Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.

Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Corruption system abuses ?

124

Comments

  • Could limiting the PK count to "per server" instead of "per account" be an acceptable compromise?
    Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Percimes wrote: »
    Could limiting the PK count to "per server" instead of "per account" be an acceptable compromise?
    Imo no. Mainly cause it would still let more PKing to happen in the game, rather than limiting it. Spreading it over servers could only lead to worse things, cause at that point the person PKing would have even less of an incentive to limit their bad behavior in scope.

    As tautau mentioned, social pressure might be involved when a person tries to use their PK alt on the same server. With a server-bound PK count people would instead be encouraged to go to those other servers to mess with people. Not only are you not punished through in-game systems, but even the social pressure is gone now, because no one knows your main there and could never even link the two of you together.
  • Isth3reno1elseIsth3reno1else Member, Alpha Two
    Veeshan wrote: »

    The only issue i see with corruption system more the flagging system is low level player say lvl 20 attacks a lvl 30 harvesters, lvl 30 person be like yeah i can win this attacks the lvl 20 marks himself as combatant only to be a bait for the lvl 50 hiding nearby to come out and kill the level 30 for no penalty since he was nor a combatant.
    So this leaves the level 30 with no real option die running away slowly and loose more stuff and giving corruption to a character that is disposable to a degree, or fighting abck only to die to the 50 they have no chance against but loose less.




    you lose less stuff as a combatant compared to a non combatant. So in this situation sure your death is more assured, but going combatant means you drop less loot.

    The penalty for not fighting back is dropping more loot

    ztobt9umwgfh.png

    As far as the outcome of the fight goes, I'm not going to feel bad if a player only participates in a fight they think they can win, and then the added bonus is they lose less stuff even if they lose.

    The system as a whole is designed to give you choices in game. Choices for dealing with pve or pvp griefers, choices on how you want to interact in the world. With the open seas being 24/7 pvp it's my assumption that the scale for punishment for corruption will be very, very high.

    The reasoning will be that 2/3rds of the world already has full on pvp, why make corruption easier. Just my opinion though and it will really depend on the developers.

  • Percimes wrote: »
    Could limiting the PK count to "per server" instead of "per account" be an acceptable compromise?

    For me it would be. I wonder if players will really do that. If it is viable to have high PK count on a server, it makes no sense to have a lawful playing style on another.
  • RuerikRuerik Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Maybe the answer lies with capitalism!

    Jokes aside, I feel tying this back into economic pain for corrupted or boosts for non-corrupted would go further than other methods.

    And since we use our alts to boost our economic efficiency, no reason corrupted economic pain shouldnt also apply to alts.

    PK with any corruption? Take some penalty, accountwide, to money gains.

    Get killed while corrupted? The money you drop is drawn from your total account money, not just inventory money (you are a monster after all, not a person anymore, no reason why person rules should apply), amount determined by how corrupted you are. More corruption = more % money dropped.

    Make it have some cost associated with trading with the corrupted player or it using basic bank services, or straight up not allow trading or NPC use.

    afaik, currency pain is the only real way to deter PKing. If I can use my other characters to regear my PK alt over and over inexpensively, then it doesnt matter how red that alt goes because I can keep it supplied. Conversely if it starts to get silly amounts of expensive to me, I aint gonna PK randomly for fun.
    ptZBAr9.png
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Taerrik wrote: »
    afaik, currency pain is the only real way to deter PKing. If I can use my other characters to regear my PK alt over and over inexpensively, then it doesnt matter how red that alt goes because I can keep it supplied. Conversely if it starts to get silly amounts of expensive to me, I aint gonna PK randomly for fun.
    Gear has nothing to do with this. You don't even need gear to PK people, because PKing implies that the victim didn't fight back in the first place.

    Losing your entire inventory wouldn't deter PKers, because there's whole damn games where that is already the case.

    PK count is what determines how much corruption you'll get for a new kill from a green state. High amounts of corruption will, supposedly, dampen your stats to such a degree that you can't go on PKing anymore.

