I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
Green attacking anyone should make them a combatant since they initiated it
Well if you’re flagged red you’ve already accepted that risk that you could be attacked or plan to attack someone. There’s no reason to initiate greens as combatants as they can only attack or respond to reds.
if the green attacks a red they saying right i accept pvp so should become combatant since at that stage they now opted into pvp which is what the whole flagging system is for.
Also whats the point of bounty hunter system if it now becomes safer to hunt reds as a green since if your bounty hunter you can be killed and not make the corruption worst and as a green player u kleave the red player the option to run away, die or make your curruption worst. You know whats gonna happen is there be 1 bounty hunter using the tracking ability to find red players and they just send green player friend to actually kil the red player while they stay back safely so he can never escape due to always being able to track them.
However if the green kills the red then surely the BH player won’t get any rewards. There is no point sending greens to do it as it won’t contribute to BH progression. Maybe they need a system as well where when you’re doing bounty hunting you can only invite other BH’s to your party as you would all be flagged the same for PvP. I honestly just prefer the lawless zone concept where everyone knows the risks and what they’re getting into.
In Albion Online you can flag for PvP as a red and attack normal players who can respond but it doesn’t also make them flagged hostile for defending themselves. The black zone which is kind of like the lawless zone you know what you’re getting into as it’s a PvP/PvX zone.
What I said the first time was correct about BH being purple as that’s flagged as a combatant but not corrupted. A green can attack a red and incur no change in status it’s exactly like Albion’s flagging system except corrupted are just Reds flagged as hostile for PvP. BH’s outside of the lawless zone would be classed as purple of which if they attack a green they become Red or corrupted. If a green attacks a purple they become a combatant so also Purple. The system is good very balanced however my first assumption of how it works is correct regardless of it’s a status or flagging system it still works the same way. I also don’t see greens as people who want to get into conflict in the first place that’s why they’re green but have the right to defend themselves from Reds or hostile players.
I see BH’s as more of a PvP progression system outside of lawless zones kind of like the PvP Progression or Battle Pass system in New World where you get XP based on PvP contribution. The thing that needs to be looked at is how is the BH system different to a standard PvP progression system assuming they’ll have a separate system for that too.
The system is there to stop reds carelessly attacking greens and griefing them without any consequences. The BH’s counter the hostile reds who would harass the green or average players. Anyways a true PvPer would just do wars, sieges or go to lawless zones there’s no fun in flagging red to bully greens. Again this is separate from the caravan system or PvX events in the open world as you’re initiating those plus know the risks. We don’t need to protect the reds!
Flagging red or becoming corrupted is probably just a good way to practice ganking but comes with consequence, however gankers will group up so it won’t be just one hostile red you’re facing if the game allows it there will be a party of them.
i see BH sending green to weaken a target then finish them off, BH will be incentivised to use greens with current system since if they kill the green BH get more reward to kill them since there now more corrupt, having green players in the fight also means the red target now has an enemy they cant attack and have to avoid while there fighting the BH at the same time if they do kill the green then the BH gets more reward so it a win win for them.
Not to mention with current set up green players are immune to CC effect so they have a further advantage in a fight especially when red players will also most likly be under the effect of stat dampening aswell.
If a green attacks anyone they should be purple no matter what by attacking they say yes im ok to PvP and when the flagging system in place to reduce involuntary pvp (killing somone who doesnt want to fight) by punishing that player by corrupting them then it not needed if the green player go o look ima attack you i opt into this pvp situation
Lastly this is not a ganking game this is a PvP game where they’re trying to avoid griefing people it’s not supposed to be easy for a Red/Hostile player. If you want to PvP you have better dynamic PvP events like the caravan or other opt-in systems. There is also the lawless zone or naval combat on the open-seas you’d better off becoming a pirate 🏴☠️
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. Whats the point of making a bounty system when you have these conditions?
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced as a result.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it makes 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid.
Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing.
So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid.
Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group.
Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest.
By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes.
By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason.
An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing.
So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
Bolded the most entitled thing I've seen in a while. It isn't 'your' anything.
There is no mechanical difference between killing a green for contesting a gathering spot, killing a green who was scouting for a rival guild, or killing a green just for existing.
The game could never know and so going on about which red 'deserves' anything is pointless. It's all reds or no reds.
Corruption is meant to deter meaningless PK, as dying green is actively detrimental, aka you should be using PK to gain an advantage for yourself if you've deemed the consequences worth it, not killing players over things that even they themselves don't believe matters enough to protect.
