1. I don't get honor PvP. Tbh I have only WoW experience in MMO genre. But who judges when its honor PK and when its grief PK? This looks like the messiest solution out there to me.
In my experience, the label of honor PvP is always self-applied.
There are two ways to make players be nice:
- rules enforced by the game
- law enforced by the players
I would prefer if the players in a node could influence some corruption attributes in the area influenced by that node.
Eventually that would also show which behavior leads to better defended nodes.
You can never force a positive behavior out of a negative situation. Nor can you make the player be nice.
What you can do is cause them to go else where by making sure the area is hostile towards their behavior.
They'll just take their bullshit elsewhere, which is the result you can strive for.
There are two ways to make players be nice:
- rules enforced by the game
- law enforced by the players
I would prefer if the players in a node could influence some corruption attributes in the area influenced by that node.
Eventually that would also show which behavior leads to better defended nodes.
I believe military nodes have this. Or at least, corruption isn't as big of a factor there.
Maybe wiki is not updated.
But I see that
"Honor is a potential currency earned through personal progression at military nodes"
Maybe they allow Honor PK too
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
0
Options
unknownsystemerrorMember, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
It falls into the probably, but no final answer currently category.
1
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I really don’t see the bounty hunter system being used much with how corruption is currently set up. It all seems super heavy handed to the point that I really don’t know why anyone would ever go corrupted unless it was on accident. I know what people including myself would say may be a reason to, but is it ever really worth it?
Personally I would like to see some changes to greens not flagging, corruption applying to all who participated in a PK(this would create more people to be hunted), and the accruing PK value, but it’s really whatever to me if they keep it this way. I just think the bounty hunter system is going to be pretty lack luster with how it is currently.
A 4th flag would make a group of players able to ignore corruption for the most part
A group of 8 players good at PvP decide to kill gatherers. They kill a gatherer and one goes red. Now they can do that 7 more times (different killer every time) and everyone is corrupt with one kill. During that time, any small force who attacks that group is going to get slaughtered. They'd be thrilled to be attacked, as the attacker is likely to drop something while orange and the group's corruption level will not go up. The only real danger is if a large PvP force decides to attack them. And at that point they're only 1 death in, so corruption levels are still "low"
The spiral of pain that is being corrupted and getting attacked by greens is the only real deterrent for a good group
This can happen regardless with the current system. Unrelated problem, but still a problem I agree. Goes back to a debate on whether or not a group can become corrupted as one
1. I don't get honor PvP. Tbh I have only WoW experience in MMO genre. But who judges when its honor PK and when its grief PK? This looks like the messiest solution out there to me.
2. In a rule based system, there are always ways to exploit it unless its so strict that is sucks all the fun out it.
allowing a bit of leniency so that OW PvP doesn't die.
For example, this leniency is where Griefers make their entry.
3. Why does the corruption system have to be so complex? What is SO BAD about a corrupted player getting additional corruption while defending himself? They didn't give the other player a choice when they gained corruption. Either die or don't go corrupt. I just don't get the sympathy for the corrupted player cuz it definitely wasn't by mistake and if there is some such possibility please explain to me how?
All the ways to get around this system is just game mechanics... Use them or dont. What is this search of some absolute justice in a subjective environment? Play single player.
The level of carebear and QQ... my god.
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
I really don’t see the bounty hunter system being used much with how corruption is currently set up. It all seems super heavy handed to the point that I really don’t know why anyone would ever go corrupted unless it was on accident. I know what people including myself would say may be a reason to, but is it ever really worth it?
Personally I would like to see some changes to greens not flagging, corruption applying to all who participated in a PK(this would create more people to be hunted), and the accruing PK value, but it’s really whatever to me if they keep it this way. I just think the bounty hunter system is going to be pretty lack luster with how it is currently.
1. I don't get honor PvP. Tbh I have only WoW experience in MMO genre. But who judges when its honor PK and when its grief PK? This looks like the messiest solution out there to me.
2. In a rule based system, there are always ways to exploit it unless its so strict that is sucks all the fun out it.
allowing a bit of leniency so that OW PvP doesn't die.
For example, this leniency is where Griefers make their entry.
3. Why does the corruption system have to be so complex? What is SO BAD about a corrupted player getting additional corruption while defending himself? They didn't give the other player a choice when they gained corruption. Either die or don't go corrupt. I just don't get the sympathy for the corrupted player cuz it definitely wasn't by mistake and if there is some such possibility please explain to me how?
All the ways to get around this system is just game mechanics... Use them or dont. What is this search of some absolute justice in a subjective environment? Play single player.
The level of carebear and QQ... my god.
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
Lotta people here assume all corruption is griefing, maybe in their minds some of us should tolerate it.