    And also, my suggestion already supports your "capitalistic" idea, because I want people to only be able to reduce their PK count on their mains, which in turn, I hope, would scale the things you need to do in order to reduce the count. So even if you PK someone as a lvl1 alt - you'll still have to pay a ton of time/money/mats if you have a lvl50 on the same account. So yes, currency pain would still apply as well.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Don't see the need. The situation still stands that the corruption system is harsh enough. We will test the system in a2 but it will be an artificial test because testers test systems and do not act naturally.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    Don't see the need. The situation still stands that the corruption system is harsh enough. We will test the system in a2 but it will be an artificial test because testers test systems and do not act naturally.
    Definitely gonna do the exact abuse I'm talking about when Intrepid says it's ok to PK people :) We'll see how many complains they get.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Neurath wrote: »
    Don't see the need. The situation still stands that the corruption system is harsh enough. We will test the system in a2 but it will be an artificial test because testers test systems and do not act naturally.
    Definitely gonna do the exact abuse I'm talking about when Intrepid says it's ok to PK people :) We'll see how many complains they get.

    There were complaints in the last tests. Didn't change anything except Maggie stepping in to stop it.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    There were complaints in the last tests. Didn't change anything except Maggie stepping in to stop it.
    That's why I said "when Intrepid says it's ok". Afaik A1 wasn't meant to test the corruption system. A2 will be at one point and that's when I'm gonna be flagging on every person I see and killing anyone who doesn't fight back. And once I reach the "can no longer kill people cause stat dampened" - I'll do it again and again on alts. Ideally against the same people to drive the point home (and cause I'd know that the chance of them fighting back is lower).

    If Steven is fine with that setup - I'll live with it, cause that's exactly what I lived with in L2. But considering how much harsher the Ashes system seems to be - we'll see if how it ends up in the end, when it comes to PK count balancing.
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I don't think you will meet a lot of people who don't fight back in a2.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    I don't think you will meet a lot of people who don't fight back in a2.
    If that is the case, while release does have some - Intrepid will have way more problems on their hands :D
  • SongcallerSongcaller Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Neurath wrote: »
    I don't think you will meet a lot of people who don't fight back in a2.
    If that is the case, while release does have some - Intrepid will have way more problems on their hands :D

    It depends what is classed a problem and what is classed a situation. In my mind, bounty hunters need targets so more targets mean more bounty hunters.
    2a3b8ichz0pd.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Neurath wrote: »
    It depends what is classed a problem and what is classed a situation. In my mind, bounty hunters need targets so more targets mean more bounty hunters.
    This is why I want the kills themselves not to give too much corruption. That way, theoretically, more people would be willing to go red because they'd think that they can get away with it.

    In other words, I want PKing to be more widespread and shallow rather then more restricted but deep.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Neurath wrote: »
    There were complaints in the last tests. Didn't change anything except Maggie stepping in to stop it.
    That's why I said "when Intrepid says it's ok". Afaik A1 wasn't meant to test the corruption system. A2 will be at one point and that's when I'm gonna be flagging on every person I see and killing anyone who doesn't fight back. And once I reach the "can no longer kill people cause stat dampened" - I'll do it again and again on alts. Ideally against the same people to drive the point home (and cause I'd know that the chance of them fighting back is lower).

    If Steven is fine with that setup - I'll live with it, cause that's exactly what I lived with in L2. But considering how much harsher the Ashes system seems to be - we'll see if how it ends up in the end, when it comes to PK count balancing.

