Hinotori wrote: » All pvp is good pvp tbh.
Arya_Yeshe wrote: » there will be barely anyone corrupted in this game, there's nearly no point of ganking, except if you hate the other guy and you are all set for washing off the corruption and maybe even getting killed by a friend who will return your gear if you drop anything The carebear's wet dream is hunting "evil" people who killed farmers who play like bots, this will not be a thing in AoC, there will be barely any corrupted at all and the corrupted will be ready to wash the corruption asap and in a controlled manner
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » I've been pushing for a change in the BH system for years now, but we have literally 0 info about the system, so I'm not even sure if it's still in the game. I really want it to be something more than just "you can hunt a PKer" As for how many PKs should be happening. Imo <=1% of concurrents should be PKers (i.e. ~100 PKers across the entire map). This would then mean that around 2-3% would be victims. Absolute majority of those victims would come from places with valuable resources/mobs/bosses, so it'd be meaningful PKing. But, as Crow said, those PKers should only be able to do only a few kills at most, because after those they'll get hit with corruption-based stat dampening and shouldn't be able to kill more. Those few kills would create the 2-3% victims I mentioned, and would also give the PKers a PK count of ~3. Anything over this PK count should drastically increase the chance of dropping gear and should also give enough corruption to completely disable the PKer's combat ability. In other words, repeat killers wouldn't be able to do more than a single kill within a certain timeframe (balanced during A2). PK count reduction methods should be expensive as fuck, in terms of both time and resources/money. So anyone who wants to PK more often would have to spend their time reducing their PK count and earning money for that action, which in turn reduces their time PKing others. I'd personally also tie those methods to serving the nodes of the victims. I personally believe that this kind of system would keep the risk of getting ganked fairly high. Would keep the ability to PK someone when you really need to viable. Would bring node XP to the nodes of the victims. And, depending on how well the Guild/Node war declarations are balanced, would keep the unavoidable owPKing to a relatively low number. If people see 3% victims as "a murderbox" - I don't really know what to tell them
wakkytabbaky wrote: » gotta remember you only get corrupted if the other player doesnt fight back, you cant CC greens so theres no sudden your stunned and insta ganked due to being CC locked. yea you can get quickly killed if massively lower lvl than the person or if its a group but 75% of people are gonna fight back if its a 1v1 either because they enjoy pvp to an extent or they dont wanna get a full xp debt / lose partial parts of whatever they are farming. since you get more xp debt as green than purple alot will fight back as well. alot of the major pvp people that run solo or small groups will just not finish you off if you arent fighting back, with HP bars using a segment system its pretty easy to just stop at 25%, no reason to get corrupted unless you know that person has some rare materials or something good. Alot of the pvp will go in a order of someone attacking and constantly poking someone until they fight back and turn purple and if they dont fight back then they will just stop and move on. yea theres gonna be a % of people that just finish you off for the fun of it though i imagine for the first couple of weeks Full release theres gonna be more lvling than ganking anyway, itll be the bigger groups fighting each other over spots and then a gank or two to remove people from a hunting ground people are trying control and farm. Also with everyone being purple in the open seas thats where alot of pvp will happen as well since you get reduced death penalties there as well.
Noaani wrote: » This situation is one of the contradictions that Ashes have that I have talked about in the past (over a year ago, to be fair). The game needs to have a low amount of open PvP kills in relation to what many PvP players want just in order for the game to function, but the game also needs enough open world PvP kills without retaliation in order for the Bounty Hunter progression to be valid. I straight up do not see the scope available for a guild to be based around being bounty hunters. I can be a thing a guild also does, but trying to be a specific bounty hunter guild is a surefire way to end up spending a whole lot of time trying to find a fight. With the death penalty Ashes is set to have, if it has the same rate of open world PvP as even Archeage (was fairly low), the game will soon be abandond by anyone wanting either progression or economic activity to be the main aspect of their game, leaving only those wanting PvP as the main aspect (Ashes will not attract people wanting anything else as their main activity). On top of that, because of the design of the game, they need to make sure there is still enough open world PvP to keep those wanting it happy and in the game. So, they need enough PvP to keep PvP'ers happy, enough of that PvP to be against greens to keep bounty hunters happy, but not so much PvP as to drive those wanting economic gameplay to any other games. I'm not at all saying this is impossible - but I am saying two things. First, Intrepid have a very tough balancing act to make this work - and failing at it will probably make the game fail. Second, I doubt even they currently know where the balance point for this is - so we have no real hope of knowing either.
iccer wrote: » Please do reply back to correct me if I'm wrong, if there's a certain situation/outcome I missed, to offer a different perspective, or just to add something I missed, rather than attacking me because I have a different opinion from yours.