If someone is dying green, eating that increased exp debt and stat dampening, then on their end they decided what they have isn't worth what you gain off them. Thats a balance that'll change per-player, and if you have a group, it'll likely be worth that PK because now your whole group benefits off control of that area or that boss or having that loot. If you're trying to solo PK, that's not supported behavior and requires a higher degree of skill and thought to do successfully. On the other hand, you don't have to split your gains with a group and it's easier to move around as just one person.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing.
So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
basically this.
In my opinion, there should be stages to corruption so that the one off kill doesnt have the chance of losing your character potentially weeks of work.(dropping completed gear) The current system aside from the equipment dropping, breaks your gear, gives you a large amount of exp debt, reduces your stats, reduces your loot chances, and doesnt even go away on your first death depending on how much corruption you were given.
I would rather they add a gold fine instead of gear drop for that first stage of corruption. at the very least. Then make it so that regardless of corruption amount one death adds all the effects to your character at once. It doesn't make sense for you to have to die multiple times, with multiple chances of dropping equipped gear. They could make it so that if your gear is broken completely the gold fine increases by the extra percentage. If they do not pay off the fine by a set time mark them for bounty hunters. This way they are immediately back to playing the game like everyone else, they have their punishment to work off, and players feel more comfortable contesting each other for open world farming spots.
Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest.
By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes.
By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason.
An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid.
Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group.
Your entire group with exp debt, dampened stats, mining a chunk of mats and gold you all had, gear damaged, having to manually run back after the rival group already had 10-15minutes free time with the area? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go well for you when you could've fought and taken out some of theirs from the get-go.
Sounds like you're just looking for ways to cheese no matter what side of the fight you're on.
Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest.
By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes.
By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason.
An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server.
A 'PvE server' except caravans are free PvP zones and the best mats come from free PvP zones and nodes are built and destroy through PvP and node leadership can be won through PvP and world bosses will have free PvP areas and you can PvP anyone at any time just not without temporary consequence and mindful gameplay.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it make 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing.
So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
Bolded the most entitled thing I've seen in a while. It isn't 'your' anything.
There is no mechanical difference between killing a green for contesting a gathering spot, killing a green who was scouting for a rival guild, or killing a green just for existing.
The game could never know and so going on about which red 'deserves' anything is pointless. It's all reds or no reds.
Corruption is meant to deter meaningless PK, as dying green is actively detrimental, aka you should be using PK to gain an advantage for yourself if you've deemed the consequences worth it, not killing players over things that even they themselves don't believe matters enough to protect.
If someone is dying green, eating that increased exp debt and stat dampening, then on their end they decided what they have isn't worth what you gain off them. Thats a balance that'll change per-player, and if you have a group, it'll likely be worth that PK because now your whole group benefits off control of that area or that boss or having that loot. If you're trying to solo PK, that's not supported behavior and requires a higher degree of skill and thought to do successfully. On the other hand, you don't have to split your gains with a group and it's easier to move around as just one person.
I hate how often I have to post this here.
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
CORRUPTION IS MEANT TO DETER GRIEFING. Pking isnt griefing. Even a completely random single PK is not griefing. Griefing is camping a player for an hour so they cant play.
As for the other thing about being entitled....Players who beat other players are entitled to content they are fighting over. Fighting for resources (meaningful PvP) shouldnt punish players significantly if one of the players simply decides to not fight back.
Should a player still get consequences for killing a "non-combatant"? Sure. But griefing can be correlated with number of PKs in an amount of time. So Punishment should also be correlated with that. Can a punishment like gaining corruption when defending against non-combatants eventually be a punishment? Sure, but it should be applied when those numbers of PKs actually correlate with real griefing, not 1 or 2 PKs in an hour. Still apply debuffs and the death penalties, but dont have them ramp up for defending themselves.
I've had this discussion many times. Only real issue I have is the exponential corruption gain if non-combatants keep attacking you, even if you only originally were going to kill a single non-combatant player and become corrupted. Then defending yourself also damns yourself. Its too extreme and it doesnt serve the corruption systems ultimate purpose, which is to deter griefing. The punishment is excessive to the crime.
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot.
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced entirely as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid.
Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group.
Your entire group with exp debt, dampened stats, mining a chunk of mats and gold you all had, gear damaged, having to manually run back after the rival group already had 10-15minutes free time with the area? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go well for you when you could've fought and taken out some of theirs from the get-go.
Sounds like you're just looking for ways to cheese no matter what side of the fight you're on.
who says my entire group is dying? Just 1 of us need to die as a noncombatant. The others hold off and let one of us die, and then engage fully on corrupt players. easy. "Oh well the other team will notice that probably and stop". Then youre deterring PvP engagements with the corruption system.
