This pertains to the hardcore challenge part of the game, which you're not interested in so you probably wouldn't get the reasoning behind it.
Uh. I don't think hardcore challenge is causing my confusion.
In Ashes, an open world dungeon would be a dangerous PvX location. Not a dangerous PvE location.
And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons.
Uh. I don't think hardcore challenge is causing my confusion.
In Ashes, an open world dungeon would be a dangerous PvX location. Not a dangerous PvE location.
And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons.
OK. So, here you really just mean a permanent POI that we expect will frequently be contested??
I'm simply talking about the difficulty of pve. If it's high - the pvx interactions and the corruption/flagging up thought process will be of a certain type. If it's super low - those things will be of a completely different kind.
I want hardcore pve (in certain locations, which dungeons will most likely be a part of as well), which will lead to the type of thought processes I prefer in pvx mmos.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean... why would the PvE difficulty not be "high"??
I can't tell if you think this is good gameplay or not. Personally I think it's convoluted and entirely avoidable with my suggestions to have corruption lead into truly severe penalties once it can qualify as griefing. But as it is, I'll exploit as much as I can in A2 to make my points. Only real way to go about it is to try to actually break it.
I think it's a shitty solution to a shitty problem. But your suggestion is also breakable by "our tank PKs their healer; they try to kill our tank, while he kills them, because he's healed by our healer".
My current belief is that the easiest and best way to balance the system is to have the time to return to your death location roughly at the same length as the time required to remove corruption from a single kill of an equally-lvled character.
At that point, flagging up is more beneficial because it saves you time. And time is always the only resource that ultimately matters in an mmo.
Obviously you could hope that your killer has a few PKs under his belt and it would take him longer to clear his corruption (or that someone else will kill him in the meantime), but that is exactly the risk/reward equation that Steven likes to talk about.
And that's the equation I've always considered in L2. But L2 only reduced your XP on death, so it was usually easier to just make your attacker a PKer. Ashes will have an even stronger push to flag up, which is exactly why I'm somewhat confused at a much harsher tuning for corruption's balancing.
But, just like you, I'll be testing this system as much as I can and give all the feedback I can. We'll see where we end up after that.
That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process.
And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal.
And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested.
In the context of corruption, it is stated to be meant to deter griefing, nothing else.
Pretty sure we agree on that, yes. Deterrent means keeping the (repeated) kill count of Non-Combatants low.
Not preventing the killing of Non-Combatants completely.
I mean... why would the PvE difficulty not be "high"??
That's exactly my point though. Right now it does not seem to be high. Neither are bosses. I want top value pve to be quite a bit harder, especially when you're farming it as a full party (we haven't seen that yet btw).
That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process.
It should be a 5+m thing if you were deep within a dungeon. And the value of content that deep would be the highest, so if you were attacked there you'd have to think twice before just dying to the attacker, because not only would you drop more of your super valuable loot, but you'd also waste time to return there (and would lose the spot as well).
And yes, I think that the first kill shouldn't give you more than a minute of mob farming (mobs in this case being the best ones available at your lvl, so obviously farming weaker mobs would take longer to remove the corruption).
And the subsequent PKs would increase that time diametrically, or at the very least at a parabolic pace.
And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal.
This is why I mentioned that I want difficult pve. Even if tank is not "killing" the healer, he'll still make healer's life way harder, which would remove that party from the spot, which is ultimately the point of the attack (well, preferably imo).
And we'll obviously have to see the balancing and archetype design, but there's a chance that a properly geared tank that's being solely targeted by a healer might outlive a 7v1 situation for long enough to decrease it to a lower Xv1 situation.
Though again, this would only happen if the tank is the one who does the finishing blow on the healer. If mobs are difficult and not fully controllable by the victim's party tank - the healer might be dying either way. Hell, if healers can simply aggro with overheal - they'll pull all the mobs, because the tank will make the healer overheal. So it'd be quite likely that the tank won't even become a PKer.
As for party distribution of corruption - I've already explained that it would just require for tank to leave their party for a minute. And I sure as fuck hope that healers don't become corrupted if they healer a Red player. I know that some people disagree with that though.
And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested.
PK count is there to prevent repetitive PKing. Which, iirc in your own words, is griefing. If people don't have a PK count and can just repetitively remove corruption and be completely fine to do the same amount of kills - that'll lead to a much bigger % of griefers.
That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process.
It should be a 5+m thing if you were deep within a dungeon. And the value of content that deep would be the highest, so if you were attacked there you'd have to think twice before just dying to the attacker, because not only would you drop more of your super valuable loot, but you'd also waste time to return there (and would lose the spot as well).
And yes, I think that the first kill shouldn't give you more than a minute of mob farming (mobs in this case being the best ones available at your lvl, so obviously farming weaker mobs would take longer to remove the corruption).
And the subsequent PKs would increase that time diametrically, or at the very least at a parabolic pace.