Githal wrote: » Arya_Yeshe wrote: » there will be barely anyone corrupted in this game, there's nearly no point of ganking, except if you hate the other guy and you are all set for washing off the corruption and maybe even getting killed by a friend who will return your gear if you drop anything The carebear's wet dream is hunting "evil" people who killed farmers who play like bots, this will not be a thing in AoC, there will be barely any corrupted at all and the corrupted will be ready to wash the corruption asap and in a controlled manner And meanwhile you will see other posts and youtube videos how AOC will be "Gang Fest"
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » iccer wrote: » Please do reply back to correct me if I'm wrong, if there's a certain situation/outcome I missed, to offer a different perspective, or just to add something I missed, rather than attacking me because I have a different opinion from yours. The only thing you missed is that a ton of people are simply not pvpers. Quite a few are pvp-averse. And when corruption is properly punishing, it's way more beneficial to a pvp-averse person to give their attacker corruption than flag up just to lose slightly less stuff. Yes, obviously some people will fight back and that's great, because that's the entire point of purpleness decreasing death penalties. That would simply mean that the system is working as intended. But A TON of people will not fight back. Even more will not fight back if it's well-known that corruption kicks your ass quite hard (as it does, from what's been said by Steven), because the victim would know that only a fraction of a fraction of attackers would be willing to go all the way. And this is why I said that I'd expect/prefer ~1% of the concurrent players would go corrupt (if even that tbh). These would be the people who are either sure in their overwhelming power to avoid punishment (i.e. grind some mobs w/o dying to BHs and other players) or those who simply do not care about the penalty at all (I call these "career PKers"). And imo the corruption should be balanced in a way where your first kill (that is, you had a 0 PK count previously) gives you a fairly low amount of corruption, where the only ones who might be fast enough to kill you are other people in the vicinity, if the victim shouts about you being a PKer in chat. Anything at 2-4 PK count should not only give enough time for the victim to come back to the same place and try to take revenge, but also give enough time for almost any BH on the continent to get to your place (~50min on mount if you are at the southern most point and the BH is at the northernmost point). Anything beyond that should grow exponentially and VERY quickly to a point where you'll have to die a ton of times to even just remove the corruption. It should also pretty much disable your character's PKing ability after a single new kill and should drastically increase the chances of your dropping gear. All the while PK counter decreasement methods are costly as fuck, the more PKs you have under your belt (but even the first one should still take quite a bit of money/resources and time to remove). And imo the PK count should be account-wide, to keep any career PKer from multiplying their PKing ability by the number of chars we can have on one acc. And, as I see it, this kind of balancing would lead to the numbers I gave in my initial comment. People will PK here and there for a good reason, the random greens would be less likely to fight back which would keep the PKers coming, while BHs can hunt anyone who's not on their very first kill. Greens not fighting back also automatically boosts the amount of repeat PKers, because some people will be "forced" to PK another person over and over, if they can't remove them from a location in any other way. The entire corruption system would have to be completely revamped if you gained corruption on hit rather than on kill, because the current super high penalties are a direct balancing tool for the amount of PKs that would happen in the game. This balancing tool influences a ton of other systems, like gear decay rates, XPing rates, player loot on death, etc.
Chicago wrote: » there is no limit, the open world should never feel safe
iccer wrote: » But what about PKing, when it's groups trying to take control of a POI, world boss, dungeon? You'd think that would always be combatant vs combatant, but you could also have PvE players just farming, and then if a group comes in to take over the spot, they just die without fighting back, while the other group accumulates corruption. They could just go back to the spot, and try to continue farming, and if the other group tries to take them out again, they can again just die without fighting back. At some point that other group will accumulate too much corruption.
Ludullu_(NiKr) wrote: » And even outside of GWs, it should only take one PK to make a group completely fail a boss or even a dungeon run, cause I sure as hell hope that pve is hard enough that removing a group's healer should wipe them. And ideally, it should be enough to simply put pressure on that healer to make their coordination crumble, cause he'll overextend on mana usage or cds.
ExiledByrd wrote: » I have read that the corruption system is designed to protect Greens(non-combatants). The bounty hunter system and to an extent the military node is based around people consistently getting corrupted. How many corruption/bounty hunter events need to happen in order for the system to be worth it? If successful ganks are rare, then the bounty hunter system falls apart. I do a big quest chain to unlock the system and level a military node for the benefits, but have to compete for the rare red with everyone else in the node? If I was in a bounty hunter guild but people only became corrupted near my node 2-3 times per day, I don't think that would be enough content for the guild to partake in. Maybe a bounty hunter guild more as an RP or icing on the top thing while focusing on other PvP content like Caravans? If successful ganks are common, Greens will be rare and AoC will get the reputation of a murderfest. However, there will obviously be more content with the Bounty Hunter system. I normally farm to relax but if the success rate of bringing my stuff back drops below a certain percentage, I don't know if I'll do it much. My theory, I think the corruption system is not designed to protect greens but to increase the Risk (in the Risk vs. Reward) of hunting greens. Corruption will be common, farming will be a high risk activity or in groups for rare materials, and the majority of lower rarity materials will be farmed from freeholds. What does everyone else think? How many people need to be corrupted for the game to make sense? Or more importantly, how often? Is it okay if Bounty Hunting is a rare activity?
iccer wrote: » You don't just get corrupted for attacking and PKing people. You only get corrupted if they don't fight back??? What's the point then? Most people will look to fight back to some extent (depending on balance, which I will cover in the last part), meaning you can go and PK around to your heart's content, without gaining corruption. It's a big no-no for me.
iccer wrote: » There will be less corruption, as people will look to fight back, in order not to lose stuff. Let's say that 1 in 8 people you meet will be looking to PK you. In most cases, you will look to fight back, just to prevent loss of items, meaning very low number of PKers will actually go corrupted.
iccer wrote: » So let's make some assumptions: 12 out of 100 players you run into are looking to PK you. From those 12 PKers, maybe 1-2 will turn corrupted. So for every 1000 players, you have 10-20 corrupted players, probably generous, and even smaller number than that.
akabear wrote: » Writing this one again > How about granting regional (node) mayors the ability to decide PK penalty severity through management sliders which could introduce significant points of differentiation between regions. This customization would allow mayors to tailor penalties based on local player / community preferences and playstyles, fostering a deeper sense of player engagement and connection to regional governance. By adapting the severity of penalties, regions can develop unique cultures and play environments, enhancing the role-playing aspect of the game and providing a more immersive experience. Additionally, this dynamic approach would create varied gameplay across different regions, making exploration and regional travel more intriguing for players.