Penalties should stay very harsh for Reds. This is the only way to ensure this game wont turn into PK-fest.
By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes.
By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason.
An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server.
A 'PvE server' except caravans are free PvP zones and the best mats come from free PvP zones and nodes are built and destroy through PvP and node leadership can be won through PvP and world bosses will have free PvP areas and you can PvP anyone at any time just not without temporary consequence and mindful gameplay.
That's your idea of a PvE server?
Open world PvP is what makes a PvP server. Not PvP events. That being said, its meant to include PvP AND PvE in all aspects of the game.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
The ironic thing is, with the current system of corruption you will be actively encouraged to grief a red player until they are no longer red. each death potentially stealing weeks of work. All because some gatherer would rather die than properly contend for a patch of daisies.
The ironic thing is, with the current system of corruption you will be actively encouraged to grief a red player until they are no longer red. each death potentially stealing weeks of work. All because some gatherer would rather die than properly contend for a patch of daisies.
So basically you want to forcefully contest all the resources driving out all the gatherers and PvE players because you got mad they stole your flowers. Technically they’re not your flowers to begin with but let’s go with that. Then you want to cry because you chose to flag red on a green becoming hostile over said flowers even though I’m sure more will spawn and lose the stuff you flagged up in wearing. At that point you’re corrupted so yeah potentially lose stuff when you die as consequence. Seems legit!
I’m pretty sure someone moving a caravan of their own goods is going to contest, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find other people in lawless zones willing to contest you for rarer resources.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
Honestly it’s like I’m trying to explain what consent is to someone it shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand.
I know ganking is not griefing it’s a form of PK’ing I was using the term ganking to explain how one might use the corruption system to try to grief someone. As an opportunist PK’r wanting to flag using the corruption system I would gank someone, but if I just wanted to PvP I’d go to a lawless zone or find a group to do that! I would opt-into caravan PvP which by the way doesn’t make you corrupted it labels you as a combatant's and you can still steal their goods! I would become a pirate blow up other peoples ships, cargo or steal from raft caravans on the ocean. Why do people care about the corrupted system so much it’s literally from a PvP perspective the most boring useless way to get goods from someone.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game.
I'll put this here yet again
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
Comments
ganking isnt griefing
yeah this was my main problem with it. There is no collective punishment yet so last hit gets the red dunce hat. You would think other players would be encouraged to avoid a red player if they are not pvpers, but the fact that they can pvp with bubblewrap on makes it so that they are suddenly hunting for reds for free loot. Whats the point of making a bounty system when you have these conditions?
I see people saying reds are irredeemable or get what they deserve, but I can see the side of the red who made a mistake and now loses a massive amount over it. What this leads to is people ignoring each other completely in the open world. "oh did you attack me? im going to ignore you until you give up because I know you cant take the risks in any situation."
It's not 'excessive' to have consequences for stupid choices.
- You know who's in the immediate area when you commit a PK because you can see them
- You know about where the nearest settlement/hub is because it's on your map
- You know if you have group mates nearby because you'll be in the same group
If you get swamped by greens before you're able to run away after a PK, then you made a poor choice when considering the three conditions above, especially if you're on a class with out mobility tools to escape.
It will ultimately deter PvP in general. While corruption is obviously not encouraged, if it is too excessively punishing to even risk going corrupted for even a single PK, engagements in PvP will be reduced as a result.
It'll deter solo PKers and ones that feel the need to be babied when they make an error and PK around other non-combatants.
Consequences are fine, but in this case the consequences are excessive.
By your own logic green players shouldnt get any CC immunity against attackers because they should know that by going into the wild that they can be attacked and should be more aware while making that choice.
You can be fully aware of the consequences, that doesnt mean that they arent excessive to whatever triggers them.
it will deter group PKers just as much. Pushing away a single player with a PK will doom both solo PKers and groups alike. And to even fight back to save that player in your party getting PKed is foolish since youll get to kill a bunch of corrupted players and get more loot
The CC immunity on greens exists specifically because greens take more death penalties, and people were using CC locking to kill players before they had any chance to flag up.
It wasn't something added 'just because', but because it is more detrimental to die green and it was being abused.
The scaling penalty is a self balancing system against greens risking more to attack you. You are not required to continue PKing.
A chronic red player can PK, take their goodies, and then leave.
If they PK within shouting distance of other greens, they're an idiot who got what was coming. There's not 'just one intended PK' in a whole group on group fight. You sign up and commit to the PK knowing exactly what you're doing, and it makes 100000% perfect sense that when their group turns on for you for the PK, you eat your consequences.
There no handholding to protect greens from dying, and no handholding to protect reds from the consequences of PKing.