1. I don't get honor PvP. Tbh I have only WoW experience in MMO genre. But who judges when its honor PK and when its grief PK? This looks like the messiest solution out there to me.
In my experience, the label of honor PvP is always self-applied.
there were honor PK guilds with a strict CoC when I came up in PvP.
1. I don't get honor PvP. Tbh I have only WoW experience in MMO genre. But who judges when its honor PK and when its grief PK? This looks like the messiest solution out there to me.
You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
Pretty much honor PKs are about taking fair fights, not griefing PvE players, and defending/teachings noobs how to play.
And we never dry looted corpses, maybe the occasional spell reagant or arrows.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
0
Options
RavicusMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.
I am personally very against factions. What almost always tends to happen is once one faction even gets slightly ahead in numbers, a tidal wave of players flood into that one, completely unbalancing that system.
I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.
Faction-based systems is literally the reason why people hate pvp in mmos. WoW has taught people that PKing anyone for "good reasons, based on factions" is a normal thing. And in most faction-based games it is a normal thing. But this doesn't fall under the honor PKing mentality, because the game doesn't stop you from killing the other side's noobs. If anything, it'll probably even award you for doing so.
Ashes will already have node and guild wars that will allow for endless PKing of the "right" people. But even this still doesn't pertain to the honor PKing ideas of design. Which is why I asked my question.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
- I have already established I believe that the griefing itself should be what is punished with corruption, not acts such as fighting those who are attacking you.
- Perhaps a flagging of outsider node citizens would be flagged to the node where the scenario of anti environmental management is taking place. So if an outsider gathers materials, they are flagged to that nodes citizens. Gives risk to gathering in enemy nodes, enables an OW PvP objective for the nodes citizens to defend. If its too open ended, mayors could even have the ability to mark a certain amount and type of resources in the node allowed and not allowed to be taken, marking certain things with a warning that will flag those outside players, or even the citizens themselves. This could potentially also help manage players clearing out mobs to grief low level players.
- I do believe some things wont be able to be worked around unless GMs get involved, such as friends killing their corrupted friends so they dont lose gear. I suggested awhile ago that to deter this, half of the materials a corrupted player drops should just be destroyed, some hate this because its less loot for whoever kills them, but its also a guarantee that even if their friends kill them, they are losing. I even suggested that instead of dropping gear itself, the gear dropped is salvaged into materials akin to its power. That way if a friend still kills them, they still lost that item.
- PvE griefing would be incredibly hard to track as far as I can tell. But maybe if you aggro a mob, they somehow become linked with you, and if they switch to a different target before they leash and you dont assist that person with a certain amount of dps or heals, it could count as corruption. This may be able to utilize whatever system they are using to track damage of raid bosses for which raid group does the most damage and gets the loot.
- Add a tier system to Corruption. Each tier having progressively worse punishments and taking longer to reduce. You could even have it where they dont necessarily reduce the tier as you work it off, they just stay at the highest point until killed or worked off. That may even out your issue with my argument for defending oneself. Obviously certain kills will progress a player much quicker into corruption rather than something as simple as a few same level kills spread out enough or against different players.
- Group corruption is a tough one, because this can be griefed itself in a large fight. the 4 flagging status would mostly prevent the need for this, because if you killed the player attacking a corrupted player, you would still gain corruption. I do also believe a player healing a corrupted player should gain some corruption, or just not be able to. This would also prevent groups from just fast tracking a corrupted player working off their corruption in a dungeon or something.
- I think the stat debuffs of a corrupted player should start as a small but noticeable one, and ramp up relatively quickly. These dont translate over to fighting bounty hunters from what I remember, but I am thinking once a corrupted player hits mid tier corruption, fighting a normally even matched player should be something they want to avoid at all costs.
Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?
remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
Yeah, I'm actually working on that. I don't want to take away the corruption system (albeit I do want to rename it because the corruption flavor left when they took it off the ocean), but I've been looking at ways to expand it.
Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one
My main problem with this is coding it all into one simple-to-understand system Yeah, those are some reasonable details that might make the overall interactions between players better, but considering the confusion of people who've never experienced L2's system - I feel like even if Intrepid manages to somehow implement all of your suggestions into one wholistic system, people will just call it too confusing and then complain when they suffer at the hands of PKers, who understand the system well, or they themselves become PKers for a seemingly unknown reason.
The current system is dumb easy at its core. You had the last hit on a green player - you're fucked. That's it. No overcomplications, no intricate details, no real confusion.
As for your 7th suggestion, it just sounds like a more granular PK count. In theory it would probably be a good addition to the system. But I feel like in practice it would require the player nameplates to give us as much info about the target as possible, cause otherwise players wouldn't know who they're killing and why they got the consequences that they did.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?
remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
IMO you should be flagged as combatant no matter who you attack if you hit back you consent for a fight the only exception i think should be bounty hunter hitting a corrupted player however killing a bounty hunter shouldnt give further corruption if you are corrupted already.