I see what you mean now, that does make sense. The trade-off is that if you dont fight back you lose that spot in the dungeon due to respawning purposely being a negative, so if you can fight back, its in your best interest. Got it. I can get on board with that design. just regular open areas may be a much different experience unless respawns displace you in a similar manner, which I am not against.
And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal.
This is why I mentioned that I want difficult pve. Even if tank is not "killing" the healer, he'll still make healer's life way harder, which would remove that party from the spot, which is ultimately the point of the attack (well, preferably imo).
And we'll obviously have to see the balancing and archetype design, but there's a chance that a properly geared tank that's being solely targeted by a healer might outlive a 7v1 situation for long enough to decrease it to a lower Xv1 situation.
Though again, this would only happen if the tank is the one who does the finishing blow on the healer. If mobs are difficult and not fully controllable by the victim's party tank - the healer might be dying either way. Hell, if healers can simply aggro with overheal - they'll pull all the mobs, because the tank will make the healer overheal. So it'd be quite likely that the tank won't even become a PKer.
As for party distribution of corruption - I've already explained that it would just require for tank to leave their party for a minute. And I sure as fuck hope that healers don't become corrupted if they healer a Red player. I know that some people disagree with that though.
I feel like this issue is also mostly addressed with the previous point, since realistically most full group content will take place in dungeon type content if we go by how most content is played in pretty much any MMO. I am on the fence with group corruption myself, but at the very least I dont believe a non-corrupt player should be able to aid a corrupt player, or at least not be able to without also becoming corrupt. But thats just me. I also have suggested to grant corruption to players who deal a certain % of damage to non-combatants who die to mobs to prevent the issue you have mentioned, it'd be hard for a player to determine since you dont know that players total health, nor accurate current health.
And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested.
PK count is there to prevent repetitive PKing. Which, iirc in your own words, is griefing. If people don't have a PK count and can just repetitively remove corruption and be completely fine to do the same amount of kills - that'll lead to a much bigger % of griefers.
In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.
just regular open areas may be a much different experience unless respawns displace you in a similar manner, which I am not against.
Which is intended, because open areas would most likely be the places that majority of casual/non-pvp players will attend. And if PKers have issues easily PKing there - it's a win for the casuals and a win for Steven's goal of reduced griefing.
In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.
Imo this kind of system heavily benefits pvers, while still allowing for griefing but on an even bigger scale.
Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.
In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.
The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.
But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.
Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.
And as for the "benefit" I mentioned at the start, this system pretty much creates karmabombing for anyone who'd be willing to PK others several times instead of winning against them through pve.
The pver would just keep dying and returning to the same location. Pver doesn't care that his farm is not optimal, so completely removing his attacker from the location (due to a risk of getting recognized as a griefer by the system) would be the preferable way.
You could probably add some type of counter to such an action in the form of a movement tracker, where the victim would be tracked to see whether they kept returning to die at the hands of the same person, but I feel like this would complicate things even futher than your suggestion already does
And I know that the current system allows for karmabombing as well, but imo it also pushes PKing pvpers to try and win through pve.
Your system won't have consequences outside of singular interactions (repeatable kills within a timeframe being one of them) and it also allows for small genocides of groups. So any PKing pvper would see that and think "ah, so I can kill quite a few people and repeat that several times across a longer time period w/o getting properly punished, cool".
Current system would stop that line of thought at a fairly low number of PKs (well, if I my preferred balancing was implemented). So those same PKers would know immediately that PKing someone a few times would have a long-lasting impact on their gameplay, so it would be silly to even attempt it (obviously some still will).
In other words, my preferred system would force both sides to submit to the system rather than try to push for its extremes because it seems like a good idea. PKers would be crippled relatively fast and would be made to pve their way out of their PK count, while pvers would still be benefited (due to the overall lessened repetition of PKing) but could still be forcefully PKed from time to time.
Obviously the balancing would be a pretty tightrope walk of a design, but that's kinda inevitable when you're trying to appease both sides.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I mean... why would the PvE difficulty not be "high"??
That's exactly my point though. Right now it does not seem to be high. Neither are bosses. I want top value pve to be quite a bit harder, especially when you're farming it as a full party (we haven't seen that yet btw).
Because we’re still in Alpha and difficulty is not yet balanced??
PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
PvE players want a great PvE experience not just the ability to survive in a PvP world. Or to grief PvPers.
PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers.
They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot.
But PvE-ers got nothing.
In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers.
You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection.
Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game?
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Which is intended, because open areas would most likely be the places that majority of casual/non-pvp players will attend. And if PKers have issues easily PKing there - it's a win for the casuals and a win for Steven's goal of reduced griefing.
Most likely Casual/Non-PvP players will not be playing Ashes.
Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.
I would say those gamers are pretty much PvPers who wish to remain Non-Combatants for that moment.
In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.
