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.
Uh. What? How can you "PK (Combatants) to your hearts content?"
It's an odd assumption that the initiator of PvP will win most of the time against Greens who flag Purple.
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.
Depends on how many Resources the target has and what those Resources are. Also depends on whether the target prefers to punish their PKers with Corruption.
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.
Really can't make any valid assumptions at this point.
We need to be deep enough into A2 to have Classes and Augments to have a decent idea of how players are likely to react. And, even then, it will really be determined by playstyle demogrpahics for each Realm.
Yeah my bad. That first part was my assumption that those people will always look for unbalanced fights, where they're clearly stronger than the target they're attacking - that's just based on my experience. My experience is basically that, if you are at the same power level, people will usually not look to fight you nearly as much, as compared when they have clear, and big advantage. Usually the only people who initiate fights are those who are very confident of winning the fight.
Just realized I forgot to mention this, but this is actually a HUGE part of why I dislike non-consentual PvP (usually).
It's the difference in power.
I actually don't have a problem fighting people around my power level, if anything, those fights are at least interesting and engaging.
And yeah, the rest was just assumptions on my part, I've put out several different scenarios to showcase how balance might affect things, and that it could end up not affecting stuff in a way I, you, or someone else wants. It just remains to be seen how it will work, after alphas and beta - so plenty of time to tinker, or overhaul things.
2
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Nodes are in competition against one another for greater PvE play, so anything they do to foster ganking is bad. If you turn down pvp punishment enough that it actually affects gameplay that much different than a rival node, it'll just decay back to encampment.
The idea is okay, it just doesn't mesh well with existing systems.
I wonder if those who push for PK capability (such as self) without the penalties being too strong, come from an L2 background and see its value as a political tool for strategic gain, power, territory, and creating lawful boundaries.
Because in L2, PK was used more for claiming territory and regulating acceptable behavior over outliner players rather than pointless ganking.
Giving players, or leaders in this instance, the ability to shape their zone means that if they succeed, they draw players and thrive; if they fail, they decline.
It's about the choices made determining the dynamic positioning in the world, with an emphasis of being moderated by players and only overseen by developers for extreme and unacceptable behavior.
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.
I would like something similar but only when I forget that we have caravans.
Corruption is supposed to let players explore and gather somewhat less stressed than those who run caravans.
We seen the slow caravans meant for groups but they mentioned also solo caravans which will be faster than a player can walk. Those will be ambushed if they are not careful.
I see no reason to try to gank explorers and farmers except when
- they are acting as spies, observing what other players do
- they gather with good reason from places which some bigger guilds consider their own territory
I mean the game will be boring if big guilds will vote to lock out soloers and small guilds from gathering in a specific area.
Only thing that sounds boring is your idea of zero PvP outside of controlled scenarios
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.
I would like something similar but only when I forget that we have caravans.
Corruption is supposed to let players explore and gather somewhat less stressed than those who run caravans.
We seen the slow caravans meant for groups but they mentioned also solo caravans which will be faster than a player can walk. Those will be ambushed if they are not careful.
I see no reason to try to gank explorers and farmers except when
- they are acting as spies, observing what other players do
- they gather with good reason from places which some bigger guilds consider their own territory
I mean the game will be boring if big guilds will vote to lock out soloers and small guilds from gathering in a specific area.
Only thing that sounds boring is your idea of zero PvP outside of controlled scenarios
The way the game is described now on wiki seems ok.
Node wars and guild wars will bring waves of PvP to everyone.
What I oppose is to have nodes which have a full PvP area where citizens of the same node can easily kill each-other without fear of corruption and can act also against the other sibling nodes in the same metropolis parent-vassal structure.
As someone already said it shouldnt be a punishment for any ganking but just for excessive ganking. Just a random idea, make an "orange" stage which u get when u kill a green player who is max 5lvls below u, if you kill him again within X amount of time, you turn red. If you kill green 5-10 lvls below you turn "orange" and as soon as you ATTACK the same player within (longer) X amount of time you turn red. Killing a green player 11+ lvls below u turn red instantly.
