Suggestion to Deterring Dying to a Friend to Avoid Corruption Penalties

Dolyem

Just a suggestion to pitch to the Devs to possibly test it out.

Saw on the recent interview between Steven and TheoryForge regarding dealing with corrupted players avoiding penalties by dying to friends.

Another suggestion I have thought of you can toss around or completely ignore.

Instead of a chance of dropping a piece of the gear the corrupted player is using, have a piece of gear they are wearing be destroyed, but drop the highest material(s) that would correspond with the dropped gear.

Pros:
- It deters dying as a corrupted player because it causes the corrupted player a guaranteed gear loss even if they try to cheese the system by dying to a friend.
- The Corrupted player would still have to be able to make the item, have the other materials for it, and have a place to make said item, if they went the route of dying to a friend.
- It gives the player who killed the corrupted player more agency by allowing them to use that material to craft gear they actually want and is useful to them, as opposed to potentially being stuck with an item that is of no use to them.

Cons:
- It doesn't feel as good as getting a piece of completed gear from a corrupted player

Arya_Yeshe

Not bad, but let’s be real. The ultimate system would let a bounty hunter snag the corrupted, and if bounty hunter pulls it off, that corrupted player gets hit with a debt mark. Every time they score gold, a slice goes to the victim and another to the bounty hunter. But what if the bounty hunter is tight with the corrupted? Unless a legit neutral debt collector bounty hunter swoops in first and gets the kill, that’s the real drama!

Honestly, all of Intrepid's ideas about corrupted and bounty hunter gameplay are a snooze fest. They’re so childish, it’s almost cute.

Arya_Yeshe

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Not bad, but let’s be real. The ultimate system would let a bounty hunter snag the corrupted, and if bounty hunter pulls it off, that corrupted player gets hit with a debt mark. Every time they score gold, a slice goes to the victim and another to the bounty hunter. But what if the bounty hunter is tight with the corrupted? Unless a legit neutral debt collector bounty hunter swoops in first and gets the kill, that’s the real drama!

Honestly, all of Intrepid's ideas about corrupted and bounty hunter gameplay are a snooze fest. They’re so childish, it’s almost cute.

Damn, I'm that good in triggering people!

Mark the pk with indebted status, then whatever happens to his loot is whatever

Ludullu

I'm mainly against this cause full items provide just too good of a feeling when you loot them off a PKer. Just as Steven mentioned on that interview, he looted a +9 jewel cause some PKer lost it. And you're never "stuck" with that stuff. We have free market - go sell it. Or give it to someone from your guild.

I agree with Arya that this should be addressed through the BH system, accounting for potential BH-ally situations. Though my approach to that is through bags and system-based loot returnal from BHs to victims, while BHs can either get their rewards from the system itself or go "unpack" the PKer's loot bag at the black market npc, which will then decrease BH's rank in their career stuff, so if they do that a bit too often - they get completely fucked over.

Dolyem

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Not bad, but let’s be real. The ultimate system would let a bounty hunter snag the corrupted, and if bounty hunter pulls it off, that corrupted player gets hit with a debt mark. Every time they score gold, a slice goes to the victim and another to the bounty hunter. But what if the bounty hunter is tight with the corrupted? Unless a legit neutral debt collector bounty hunter swoops in first and gets the kill, that’s the real drama!

Honestly, all of Intrepid's ideas about corrupted and bounty hunter gameplay are a snooze fest. They’re so childish, it’s almost cute.

issues with your suggestion:
-Substantial risk reduction on the non-combatant players end if their death penalties are reduced via giving back resources to them upon corrupted players demise.
-Corrupted players could still take full advantage of a friend killing them via the bounty hunter system.


And just my opinion. Lingering Penalties after corruption is cleared is a shit idea simply because youre piling massive penalties on already massive penalties. Corruption paid through death or clearing through xp should be the end of it.

Dolyem

Ludullu wrote: »

I'm mainly against this cause full items provide just too good of a feeling when you loot them off a PKer. Just as Steven mentioned on that interview, he looted a +9 jewel cause some PKer lost it. And you're never "stuck" with that stuff. We have free market - go sell it. Or give it to someone from your guild.

