their body. Let the red player become the loot pinata and ravage their coffers into being gearless, penniless, materialless scum.

@NiKr I mean, your idea about this is one of the best so far, this makes the PK a Golden Axe gnome!