Yeah. I think Corruption is designed to keep the PKing of Greens on the Mainland to a “minimum”, so that gamers rarely choose to PK a Green. Most of the PvP is intended to be in Corruption-free locations (temporary and permanent PvP locations), basically with Purples.
The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.
Well, Steven is highly unlikely to add deleveling to Ashes.
But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.
Steven’s version of Corruption appears to be designed so that after a couple of PKs, the PKer strives to start working on getting rid of Corruption. Dying is one of the fastest ways to do that, so the main reason to avoid being killed by a Green is ego.
Again, there is also the “Karma” of the PKer being pushed to make a similar decision to not fight back that they caused their Green victims to make. Because gaining even more Corruption by killing more Greens (even “aggressive Greens”) is less than ideal.
It is intended to feel less than ideal.
Same as the Non-Combatants felt when they were PKed.
Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.
That’s hyperbolic phrasing I think, but…
Probably more likely that the Non-Combatants who were PKed could defend themselves if they wanted to.
The bigger problem would be the PKer escaping the Oranges…thereby bypassing the intended intensity of punishment for inflicting non-coslnsensual PvP on other players.
Corruption is intended to significantly punish even one instance of non-consensual PvP; not just griefing.
Yeah. I think Corruption is designed to keep the PKing of Greens on the Mainland to a “minimum”, so that gamers rarely choose to PK a Green. Most of the PvP is intended to be in Corruption-free locations (temporary and permanent PvP locations), basically with Purples.
And we agree on this assumption. And I'm fairly sure that PKing will be super rare even if my suggestion gets implemented. Purely due to how the content will be designed and because the game is group-based and I don't think that groups would just sit there and not retaliate (I might be wrong in this assumption). Especially in the context of group-based content.
Well, Steven is highly unlikely to add deleveling to Ashes.
Which is why "de-lving" was in quotes, which in that case were air quotes. XP debt will reduce your character's strength, which, in effect, functions the same way as a de-lvl.
That’s hyperbolic phrasing I think, but…
Probably more likely that the Non-Combatants who were PKed could defend themselves if they wanted to.
The bigger problem would be the PKer escaping the Oranges…thereby bypassing the intended intensity of punishment for inflicting non-coslnsensual PvP on other players.
I was talking about the Oranges. In the context of a group of weak players getting attacked by a stronger PKer, all of them would become orange after the first death (that is if they tried fighting back). And if that PKer is strong enough - the oranges will all die w/o a single one giving more corruption to the killer.
Imo that's a bad design that will just lead to griefing.
Corruption is intended to significantly punish even one instance of non-consensual PvP; not just griefing.
Yes, we agree. Even the first PK would be harshly punished if the players gets killed while red. I'm just saying that subsequent PKs should increase the chance of that punishment getting applied to the PKer. The current system does exactly that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Yep, yep.
Mostly agreeing with you. Just nitpicking.
Seems to me those consequences are not enough of a deterrent for killing Non-Combatants.
But, I'd want to see whether L2 players agree with me.
There isn't supposed to be a detterent for killing non-combatants, only griefing.
Remains to be seen how Steven will swing the hammer of "everything is subject to change" during Alpha 2.
Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route
I had to read many times the corruption rules on wiki to understand that ganking is allowed.
The way Steven mixes that with other statements makes me feel that he tries to dispell some fear. And combined with his recent change of purple and red not being able to CC non-combatants, shows he tries to increase protection on land.
But increased protection should not be confused with more resources with fewer risks, unless Steven will want that too.
If risk vs reward is important for him, then probably increased protection will lead to no rewards.
If player cooperation is more important, then ganking will exist just as a possibility, a pressure to encourage cooperation. Ganking might end up not practical on land. On islands in the ocean maybe.
If players will end up enjoying gathering, ganking gatherers and the open sea more than the caravans, I am curious if Steven will put presure to bring players back to caravans and castle sieges.
Many things can change during Alpha 2, if all these features are present.
I got confused when I split your short post here instead of keeping in one.
But I would like to know your opinion about my post where I said
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would not get more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after 5 minutes elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after 5 minutes elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
The statement above I adjusted a bit the next post so I will use points this time to describe it more clearly:
- when a green is killed, all greens in the area close to where it died will be marked as "witnesses"
- a timer of 5 minutes would be set and would start and keep running only if the player is outside the area where the kill occurred
- green players which are not witnesses, would be "acting as" bounty hunters if they fight the corrupt player outside the area. But they would not have the BH ability to see the corrupt on map or other bonuses the BH may get. That means the corrupt player will be able to fight against them like against real BH and with the same consequences.
- "witnesses" killed before the 5 minute timer elapsed would increase the corruption. After the 5 minute elapsed, they would also start "acting as" BH
- the greens "acting as" BH against a corrupt player would remain in this state for a period of 90 seconds following their most recent attack on this corrupt player
With these adjustments I try to bring the Bounty Hunters to have equal chances with greens to catch the corrupt, otherwise they are in disadvantage.