What kind of people are you grouping with that won't defend or heal you when you flag red until you've worked it off? Surely you're actually doing content alongside your PvP, otherwise that's the sort of pointless grief PK that the system is designed to avoid.
Edit: Misread, but even that scenario makes no sense. Of course you'd fight back. A ding of corruption isn't equal to losing a whole entire player when there's no fast travel, much less letting multiple players die.
Corruption isnt meant to deter PKing...it is meant to deter griefing.
So a player who PKs few and far between should not be getting the same punishment as players clearly griefing. If I player PKs the same player 10 times in 30 mins? Yea, allow that guy to gain more corruption when greens attack them. But if a player killed someone once because they kept following them and gathering their resources right in front of them, probably a bit extreme to punish the player to the same extent and as a result force even more punishment upon them if they just try to defend themselves
I would absolutely accept the death and run to corrupt an entire party for my party to wipe out and get 4 times as much loot from with the chance of gear drops as well. The incentive to not fight back is exponentially rewarding in terms of group vs group.
By having harsh penalties for Reds you ensure that the players in the game will be more likely to be killing for strategic purposes.
By loosening the penalties for Reds this will make players think about PK-festing for fun and 0 strategical reason.
An increased amount of PK-fests for fun would ruin the whole RPG-fantasy setting of the game. It'll turn into DayZ where players almost never talk with you or ask to group up. Instead everyone just runs around until they get a weapon and then start killing others.
Bolded the most entitled thing I've seen in a while. It isn't 'your' anything.
There is no mechanical difference between killing a green for contesting a gathering spot, killing a green who was scouting for a rival guild, or killing a green just for existing.
The game could never know and so going on about which red 'deserves' anything is pointless. It's all reds or no reds.
Corruption is meant to deter meaningless PK, as dying green is actively detrimental, aka you should be using PK to gain an advantage for yourself if you've deemed the consequences worth it, not killing players over things that even they themselves don't believe matters enough to protect.
If someone is dying green, eating that increased exp debt and stat dampening, then on their end they decided what they have isn't worth what you gain off them. Thats a balance that'll change per-player, and if you have a group, it'll likely be worth that PK because now your whole group benefits off control of that area or that boss or having that loot. If you're trying to solo PK, that's not supported behavior and requires a higher degree of skill and thought to do successfully. On the other hand, you don't have to split your gains with a group and it's easier to move around as just one person.
basically this.
In my opinion, there should be stages to corruption so that the one off kill doesnt have the chance of losing your character potentially weeks of work.(dropping completed gear) The current system aside from the equipment dropping, breaks your gear, gives you a large amount of exp debt, reduces your stats, reduces your loot chances, and doesnt even go away on your first death depending on how much corruption you were given.
I would rather they add a gold fine instead of gear drop for that first stage of corruption. at the very least. Then make it so that regardless of corruption amount one death adds all the effects to your character at once. It doesn't make sense for you to have to die multiple times, with multiple chances of dropping equipped gear. They could make it so that if your gear is broken completely the gold fine increases by the extra percentage. If they do not pay off the fine by a set time mark them for bounty hunters. This way they are immediately back to playing the game like everyone else, they have their punishment to work off, and players feel more comfortable contesting each other for open world farming spots.
Penalties should be enough to prevent GRIEFING....not PKing. As a result you wont have excessive PKing. It should be enough to have natural PvP, but not so punishing that the game just becomes a PVE server.
Your entire group with exp debt, dampened stats, mining a chunk of mats and gold you all had, gear damaged, having to manually run back after the rival group already had 10-15minutes free time with the area? Yeah, I'm sure that'll go well for you when you could've fought and taken out some of theirs from the get-go.
Sounds like you're just looking for ways to cheese no matter what side of the fight you're on.
A 'PvE server' except caravans are free PvP zones and the best mats come from free PvP zones and nodes are built and destroy through PvP and node leadership can be won through PvP and world bosses will have free PvP areas and you can PvP anyone at any time just not without temporary consequence and mindful gameplay.
That's your idea of a PvE server?
I hate how often I have to post this here.
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
CORRUPTION IS MEANT TO DETER GRIEFING. Pking isnt griefing. Even a completely random single PK is not griefing. Griefing is camping a player for an hour so they cant play.
As for the other thing about being entitled....Players who beat other players are entitled to content they are fighting over. Fighting for resources (meaningful PvP) shouldnt punish players significantly if one of the players simply decides to not fight back.