Also i dont remember how it works exactly but green should turn purple as soon as he attacks a red.
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.
I actually really like this solution. There should be upper and lower limits of course, to prevent PvE zones filled with bots and full PvP zones, but this would allow a lot of player choice.
I've seen a large variety of answers to my question and this is the only solution I've seen that seems to allow most of them to play as they want. It also provides another reason to node war. Either to conquer the barbarians and provide rule of law, or to pillage the peace loving fools.
Right, I have not read ANY responses to this but I'll say this.
In Mortal Online 2 they have a "Bounty" system which I think if tweaked would work amazingly. Essentially. If you kill a player they can "Report" the crime if you damaged them and you get 1 "Murder count" They can choose not to report it on respawn, Once you reach 5 Murder counts you're considered a "Red Player" a "Murderer" and people can go to the bounty hunter in town and collect an randomly generated bounty for ANY "Redplayer". So here is what I propose.
If you kill an innocent player and they report the crime you gain a "Murder count" At 5 Murder counts you're considered a "Red player" and you're unable to report people that kill you and you can't re-spawn in town. Meaning that blue "Good" players can kill "Red" players without the risk of Murder counts.
If you reach 5 Murder counts you're eligible to be "Bounty hunted" Players go to a local "Bounty hunters guild house" and collect a "Bounty contract" which will scan the "Local area" (Avoids giving you a bounty for someone on the other side of the map) and gives you a bounty for a Murderer, Giving you some information (Name, Current Murder counts, Distance from you currently) Perhaps also giving them a reward tied to the number of murder counts a bounty has. Lower murder count lower reward higher murder count higher reward. To avoid a bounty hunter just ditching low reward bounties. They can implement a system where taking a contract puts you on a 1-2 cooldown before you can get a new bounty. UNLESS you turn in a successful bounty. Then refresh your cooldown automatically.
This allows the players who enjoy being red players to be red players with the risk of being hunted by blue players. Initiating PVP could also put you on a "Criminal" cooldown. Meaning that if they try to enter a city they will be killed by city guards. Same with attempting to initiate PVP in a city. You could also reward bounty hunters with a special "Bounty hunter currency" allowing them to purchase things within the bounty hunters guild house. On the contrary, you could have Red players gain access to a special "Criminal underworld location" which allows them access to special services and such only accessible to replayers where they get access to the base level of it at 10+ murder counts and access to increasing the better area's depending on how many murder counts they have.
As for the blue players. Obviously, this brings in a certain danger into the "open world" however, with the rewarding nature of the bounty hunter system. I am sure players would be willing to run "Protection services" for blue players including guilds setting up to protect these blue players. (This happened in Mortal online a lot) This would also drive blue players to either join guilds for "Free protection" or take a cut of the profits they're going to make to pay for protection for big farming runs. This incentivises players to engage in the SOCIAL aspect of the Social sandbox. For this to be useful there needs to be some gain to killing each other in the open world. Like dropping resources and such. In mortal it's perma death. you drop EVERYTHING (except player-bound items, Starter items, Starter torches, Capes, Spellbooks and a map So ESSENTIALLY everything) So there is a lot of reason for people to kill someone for personal gain.
I am not saying EVERYTHING should be dropped on death, but dropping resources and perhaps items that are not bound to players (So bis) can drop. Or some level of this to make it worth killing people. I won't sugarcoat anything. I'm a big red player enjoyer. I like PVP a lot so I'd like the system. But the idea of having to fight off bounty hunters only makes the whole idea of being a red player even more fun. What I would hate to see is punishing the red players for wanting to be red players. Reward different play styles instead of punishing what you don't like in the game. If you want everyone to be good boy blue players. Make it super rewarding. But don't make it super punishing. Taking any suggestions and answering any questions for my idea here.
- Edit
I have not kept up to date with EVERYTHING to do with the game. If anything I said contradicts with something already set in stone about the game Sorry about that LOL. I want to go into the game KINDA blind and discover everything as I go.