So, would you agree with this adjustment?
Do you see any problems with it?
Again, you're looking for a compromise where there's no need for one. Reds "fighting it off" with greens that consent to fight is not an issue that needs addressing, you simply: 1) remove the random-ass penalty that reds get here; 2) allow greens to reduce their death penalty in half by hitting red, then move on. Punish griefing/excessive PKing, not consensual PvP. Meanwhile you're trying to overcomplicate the system for zero gain.
I got confused when I split your short post here instead of keeping in one.
But I would like to know your opinion about my post where I said
Would it be acceptable if the corrupt player would not get more corruption when defending against new greens (not involved into the original fight) only after 5 minutes elapsed and only if the corrupt left the area and is running away?
Because after 5 minutes elapsed, I see greens hunting and attacking corrupts more like Bounty Hunters and competing with them. Or helping them.
The statement above I adjusted a bit the next post so I will use points this time to describe it more clearly:
- when a green is killed, all greens in the area close to where it died will be marked as "witnesses"
- a timer of 5 minutes would be set and would start and keep running only if the player is outside the area where the kill occurred
- green players which are not witnesses, would be "acting as" bounty hunters if they fight the corrupt player outside the area. But they would not have the BH ability to see the corrupt on map or other bonuses the BH may get. That means the corrupt player will be able to fight against them like against real BH and with the same consequences.
- "witnesses" killed before the 5 minute timer elapsed would increase the corruption. After the 5 minute elapsed, they would also start "acting as" BH
- the greens "acting as" BH against a corrupt player would remain in this state for a period of 90 seconds following their most recent attack on this corrupt player
With these adjustments I try to bring the Bounty Hunters to have equal chances with greens to catch the corrupt, otherwise they are in disadvantage.
So, would you agree with this adjustment?
Do you see any problems with it?
Again, you're looking for a compromise where there's no need for one. Reds "fighting it off" with greens that consent to fight is not an issue that needs addressing, you simply: 1) remove the random-ass penalty that reds get here; 2) allow greens to reduce their death penalty in half by hitting red, then move on. Punish griefing/excessive PKing, not consensual PvP. Meanwhile you're trying to overcomplicate the system for zero gain.
Then I think it should stay as it is until Alpha 2 when we have concrete data.
PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
PvE players want a great PvE experience not just the ability to survive in a PvP world. Or to grief PvPers.
PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers.
They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot.
But PvE-ers got nothing.
In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers.
You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection.
Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game?
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
pvers have everything. you have to pve in this game to progress. there isnt a progression path in this game that you can do withot pve. you might have to pvp sometimes during that progression though, or you might just talk to people and ally them. that is up to player. other players can be an obstacle which turns the game into a pvx experience.
if you want to do just pve and 0 pvp..oh well sucks to suck
PvEers, especially PvE griefers, will have a field day in AoC if the corruption system remains as is.
PvE players want a great PvE experience not just the ability to survive in a PvP world. Or to grief PvPers.
PvP players want a great PvP experience not just the ability to survive in a PvE world. Or to grief PvEers.
They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot.
But PvE-ers got nothing.
In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers.
You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection.
Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game?
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
pvers have everything. you have to pve in this game to progress. there isnt a progression path in this game that you can do withot pve. you might have to pvp sometimes during that progression though, or you might just talk to people and ally them. that is up to player. other players can be an obstacle which turns the game into a pvx experience.
if you want to do just pve and 0 pvp..oh well sucks to suck
I don't know how leveling will be in AoC.
If you say it is an important aspect for PvEers, I will take your word and hope IS makes a good job with the story to attract many players. Maybe that's why they say we will have a "comfortable" number of character slots.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route
I mean... Steven considers The Open Seas to be opt-in. That's open world.
Sieges and Caravans are also opt-in. Those are open world.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
It's not the Meaningful Conflict that makes Ashes a Themebox.
What makes Ashes a Themebox rather than a Sandbox is the dev curated stories and events; not the player-driven stories and events.
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
It's not the Meaningful Conflict that makes Ashes a Themebox.
What makes Ashes a Themebox rather than a Sandbox is the dev curated stories and events; not the player-driven stories and events.
Indeed. I checked again and I misunderstood.
I am curious now how this themebox concept will be, if players will love it.
just regular open areas may be a much different experience unless respawns displace you in a similar manner, which I am not against.
Which is intended, because open areas would most likely be the places that majority of casual/non-pvp players will attend. And if PKers have issues easily PKing there - it's a win for the casuals and a win for Steven's goal of reduced griefing.
This is only a win if it is deterring griefing without also making a non-griefing kill a death sentence in terms of punishment. I'd actually be fine with shorter death runs in open areas as opposed to dungeons, but I'd still say any non-combatant engaging a corrupted player should not reward more corruption. But the shorter run back adds for much more urgency on the corrupteds part out in the open. Where in the dungeon you are much more inclined to defend yourself should you get engaged by other players.