Should a player still get consequences for killing a "non-combatant"? Sure. But griefing can be correlated with number of PKs in an amount of time. So Punishment should also be correlated with that. Can a punishment like gaining corruption when defending against non-combatants eventually be a punishment? Sure, but it should be applied when those numbers of PKs actually correlate with real griefing, not 1 or 2 PKs in an hour. Still apply debuffs and the death penalties, but dont have them ramp up for defending themselves.
who says my entire group is dying? Just 1 of us need to die as a noncombatant. The others hold off and let one of us die, and then engage fully on corrupt players. easy. "Oh well the other team will notice that probably and stop". Then youre deterring PvP engagements with the corruption system.
Open world PvP is what makes a PvP server. Not PvP events. That being said, its meant to include PvP AND PvE in all aspects of the game.
It’s also a sand park mmo and it’s a balance between PvE and PvP with PvX zones! Nothing anyone here says about the corruption systems will change it so can’t wait. You can all keep defending your stance on PK’ing without consequences as much as you want but won’t change anything so who cares! You think Intrepid didn’t do their research into this type of thing already. I’ve seen it in other games guess what when you flag red or hostile and die you lose all your stuff, but when you attack a non-combatant you only knock them down for a few minutes. It’s the same type of system you will incur consequence for flagging hostile outside of opt-in PvP events and lawless PvX zones.
When did I ever say to allow PKing without consequences? All that has been argued here is that simply PKing shouldnt be as severely punished as full fledged griefing. And luckily talking about this does have the potential for change in this game seeing as the devs read the forums and feedback.
So what you’re saying there is you want less consequence for someone who PK’s someone outside of PvP Events and already established lawless zones including naval content who didn’t want to be PK’d in the first place.
That kind of sounds like saying you knowingly commited a murder but don’t expect to get any repercussions like life in prison for it.
There is no consequence for PK’ing in lawless zones as you don’t become corrupted it’s a PvP zone and if you opt-into PvP events where someone knows the risk of say transporting a caravan of goods that’s on them. There are also wars, sieges for PvP content too though again sounds like you just want less punishment for ganking greens outside of designated events, zones or areas.
So basically you want to forcefully contest all the resources driving out all the gatherers and PvE players because you got mad they stole your flowers. Technically they’re not your flowers to begin with but let’s go with that. Then you want to cry because you chose to flag red on a green becoming hostile over said flowers even though I’m sure more will spawn and lose the stuff you flagged up in wearing. At that point you’re corrupted so yeah potentially lose stuff when you die as consequence. Seems legit!
I’m pretty sure someone moving a caravan of their own goods is going to contest, and I’m pretty sure you’ll find other people in lawless zones willing to contest you for rarer resources.
I still don’t get your point.
As stated above, corruption is to deter griefing . Killing a player who is contending with you for resources is not griefing, even if that player doesnt fight back.
So initially, early corruption should be more like a warning. It would still implement heavy death penalties and put initial stat debuffs. But to implement that same punishment up with exponential punishment gains every time you defend yourself is really over the top. Especially since it'd be in cases where the "non-combatants" are actively engaging in PvP combat.
What is your reasoning for punishing normal PKing exactly the same as griefing?
That’s not normal PK’ing though as normal PK’ing is knowing the risk such as in a lawless zone I’ve accepted the risk. The risk being it’s a PvP zone so I know anyone who’s not in my guild, group or alliance could be a threat. At that point I’ve accepted the fact I could be ganked or even end up fighting over resources.
However a green who is neither in a lawless PvP zone or flagged for combat who probably doesn’t want to fight doesn’t necessarily know or accept the risk of being PK’d. What you’re doing at that point is getting upset over resources in a non-PvP zone or trying to force them out of a farming area which is griefing.
A caravan system is the same thing as a PvP zone you know the risk that there’s an opt-in PvP system and PK’ing system for caravans. If you’re silly enough to transport knowing you can be attacked by people opting into being a combatant or potentially stealing your goods, and you don’t take precautions or get friends to help you transport or plan a safe route that’s at your own risk.
Honestly it’s like I’m trying to explain what consent is to someone it shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand.
If you can be attacked by someone, you're in a PvP enabled zone... You are knowingly going into a zone where you know anyone can kill you...its normal PKing. The only difference is that it can give corruption to the attacker. Someone who PKs, isn't a griefer. A Griefer PKs for the sake of negatively impacting other players gameplay. A normal PKer PK's for personal advancement within the game.
I'll put this here yet again
"The goal of the corruption system is to keep risk alive while significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief other players.[16][17]
It is my expectation that the system will perform very well in keeping risk alive, but significantly curtailing or deterring the ability for players to grief.[17] – Steven Sharif"
"When we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif"
✓ Occasional Roleplayer
✓ Kinda starting to look for a Guild right now. (German)