Nodes are in competition against one another for greater PvE play, so anything they do to foster ganking is bad. If you turn down pvp punishment enough that it actually affects gameplay that much different than a rival node, it'll just decay back to encampment.
The idea is okay, it just doesn't mesh well with existing systems.
I wonder if those who push for PK capability (such as self) without the penalties being too strong, come from an L2 background and see its value as a political tool for strategic gain, power, territory, and creating lawful boundaries.
Because in L2, PK was used more for claiming territory and regulating acceptable behavior over outliner players rather than pointless ganking.
Giving players, or leaders in this instance, the ability to shape their zone means that if they succeed, they draw players and thrive; if they fail, they decline.
It's about the choices made determining the dynamic positioning in the world, with an emphasis of being moderated by players and only overseen by developers for extreme and unacceptable behavior.
A: A lot of these concepts have been formalized in Ashes into the node system with ZOIs, node wars, and sieges.
In the node wars preview, they were fighting to claim Highway Hills and start siphoning node XP from the area, among other things. Players will stay flagged against each other for the full duration of the node war, so even OWPvP won't be controlled by corruption for participants.
Guild wars will be a smaller version of the same idea. And I think a lot of it will revolve around punishing behavior, controlling dungeon hubs, and general fun.
B: Corruption is for killing non-combatants. If you just like the zerg and camp gameplay from L2, then just find a place where others are going to fight you back.
Comments
Yeah my bad. That first part was my assumption that those people will always look for unbalanced fights, where they're clearly stronger than the target they're attacking - that's just based on my experience. My experience is basically that, if you are at the same power level, people will usually not look to fight you nearly as much, as compared when they have clear, and big advantage. Usually the only people who initiate fights are those who are very confident of winning the fight.
Just realized I forgot to mention this, but this is actually a HUGE part of why I dislike non-consentual PvP (usually).
It's the difference in power.
I actually don't have a problem fighting people around my power level, if anything, those fights are at least interesting and engaging.
And yeah, the rest was just assumptions on my part, I've put out several different scenarios to showcase how balance might affect things, and that it could end up not affecting stuff in a way I, you, or someone else wants. It just remains to be seen how it will work, after alphas and beta - so plenty of time to tinker, or overhaul things.
I wonder if those who push for PK capability (such as self) without the penalties being too strong, come from an L2 background and see its value as a political tool for strategic gain, power, territory, and creating lawful boundaries.
Because in L2, PK was used more for claiming territory and regulating acceptable behavior over outliner players rather than pointless ganking.
Giving players, or leaders in this instance, the ability to shape their zone means that if they succeed, they draw players and thrive; if they fail, they decline.
It's about the choices made determining the dynamic positioning in the world, with an emphasis of being moderated by players and only overseen by developers for extreme and unacceptable behavior.
Only thing that sounds boring is your idea of zero PvP outside of controlled scenarios
I don't want what you suggest or think that I said. I like danger.
What I don't want is players to be able to influence the balance so much that some nodes to create a full PvP zone around them without any rules and some other nodes to be full PvE nodes.
My reply was directed to akabear's former thread
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/59432/the-one-node-to-rule-them-all/first
https://forums.ashesofcreation.com/discussion/comment/454276/#Comment_454276
The way the game is described now on wiki seems ok.
Node wars and guild wars will bring waves of PvP to everyone.
What I oppose is to have nodes which have a full PvP area where citizens of the same node can easily kill each-other without fear of corruption and can act also against the other sibling nodes in the same metropolis parent-vassal structure.
Also i dont remember how it works exactly but green should turn purple as soon as he attacks a red.
I actually really like this solution. There should be upper and lower limits of course, to prevent PvE zones filled with bots and full PvP zones, but this would allow a lot of player choice.
I've seen a large variety of answers to my question and this is the only solution I've seen that seems to allow most of them to play as they want. It also provides another reason to node war. Either to conquer the barbarians and provide rule of law, or to pillage the peace loving fools.