In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.
Imo this kind of system heavily benefits pvers, while still allowing for griefing but on an even bigger scale.
Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.
In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.
The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.
But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.
Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.
And as for the "benefit" I mentioned at the start, this system pretty much creates karmabombing for anyone who'd be willing to PK others several times instead of winning against them through pve.
The pver would just keep dying and returning to the same location. Pver doesn't care that his farm is not optimal, so completely removing his attacker from the location (due to a risk of getting recognized as a griefer by the system) would be the preferable way.
You could probably add some type of counter to such an action in the form of a movement tracker, where the victim would be tracked to see whether they kept returning to die at the hands of the same person, but I feel like this would complicate things even futher than your suggestion already does
And I know that the current system allows for karmabombing as well, but imo it also pushes PKing pvpers to try and win through pve.
Your system won't have consequences outside of singular interactions (repeatable kills within a timeframe being one of them) and it also allows for small genocides of groups. So any PKing pvper would see that and think "ah, so I can kill quite a few people and repeat that several times across a longer time period w/o getting properly punished, cool".
Current system would stop that line of thought at a fairly low number of PKs (well, if I my preferred balancing was implemented). So those same PKers would know immediately that PKing someone a few times would have a long-lasting impact on their gameplay, so it would be silly to even attempt it (obviously some still will).
In other words, my preferred system would force both sides to submit to the system rather than try to push for its extremes because it seems like a good idea. PKers would be crippled relatively fast and would be made to pve their way out of their PK count, while pvers would still be benefited (due to the overall lessened repetition of PKing) but could still be forcefully PKed from time to time.
Obviously the balancing would be a pretty tightrope walk of a design, but that's kinda inevitable when you're trying to appease both sides.
To clarify, kills would also have variables in my system as well. And to be honest, while I don't consider 10 separate players being killed as griefing, I'd say that in order to maintain a sense of balance, I'd simply have them ramp a bit. So for example, for each consecutive non-combatant PK you get within a certain time, let's say within 10 minutes of the last kill, each one ramps up the next in terms of corruption and resets that timer, so if you go on a spree, you exponentially ramp your corruption if you dont rake a breather. So you wouldn't necessarily be able to just go clear out an area en masse easily. It's also a low enough time to not be crazy restrictive. And it still allows for a player not griefing, to not be punished as badly as a griefer. This is one of several variables obviously but either way, I think we both agree that there should be more than just "kill the non-combatant and you're in serious trouble". But I will say after reading through some of Steven's quotes again, he seems to have an outlook more along the lines of 20ish kills before a corrupted player really starts to feel the penalties which is surprising.
And as a side-note. A PKer isn't a dick, only a griefer is.
And also, if a player with corruption is still able to outplay someone of equal level, then more power to that corrupted player they earned it.
Sure, but with that change you'd get rid of OWPvP and a lot of risk vs reward as a result, so it's extremely unlikely if not impossible that he would go the full on opt-in route
I mean... Steven considers The Open Seas to be opt-in. That's open world.
Sieges and Caravans are also opt-in. Those are open world.
Opt-in in the sense that you are knowingly signing up for those. You don't get to decide how you are flagged in any of those. You can't hop into a caravan fight as a non-combatant. And this further proves my point of a possibility of an unintentional opt-in system if corruption is too strict. If you make it where engaging is too punishing, PvP is no longer a large risk in Open World. It needs to have risks in and of itself, but those need to be near equal to the risk of doing nothing.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Um. I don't really understand how a Non-Combatant fights unless it's against a monster.
If a Green enters the zoi of a Caravan, they can choose to flag as a Defender or Attacker.
And Corruption does not apply to Caravan raids.
There is already a plan to tweak Corruption so that it does not feel so punishing that the Bounty Hunter system is useless.
Um. I don't really understand how a Non-Combatant fights unless it's against a monster.
If a Green enters the zoi of a Caravan, they can choose to flag as a Defender or Attacker.
And Corruption does not apply to Caravan raids.
There is already a plan to tweak Corruption so that it does not feel so punishing that the Bounty Hunter system is useless.
To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope. You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system. As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing. Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.
Comments
In Ashes, an open world dungeon would be a dangerous PvX location. Not a dangerous PvE location.
And there should be plenty of areas across the Mainland with dangerous mobs to be fought and contested over that are not dungeons.
OK. So, here you really just mean a permanent POI that we expect will frequently be contested??
I want hardcore pve (in certain locations, which dungeons will most likely be a part of as well), which will lead to the type of thought processes I prefer in pvx mmos.
That's actually a fair point with time to remove corruption and death run time. But wouldn't that mean a single PK would only infringe like...30 seconds to 2 minutes of corruption realistically? Personally that seems a bit low to me for any amount of corruption, but you also don't want every death run back to your body to be a 5+ minute process.