I would even argue killing bounty hunter reduces your corruption slightly to incentives fighting back instead prioritising running away if you come across one.
Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one
My main problem with this is coding it all into one simple-to-understand system Yeah, those are some reasonable details that might make the overall interactions between players better, but considering the confusion of people who've never experienced L2's system - I feel like even if Intrepid manages to somehow implement all of your suggestions into one wholistic system, people will just call it too confusing and then complain when they suffer at the hands of PKers, who understand the system well, or they themselves become PKers for a seemingly unknown reason.
The current system is dumb easy at its core. You had the last hit on a green player - you're fucked. That's it. No overcomplications, no intricate details, no real confusion.
As for your 7th suggestion, it just sounds like a more granular PK count. In theory it would probably be a good addition to the system. But I feel like in practice it would require the player nameplates to give us as much info about the target as possible, cause otherwise players wouldn't know who they're killing and why they go the consequences that they did.
I mean simple is good, but if you keep it too simple with corruption as it is, you're inadvertently making an on-the-fly opt-in PvP game, which will kill OW PvP. Its more or less impossible to have a simple system that separates griefing PKs from non-griefing PKs.
I do agree that coding will be a lot to ask from Intrepid. And as far as players being able to understand the system, just have a quick reference for what gives corruption and how much, as well as an explanation of the tiers. The rest of the game is already a lot to take in, so I don't see why you have to make corruption for dummies.
And I have talked a lot about nameplate info for PvP. This could be as simple as using yellow, orange, and red to show a players tiers of corruption. Yellow could be Tier 1-2, orange 3-4, and red 5-6. At least as a quick recognition feature.
0
Options
HumblePuffinMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?
remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
Not exactly:
PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1]
Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4]
This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
Unless I missed it, I don't think you've laid out your vision for a proper context-based system. Do you have any ideas to maybe give Intrepid a full differing outlook on this?
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?
remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
Not exactly:
PK value (PK count/player kill count) is tracked by the total number of PKs (player kills) your character has committed over the course of the character's existence.[1]
Corruption score gains are influenced by the attacker's PK value.[4]
This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.
Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.
Comments
That is ok. They should go to other nodes.
Maybe wiki is not updated.
But I see that
"Honor is a potential currency earned through personal progression at military nodes"
Maybe they allow Honor PK too
It falls into the probably, but no final answer currently category.
Personally I would like to see some changes to greens not flagging, corruption applying to all who participated in a PK(this would create more people to be hunted), and the accruing PK value, but it’s really whatever to me if they keep it this way. I just think the bounty hunter system is going to be pretty lack luster with how it is currently.
This can happen regardless with the current system. Unrelated problem, but still a problem I agree. Goes back to a debate on whether or not a group can become corrupted as one
Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
Wait, I didn't say this lmao
They do indeed, though I think they are on the fence about only having bounty hunters at military nodes
Agreed
Well if he offers popcorn I’ll eat some
Lotta people here assume all corruption is griefing, maybe in their minds some of us should tolerate it.
there were honor PK guilds with a strict CoC when I came up in PvP.
It’s contextless is the problem, not everyone with corruption is engaging in foul play.
You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
Pretty much honor PKs are about taking fair fights, not griefing PvE players, and defending/teachings noobs how to play.
And we never dry looted corpses, maybe the occasional spell reagant or arrows.
Cause right now I find it hard to come up with a good system that would properly differentiate between a dude who killed someone for absolutely no reason and a dude who killed someone because at some point that victim did a bad thing to some completely different person (which I assume would make the kill an "honor PK", right?).
I don't know why, but factions popped into my brain. Possibly factions could give reason for pk via factional enemies. Kind of like guilds at war, but this would cater to more of the loner who could join npc factions. I dunno, just spitballing.
I am personally very against factions. What almost always tends to happen is once one faction even gets slightly ahead in numbers, a tidal wave of players flood into that one, completely unbalancing that system.
Ashes will already have node and guild wars that will allow for endless PKing of the "right" people. But even this still doesn't pertain to the honor PKing ideas of design. Which is why I asked my question.
I'd say the main issue is that you would need GM moderation to differentiate which corrupted kills are griefing and which arent, but I feel like thats unrealistic to expect from any company.
But generally:
-Any corrupted kill against gatherers done to protect a nodes resources for environment management should not be considered griefing.
