Will the potential loss of materials be enough to push back against a rogue doing this?
Laetitian wrote: » This just seems like a "does the corruption system incentivise the behaviour it's supposed to incentivise?" thread to me, rather than one that's that much more important for the ranger in particular.
CROW3 wrote: » Laetitian wrote: » This just seems like a "does the corruption system incentivise the behaviour it's supposed to incentivise?" thread to me, rather than one that's that much more important for the ranger in particular. No, it’s a valid question about the OW pvp options for rogues relative to corruption. We just don’t know enough about the class to approach an answer.
Laetitian wrote: » Then can you point out how it would affect people's motivations, given what I've just argued?
Dygz wrote: » I'm expecting Augments to help X/Rogues restealth fairly quickly.
Laetitian wrote: » Will the potential loss of materials be enough to push back against a rogue doing this? Why does the class make a difference in that decision process? Do you mean because you'd be more likely to see it coming with different classes, and so would have taken less damage by the time you react? I don't think an extra second of preparation advantage is going to be the difference that will make or break the difference between trying to protect yourself or not in most situations. And for the ranger's build, this should be irrelevant anyway; uness you're saying they should be hoping to bait you into defending yourself by looking less threatening with their opening, but surely that wouldn't work once players have seen rangers try to bait them like that. Chances are, if you'd fight back (e.g. care more about keeping your stuff than threatening the opponent with corruption) with a 45% chance of turning things around against a mage who opened against you, you'll also fight back with a 40% chance of turning things around against a ranger who opened against you. Conversely, if you are the ranger, whether you want to go corrupted or not won't influence whether you open combat with stealth burst, or something else. You'll use whatever tool is most effective. If the enemy fights back, you'll have the highest chance of killing your target. If your enemy doesn't fight back, you'll have the highest chance of killing/chasing away your target. The playstyle doesn't get affected. Unless you're talking specifically about the question whether rogues will be skiling as steathy less often, because the situations where they end up in open-world PvP will more often be dictated by other players choosing to open combat on them? Because the ranger will be discentivised to go corrupted? But why would the ranger be any more discentivised to open combat than any other class? If every class is less incentivised to open an attack, that leaves the ratio of initiation-specialists and reaction-specialists unchanged... This just seems like a "does the corruption system incentivise the behaviour it's supposed to incentivise?" thread to me, rather than one that's that much more important for the ranger in particular.
NiKr wrote: » People dropping loot will be a scourge on this game... As for the main question of the OP - rogues will simply be more of a team player rather than an assassin that hunts greens. And teams will have enemies in proper pvp events, so neither the loot nor the corruption would be a factor.
Dolyem wrote: » I'm not worried for PvP specific event engagements. This is entirely about open world PvP interactions and how initial engagements are diluted if not neutralized. And its also not about hunting green players either. This could easily affect engagements in conflict over resources and territory.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » I'm not worried for PvP specific event engagements. This is entirely about open world PvP interactions and how initial engagements are diluted if not neutralized. And its also not about hunting green players either. This could easily affect engagements in conflict over resources and territory. Like I said, rogues will simply be more of a team class than a solo one. If you're in a team - the enemy flags on your team and then you, as a rogue, can go do your thing. And if the opponent doesn't even flag up - your team would've been made to go corrupted either way, if yall decided that the goal was worth it. And with a full stealth, the interaction doesn't change at all. So the only rogues that are negatively impacted by this system are the solo dudes who want to somehow attack a victim for a ton of dmg, but then still hope that they won't become a PKer. And that's a very silly thought in a factionless owpvp game.
Dolyem wrote: » This is about gameplay feeling good. You're acting like 1 on 1 encounters wont be a common thing in the open world, and this isn't some in depth 1v1 balancing diverting from 8v8 balancing either. If you make entire class kits pointless/nullified when initializing engagements, that is a bad gameplay design that should be considered. And no, its not only a rogue problem, its just what I initially thought of. Any classes without mobility or that depend on CC heavily will be affected negatively by this system when initiating combat. And like I said in my last comment, its not about griefing, its about viable gameplay. The corruption is less of a concern as far as accumulation goes, because you shouldnt be repeatedly doing it anyway, I will edit it and put Flagging instead because that is the real issue.
NiKr wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » This is about gameplay feeling good. You're acting like 1 on 1 encounters wont be a common thing in the open world, and this isn't some in depth 1v1 balancing diverting from 8v8 balancing either. If you make entire class kits pointless/nullified when initializing engagements, that is a bad gameplay design that should be considered. And no, its not only a rogue problem, its just what I initially thought of. Any classes without mobility or that depend on CC heavily will be affected negatively by this system when initiating combat. And like I said in my last comment, its not about griefing, its about viable gameplay. The corruption is less of a concern as far as accumulation goes, because you shouldnt be repeatedly doing it anyway, I will edit it and put Flagging instead because that is the real issue. Different classes play differently. Those who rely on CCs will have to hope that their targets will flag back up. Those who don't have good mobility will simply have the goal of "remove the target from the premises" rather than a "kill the target" one. This is not an issue with the system, it's a feature. The green victims will know that they can't be simply killed out of nowhere. That's the point of the corruption threat. And the attacker will have to decide whether going all the way is a worthwhile decision. It all comes down to risk/reward and people's relation to any given situation. If the fight is about the territory or pve (gathering included), I'd imagine the attacker would be more interested in simply removing their opponent from that location, because the kill if not the goal. And then the whole situation comes down to the corruption balancing and whether greens are afraid enough to leave the location, cause the corruption balancing allows the attacker to get a kill or two.