And to be fair on the tank subject, I don't think a "tank" spec class should be able to take down a healer considering the role types in PvP. Tank wont do enough damage to outplay the heals, healer wont do enough damage to put a dent in the tank. Pretty much a stalemate when it comes down to the rock paper scissors. And that's also assuming there is only 1 healer. But regardless, in that scenario utilizing my 4th flag, the tank would become corrupt if the healer didn't fight back, allowing all non-combatants to engage him while still granting corruption to any combatants or non-combatants that decide to jump in and kill them. But that entire conversation goes back to a previous point I made about group balancing around corruption needing to be done, simply because of the whole sending 1 player to force the other teams hand deal.
And I still don't entirely agree with the Cumulative PK thing. It will really come down to just how long they take to work off, but when you have already paid your dues through corruption, I dont see why to continue it. One compromise maybe is to decrease them upon death while corrupted, allowing build up the more you get away with corruption, but again it just needs tested.
In the context of corruption, it is stated to be meant to deter griefing, nothing else.
Not preventing the killing of Non-Combatants completely.
and killing a non-combatant is not inherently griefing.
It should be a 5+m thing if you were deep within a dungeon. And the value of content that deep would be the highest, so if you were attacked there you'd have to think twice before just dying to the attacker, because not only would you drop more of your super valuable loot, but you'd also waste time to return there (and would lose the spot as well).
And yes, I think that the first kill shouldn't give you more than a minute of mob farming (mobs in this case being the best ones available at your lvl, so obviously farming weaker mobs would take longer to remove the corruption).
And the subsequent PKs would increase that time diametrically, or at the very least at a parabolic pace.
This is why I mentioned that I want difficult pve. Even if tank is not "killing" the healer, he'll still make healer's life way harder, which would remove that party from the spot, which is ultimately the point of the attack (well, preferably imo).
And we'll obviously have to see the balancing and archetype design, but there's a chance that a properly geared tank that's being solely targeted by a healer might outlive a 7v1 situation for long enough to decrease it to a lower Xv1 situation.
Though again, this would only happen if the tank is the one who does the finishing blow on the healer. If mobs are difficult and not fully controllable by the victim's party tank - the healer might be dying either way. Hell, if healers can simply aggro with overheal - they'll pull all the mobs, because the tank will make the healer overheal. So it'd be quite likely that the tank won't even become a PKer.
As for party distribution of corruption - I've already explained that it would just require for tank to leave their party for a minute. And I sure as fuck hope that healers don't become corrupted if they healer a Red player. I know that some people disagree with that though.
PK count is there to prevent repetitive PKing. Which, iirc in your own words, is griefing. If people don't have a PK count and can just repetitively remove corruption and be completely fine to do the same amount of kills - that'll lead to a much bigger % of griefers.
I feel like this issue is also mostly addressed with the previous point, since realistically most full group content will take place in dungeon type content if we go by how most content is played in pretty much any MMO. I am on the fence with group corruption myself, but at the very least I dont believe a non-corrupt player should be able to aid a corrupt player, or at least not be able to without also becoming corrupt. But thats just me. I also have suggested to grant corruption to players who deal a certain % of damage to non-combatants who die to mobs to prevent the issue you have mentioned, it'd be hard for a player to determine since you dont know that players total health, nor accurate current health.
In my words I refer to it as a certain amount of non-combatant kills within a small amount of time against a single player. You could get 10 PKs, all against different players in 30 minutes, that isn't griefing. Do all of that to a single player in 30 minutes, thats camping, which is griefing. Repetition requires the same variable over and over. With my earlier suggestion of variable corruption through tiers, you could potentially utilize a system that accumulates how many times you enter a Tier of corruption that could be designated as qualification to be a griefer at that point, increasing the amount of corruption you gain in that way and having to work that off instead. In that way you'd be able to differentiate PvPers from griefers, deter griefing specifically, and with those limitations in place you would also be theoretically spacing out non-combatant kills enough to maintain a healthy OWPvP system, and also prevent/deter PVE players from getting griefed by a player. Let me know what you think of this.
Imo this kind of system heavily benefits pvers, while still allowing for griefing but on an even bigger scale.
Say there's a group of casual players just doing their stuff, minding their own business. And there's a PKer dick who wants to mess with them. The PKer has a glass cannon character with low-mid tier gear, that he has multiple sets of.
In your system the PKer would be able to just come to the location of that party and kill them all w/o really gaining all that much corruption. And he could potentially do so multiple times (depending on your limit for what counts as griefing by the game). Hell, if your timers are somewhat short, he could cycle the victims in such a way that the "grief detector" doesn't even trigger, because his first victim was killed enough time ago for it to not be considered a repeated offense.