In Mortal Online 2 they have a "Bounty" system which I think if tweaked would work amazingly. Essentially. If you kill a player they can "Report" the crime if you damaged them and you get 1 "Murder count" They can choose not to report it on respawn, Once you reach 5 Murder counts you're considered a "Red Player" a "Murderer" and people can go to the bounty hunter in town and collect an randomly generated bounty for ANY "Redplayer". So here is what I propose.
If you kill an innocent player and they report the crime you gain a "Murder count" At 5 Murder counts you're considered a "Red player" and you're unable to report people that kill you and you can't re-spawn in town. Meaning that blue "Good" players can kill "Red" players without the risk of Murder counts.
If you reach 5 Murder counts you're eligible to be "Bounty hunted" Players go to a local "Bounty hunters guild house" and collect a "Bounty contract" which will scan the "Local area" (Avoids giving you a bounty for someone on the other side of the map) and gives you a bounty for a Murderer, Giving you some information (Name, Current Murder counts, Distance from you currently) Perhaps also giving them a reward tied to the number of murder counts a bounty has. Lower murder count lower reward higher murder count higher reward. To avoid a bounty hunter just ditching low reward bounties. They can implement a system where taking a contract puts you on a 1-2 cooldown before you can get a new bounty. UNLESS you turn in a successful bounty. Then refresh your cooldown automatically.
This allows the players who enjoy being red players to be red players with the risk of being hunted by blue players. Initiating PVP could also put you on a "Criminal" cooldown. Meaning that if they try to enter a city they will be killed by city guards. Same with attempting to initiate PVP in a city. You could also reward bounty hunters with a special "Bounty hunter currency" allowing them to purchase things within the bounty hunters guild house. On the contrary, you could have Red players gain access to a special "Criminal underworld location" which allows them access to special services and such only accessible to replayers where they get access to the base level of it at 10+ murder counts and access to increasing the better area's depending on how many murder counts they have.
As for the blue players. Obviously, this brings in a certain danger into the "open world" however, with the rewarding nature of the bounty hunter system. I am sure players would be willing to run "Protection services" for blue players including guilds setting up to protect these blue players. (This happened in Mortal online a lot) This would also drive blue players to either join guilds for "Free protection" or take a cut of the profits they're going to make to pay for protection for big farming runs. This incentivises players to engage in the SOCIAL aspect of the Social sandbox. For this to be useful there needs to be some gain to killing each other in the open world. Like dropping resources and such. In mortal it's perma death. you drop EVERYTHING (except player-bound items, Starter items, Starter torches, Capes, Spellbooks and a map So ESSENTIALLY everything) So there is a lot of reason for people to kill someone for personal gain.
I am not saying EVERYTHING should be dropped on death, but dropping resources and perhaps items that are not bound to players (So bis) can drop. Or some level of this to make it worth killing people. I won't sugarcoat anything. I'm a big red player enjoyer. I like PVP a lot so I'd like the system. But the idea of having to fight off bounty hunters only makes the whole idea of being a red player even more fun. What I would hate to see is punishing the red players for wanting to be red players. Reward different play styles instead of punishing what you don't like in the game. If you want everyone to be good boy blue players. Make it super rewarding. But don't make it super punishing. Taking any suggestions and answering any questions for my idea here.
- Edit
I have not kept up to date with EVERYTHING to do with the game. If anything I said contradicts with something already set in stone about the game Sorry about that LOL. I want to go into the game KINDA blind and discover everything as I go.
In the node wars preview, they were fighting to claim Highway Hills and start siphoning node XP from the area, among other things. Players will stay flagged against each other for the full duration of the node war, so even OWPvP won't be controlled by corruption for participants.
Guild wars will be a smaller version of the same idea. And I think a lot of it will revolve around punishing behavior, controlling dungeon hubs, and general fun.
B: Corruption is for killing non-combatants. If you just like the zerg and camp gameplay from L2, then just find a place where others are going to fight you back.