-Maybe for the first few corruption kills have a few variables that factor in whether or not its the same player and how much time happened between each kill. This would help determine whether or not a player was being camped, and with the right variables such as 3 corruption kills of the same player within 10-30 minutes, you get a large amount of corruption as a result. This idea would encourage players to basically leave players alone for awhile before they could come back to kill them again if they wish, providing time for that player to either risk getting a few more materials, or just dip out before the attacking player has another shot at them. It spreads out the PvP enough to deter a player from camping someone.
- I have already established I believe that the griefing itself should be what is punished with corruption, not acts such as fighting those who are attacking you.
- Perhaps a flagging of outsider node citizens would be flagged to the node where the scenario of anti environmental management is taking place. So if an outsider gathers materials, they are flagged to that nodes citizens. Gives risk to gathering in enemy nodes, enables an OW PvP objective for the nodes citizens to defend. If its too open ended, mayors could even have the ability to mark a certain amount and type of resources in the node allowed and not allowed to be taken, marking certain things with a warning that will flag those outside players, or even the citizens themselves. This could potentially also help manage players clearing out mobs to grief low level players.
- I do believe some things wont be able to be worked around unless GMs get involved, such as friends killing their corrupted friends so they dont lose gear. I suggested awhile ago that to deter this, half of the materials a corrupted player drops should just be destroyed, some hate this because its less loot for whoever kills them, but its also a guarantee that even if their friends kill them, they are losing. I even suggested that instead of dropping gear itself, the gear dropped is salvaged into materials akin to its power. That way if a friend still kills them, they still lost that item.
- PvE griefing would be incredibly hard to track as far as I can tell. But maybe if you aggro a mob, they somehow become linked with you, and if they switch to a different target before they leash and you dont assist that person with a certain amount of dps or heals, it could count as corruption. This may be able to utilize whatever system they are using to track damage of raid bosses for which raid group does the most damage and gets the loot.
- Add a tier system to Corruption. Each tier having progressively worse punishments and taking longer to reduce. You could even have it where they dont necessarily reduce the tier as you work it off, they just stay at the highest point until killed or worked off. That may even out your issue with my argument for defending oneself. Obviously certain kills will progress a player much quicker into corruption rather than something as simple as a few same level kills spread out enough or against different players.
- Group corruption is a tough one, because this can be griefed itself in a large fight. the 4 flagging status would mostly prevent the need for this, because if you killed the player attacking a corrupted player, you would still gain corruption. I do also believe a player healing a corrupted player should gain some corruption, or just not be able to. This would also prevent groups from just fast tracking a corrupted player working off their corruption in a dungeon or something.
- I think the stat debuffs of a corrupted player should start as a small but noticeable one, and ramp up relatively quickly. These dont translate over to fighting bounty hunters from what I remember, but I am thinking once a corrupted player hits mid tier corruption, fighting a normally even matched player should be something they want to avoid at all costs.
Thats all I have for now as far as context goes. Let me know what you think. especially the 7th one
so you are farming, i pve grief you, you pk me and drop corruption before i come back. i keep pve griefing you, you kill me again. after a couple of times you get massive corruption, it gives me time to come back, hunt you down, kill you and take your hard earned gear, when im the evil griefer and you are just defending yourself. not fair isnt it?
remember that when you make a change to "solve something" that change will affect other things. you have to consider that as well, how every change interacts with the whole world and other systems.
Yeah, I'm actually working on that. I don't want to take away the corruption system (albeit I do want to rename it because the corruption flavor left when they took it off the ocean), but I've been looking at ways to expand it.
The current system is dumb easy at its core. You had the last hit on a green player - you're fucked. That's it. No overcomplications, no intricate details, no real confusion.
As for your 7th suggestion, it just sounds like a more granular PK count. In theory it would probably be a good addition to the system. But I feel like in practice it would require the player nameplates to give us as much info about the target as possible, cause otherwise players wouldn't know who they're killing and why they got the consequences that they did.
I mean, if you work off the corruption first, it resets that counter.
I would even argue killing bounty hunter reduces your corruption slightly to incentives fighting back instead prioritising running away if you come across one.
I mean simple is good, but if you keep it too simple with corruption as it is, you're inadvertently making an on-the-fly opt-in PvP game, which will kill OW PvP. Its more or less impossible to have a simple system that separates griefing PKs from non-griefing PKs.
I do agree that coding will be a lot to ask from Intrepid. And as far as players being able to understand the system, just have a quick reference for what gives corruption and how much, as well as an explanation of the tiers. The rest of the game is already a lot to take in, so I don't see why you have to make corruption for dummies.
And I have talked a lot about nameplate info for PvP. This could be as simple as using yellow, orange, and red to show a players tiers of corruption. Yellow could be Tier 1-2, orange 3-4, and red 5-6. At least as a quick recognition feature.
Not exactly:
This is one of those things I think could get out of control based on how they tune it to the point that no one ever really has a good reason to go red.
Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.