The character would obviously lose stats and potentially some gear, but the PKer has a ton of that gear and a build that allows him to die several times w/o becoming completely useless in battle. And considering that "non-griefing" kills would give lower amounts of corruption (in your system, if I understand it correctly), he wouldn't even have to die all that many times. Even if he "de-lvls" several times, his build will still allow him to kill the victims. And, once again, PKing means no retaliation, so you wouldn't even need all that much dmg.
But in the current system he'd, at best, make 5-6 kills and would already start feeling the effects. He'd have to die multiple times after each kill, so his decent into reduced stats would be much faster. His high amount of corruption after a single kill would also immediately mean that he might not even be able to kill another player.
Also also! In your suggestion, those casuals wouldn't even be able to properly defend themselves because the PKer might be skilled enough to kill anyone who attacks him when he's red. And he wouldn't even gain more corruption, because you consider that a bad thing for this system.
And as for the "benefit" I mentioned at the start, this system pretty much creates karmabombing for anyone who'd be willing to PK others several times instead of winning against them through pve.
The pver would just keep dying and returning to the same location. Pver doesn't care that his farm is not optimal, so completely removing his attacker from the location (due to a risk of getting recognized as a griefer by the system) would be the preferable way.
You could probably add some type of counter to such an action in the form of a movement tracker, where the victim would be tracked to see whether they kept returning to die at the hands of the same person, but I feel like this would complicate things even futher than your suggestion already does
And I know that the current system allows for karmabombing as well, but imo it also pushes PKing pvpers to try and win through pve.
Your system won't have consequences outside of singular interactions (repeatable kills within a timeframe being one of them) and it also allows for small genocides of groups. So any PKing pvper would see that and think "ah, so I can kill quite a few people and repeat that several times across a longer time period w/o getting properly punished, cool".
Current system would stop that line of thought at a fairly low number of PKs (well, if I my preferred balancing was implemented). So those same PKers would know immediately that PKing someone a few times would have a long-lasting impact on their gameplay, so it would be silly to even attempt it (obviously some still will).
In other words, my preferred system would force both sides to submit to the system rather than try to push for its extremes because it seems like a good idea. PKers would be crippled relatively fast and would be made to pve their way out of their PK count, while pvers would still be benefited (due to the overall lessened repetition of PKing) but could still be forcefully PKed from time to time.
Obviously the balancing would be a pretty tightrope walk of a design, but that's kinda inevitable when you're trying to appease both sides.
They got the deep ocean and even on land, the footprint of the node after siege, to fight for loot.
But PvE-ers got nothing.
In this thread we talk about ganker PvP-ers vs gatherers PvP-ers.
You cannot sell this game to PvE-ers telling them to go collect resources like bots, even if they get more protection.
Not sure why Steven is sensitive to big youtubers. Does he really think he can bring many PvE players into the game?
I've seen yesterday an old post, which explains that Steven thinks sandbox games are made with little curated content. So starting from a PvP concept, tries to make it more attractive by adding caravans, sieges, guild wars... and calls the game a themebox.
I would say those gamers are pretty much PvPers who wish to remain Non-Combatants for that moment.
Yeah. I think Corruption is designed to keep the PKing of Greens on the Mainland to a “minimum”, so that gamers rarely choose to PK a Green. Most of the PvP is intended to be in Corruption-free locations (temporary and permanent PvP locations), basically with Purples.
Well, Steven is highly unlikely to add deleveling to Ashes.
Steven’s version of Corruption appears to be designed so that after a couple of PKs, the PKer strives to start working on getting rid of Corruption. Dying is one of the fastest ways to do that, so the main reason to avoid being killed by a Green is ego.
Again, there is also the “Karma” of the PKer being pushed to make a similar decision to not fight back that they caused their Green victims to make. Because gaining even more Corruption by killing more Greens (even “aggressive Greens”) is less than ideal.
It is intended to feel less than ideal.
Same as the Non-Combatants felt when they were PKed.
That’s hyperbolic phrasing I think, but…
Probably more likely that the Non-Combatants who were PKed could defend themselves if they wanted to.
The bigger problem would be the PKer escaping the Oranges…thereby bypassing the intended intensity of punishment for inflicting non-coslnsensual PvP on other players.
Corruption is intended to significantly punish even one instance of non-consensual PvP; not just griefing.
The reply above applies.
And we agree on this assumption. And I'm fairly sure that PKing will be super rare even if my suggestion gets implemented. Purely due to how the content will be designed and because the game is group-based and I don't think that groups would just sit there and not retaliate (I might be wrong in this assumption). Especially in the context of group-based content.
Which is why "de-lving" was in quotes, which in that case were air quotes. XP debt will reduce your character's strength, which, in effect, functions the same way as a de-lvl.
I was talking about the Oranges. In the context of a group of weak players getting attacked by a stronger PKer, all of them would become orange after the first death (that is if they tried fighting back). And if that PKer is strong enough - the oranges will all die w/o a single one giving more corruption to the killer.