    u probably wont be able to level up alts with the constant wipes in a2 xDDDDD but who knows. also max level is gonna be 30 so maybe we can get from 1-30 in 3 weeks?
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    u probably wont be able to level up alts with the constant wipes in a2 xDDDDD but who knows. also max level is gonna be 30 so maybe we can get from 1-30 in 3 weeks?
    Perfect time to test out my theory of "you don't need a strong char to PK" :)
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    yeah but u will be pking other weaklings ;3
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    i always find it easier to beat those ppl who attack everything, idk..just run back, wait for them to keep attacking mobs then kill them ;3
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    yeah but u will be pking other weaklings ;3
    And that's the whole point. Push that pressure point hard enough to get a slight change to the system, w/o changing the system completely.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    i mean lets go
  • Neurath wrote: »
    I don't think you will meet a lot of people who don't fight back in a2.
    Neither in the released game.
    Solo players will team up if needed.
    The fact that a corrupt player is at disadvantage against greens, makes greens to want to cooperate even by staying close to each other. It is the weakest form of teamplay which can transition easily into a proper team.
    But once they are in a group, they feel stronger and will fight back against smaller groups.
    We might see guilds which will declare and require as main play style to stay green as long as possible, maybe always..
    How many greens can a player kill?
  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 2023
    Neurath wrote: »
    It's impossible to prevent. It just is a fact. At what level ranges these facets happen is the only denominator.

    I personally think, Playerkilling SHOULD be - impossible to prevent.

    What however should ALSO be impossible to prevent -> is the Bounty Hunter System and that other Players can then search and hunt the Playerkilling Folks.


    All i can see here, is Opportunity. Chance for more Content. Chance for more Action - more Fun - more Livelihood and Business inside the Game.


    Part of me REALLY misses the Zombie-Event from WoW back then. And this is why i for Example also like the Monster Coin System.

    We don't need to be able to do this absolutely everywhere - like for Example killing harmless, Lowlevel Players who just happen to be at some Trader- and Vendor-NPC's and looking to improve their Characters.


    Just the Possibility of making the World feel alive and full of Action, Content, Conflict and Events. Imagine being able to get flagged for PvP, or confronting those flagged for PvP, wherever and whenever you want to participate.

    At least in most Area's. It will be awesome, i bet.
    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
  • AszkalonAszkalon Member, Alpha Two
    Percimes wrote: »
    Could limiting the PK count to "per server" instead of "per account" be an acceptable compromise?

    Sounds actually very reasonable and logical. 👍
    a50whcz343yn.png
    ✓ Occasional Roleplayer
    ✓ Guild is " Balderag's Garde " for now. (German)
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Neurath wrote: »
    What punishment do you refer to? You want to tarnish the public reputation of an honour based toon with that of a dishonourable toon.
    Alts should be separate enough to let you have those separate RP experiences, but not let you kill x2 people because your chars are completely separated. Especially considering that bad actors won't just do it x2, but instead will do xY, where Y is the amount of chars you can have on your account.

    This is why I dislike "family" names on characters. Each alt should be its own thing.
    In an RPG, characters should be completely separate rather than suffer account-wide consequences.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    In an RPG, characters should be completely separate rather than suffer account-wide consequences.
    If only Ashes followed your preferences for rpgs, cause we already have citizenship and FH ownership :)
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    NiKr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    In an RPG, characters should be completely separate rather than suffer account-wide consequences.
    If only Ashes followed your preferences for rpgs, cause we already have citizenship and FH ownership :)
    Because there is not unlimited space. Yes.
  • .
    Dygz wrote: »
    NiKr wrote: »
    Dygz wrote: »
    In an RPG, characters should be completely separate rather than suffer account-wide consequences.
    If only Ashes followed your preferences for rpgs, cause we already have citizenship and FH ownership :)
    Because there is not unlimited space. Yes.

    There could be enough space, not unlimited but enough. If Eve Online had enough space why AoC cannot?
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Because EvE is outer space with mulitple worlds.
    Ashes is just part of one planet with open world housing.
  • Maybe u should not be able to see,
    Enemy level and HP.

    So it's always a mystery what's gonna happen.
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    ThamonRa wrote: »
    Maybe u should not be able to see,
    Enemy level and HP.

    So it's always a mystery what's gonna happen.
    Mah mama always said "pvp is like a box of chocolates..."
Sign In or Register to comment.