Imo that's a bad design that will just lead to griefing.
Yes, we agree. Even the first PK would be harshly punished if the players gets killed while red. I'm just saying that subsequent PKs should increase the chance of that punishment getting applied to the PKer. The current system does exactly that.
Mostly agreeing with you. Just nitpicking.
I had to read many times the corruption rules on wiki to understand that ganking is allowed.
The way Steven mixes that with other statements makes me feel that he tries to dispell some fear. And combined with his recent change of purple and red not being able to CC non-combatants, shows he tries to increase protection on land.
But increased protection should not be confused with more resources with fewer risks, unless Steven will want that too.
If risk vs reward is important for him, then probably increased protection will lead to no rewards.
If player cooperation is more important, then ganking will exist just as a possibility, a pressure to encourage cooperation. Ganking might end up not practical on land. On islands in the ocean maybe.
If players will end up enjoying gathering, ganking gatherers and the open sea more than the caravans, I am curious if Steven will put presure to bring players back to caravans and castle sieges.
Many things can change during Alpha 2, if all these features are present.
Then I think it should stay as it is until Alpha 2 when we have concrete data.
pvers have everything. you have to pve in this game to progress. there isnt a progression path in this game that you can do withot pve. you might have to pvp sometimes during that progression though, or you might just talk to people and ally them. that is up to player. other players can be an obstacle which turns the game into a pvx experience.
if you want to do just pve and 0 pvp..oh well sucks to suck
I don't know how leveling will be in AoC.
If you say it is an important aspect for PvEers, I will take your word and hope IS makes a good job with the story to attract many players. Maybe that's why they say we will have a "comfortable" number of character slots.
Sieges and Caravans are also opt-in. Those are open world.
What makes Ashes a Themebox rather than a Sandbox is the dev curated stories and events; not the player-driven stories and events.
I am curious now how this themebox concept will be, if players will love it.
This is only a win if it is deterring griefing without also making a non-griefing kill a death sentence in terms of punishment. I'd actually be fine with shorter death runs in open areas as opposed to dungeons, but I'd still say any non-combatant engaging a corrupted player should not reward more corruption. But the shorter run back adds for much more urgency on the corrupteds part out in the open. Where in the dungeon you are much more inclined to defend yourself should you get engaged by other players.
To clarify, kills would also have variables in my system as well. And to be honest, while I don't consider 10 separate players being killed as griefing, I'd say that in order to maintain a sense of balance, I'd simply have them ramp a bit. So for example, for each consecutive non-combatant PK you get within a certain time, let's say within 10 minutes of the last kill, each one ramps up the next in terms of corruption and resets that timer, so if you go on a spree, you exponentially ramp your corruption if you dont rake a breather. So you wouldn't necessarily be able to just go clear out an area en masse easily. It's also a low enough time to not be crazy restrictive. And it still allows for a player not griefing, to not be punished as badly as a griefer. This is one of several variables obviously but either way, I think we both agree that there should be more than just "kill the non-combatant and you're in serious trouble". But I will say after reading through some of Steven's quotes again, he seems to have an outlook more along the lines of 20ish kills before a corrupted player really starts to feel the penalties which is surprising.
And as a side-note. A PKer isn't a dick, only a griefer is.
And also, if a player with corruption is still able to outplay someone of equal level, then more power to that corrupted player they earned it.
Opt-in in the sense that you are knowingly signing up for those. You don't get to decide how you are flagged in any of those. You can't hop into a caravan fight as a non-combatant. And this further proves my point of a possibility of an unintentional opt-in system if corruption is too strict. If you make it where engaging is too punishing, PvP is no longer a large risk in Open World. It needs to have risks in and of itself, but those need to be near equal to the risk of doing nothing.
If a Green enters the zoi of a Caravan, they can choose to flag as a Defender or Attacker.
And Corruption does not apply to Caravan raids.
There is already a plan to tweak Corruption so that it does not feel so punishing that the Bounty Hunter system is useless.
To be involved in the event, you must become a combatant. You can't be involved as either a non-combatant or a combatant, so to say you are opting for a status for this is more or less a cope. You would just as easily be able to do this on a PVE server. It has no real relation to the OWPvP flagging system. As for Open Ocean, its simply a lawless part of the world, there's no regulation to moderate griefing there which severely increases the risk factor, though I do have another idea to add a bit more risk there which I will pitch if it feels needed after some testing. Compared to the mainland, that is regulated with corruption to deter griefing gameplay, which as it is currently designed is walking a thin line between a system to keep OWPvP interactions balanced and fun, or overcompensating and outright turning PvP on the mainland into a death sentence. But I trust with enough testing it will indeed end up in a comfortable place that allows for sufficient PvP engagement and encouragement, while deterring players from griefing. But I will still toss ideas out there since I do believe that corruption as it is currently explained, needs a lot of work.