I agree with Arya that this should be addressed through the BH system, accounting for potential BH-ally situations. Though my approach to that is through bags and system-based loot returnal from BHs to victims, while BHs can either get their rewards from the system itself or go "unpack" the PKer's loot bag at the black market npc, which will then decrease BH's rank in their career stuff, so if they do that a bit too often - they get completely fucked over.

I'll take slightly less happy feelings with material looting if it prevent players from cheesing the system. Not to mention it helps the artisan market.

And there is no obligation that needs to uphold returning a non-combatants stolen goods. Otherwise their risk is drastically reduced. Whoever kills the corrupted player takes the loot. If the victim wants it back, make a trade.

Ludullu

Dolyem wrote: »

I'll take slightly less happy feelings with material looting if it prevent players from cheesing the system. Not to mention it helps the artisan market.

It wouldn't help the market though, cause in this case the friends picked those things up and they'll just use their own artisans to recraft stuff.

Dolyem wrote: »

And there is no obligation that needs to uphold returning a non-combatants stolen goods. Otherwise their risk is drastically reduced. Whoever kills the corrupted player takes the loot. If the victim wants it back, make a trade.

I mean, the PKer need to be killed first. Then they must be killed by an outside BH. And then the BH must want to return the loot. That's several steps of separation from the victim getting their stuff back.

Dolyem

Ludullu wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

I'll take slightly less happy feelings with material looting if it prevent players from cheesing the system. Not to mention it helps the artisan market.

It wouldn't help the market though, cause in this case the friends picked those things up and they'll just use their own artisans to recraft stuff.

Dolyem wrote: »

And there is no obligation that needs to uphold returning a non-combatants stolen goods. Otherwise their risk is drastically reduced. Whoever kills the corrupted player takes the loot. If the victim wants it back, make a trade.

I mean, the PKer need to be killed first. Then they must be killed by an outside BH. And then the BH must want to return the loot. That's several steps of separation from the victim getting their stuff back.

Thats assuming they can make it, and that they have all of the other materials on hand. It definitely has potential to help the artisan market.

And yea, by no means should that material go back to the player who was originally killed outside of the player asking for it or trading for it with whoever acquired it from the corrupted player. 100% death penalty for not fighting back should stay in effect. The choice was made.

Depraved

umm no because then no one would ever go red, and sometimes you need to go red. if you have a guaranteed piece of gear destroyed when you die red, that's too much of a punishment, whereas having a chance of dropping something (or nothing) its still punishment but not too harsh.

Dolyem

Depraved wrote: »

umm no because then no one would ever go red, and sometimes you need to go red. if you have a guaranteed piece of gear destroyed when you die red, that's too much of a punishment, whereas having a chance of dropping something (or nothing) its still punishment but not too harsh.

Thats my bad, it'd still be a chance, but it would destroy the gear and drop material instead.

Depraved

but they could just re caft it quite easily then after their friends pick up the mats. they might just be losing some money, that's it.

Dolyem

Depraved wrote: »

but they could just re caft it quite easily then after their friends pick up the mats. they might just be losing some money, that's it.

It wouldnt drop all the mats, just a portion of the higher materials needed for it. And theyd need someone who could make it, and a proper place to craft it. If nothing else, its time and materials they are paying for. Provides cost, and it requires time which takes them out of the world they were PKing in. As long as its costly enough, it'll significantly deter the work around.

Sathrago

Dolyem wrote: »

Just a suggestion to pitch to the Devs to possibly test it out.

Saw on the recent interview between Steven and TheoryForge regarding dealing with corrupted players avoiding penalties by dying to friends.

Another suggestion I have thought of you can toss around or completely ignore.

Instead of a chance of dropping a piece of the gear the corrupted player is using, have a piece of gear they are wearing be destroyed, but drop the highest material(s) that would correspond with the dropped gear.

Pros:
- It deters dying as a corrupted player because it causes the corrupted player a guaranteed gear loss even if they try to cheese the system by dying to a friend.
- The Corrupted player would still have to be able to make the item, have the other materials for it, and have a place to make said item, if they went the route of dying to a friend.
- It gives the player who killed the corrupted player more agency by allowing them to use that material to craft gear they actually want and is useful to them, as opposed to potentially being stuck with an item that is of no use to them.

Cons:
- It doesn't feel as good as getting a piece of completed gear from a corrupted player

I think this would be good for this specific problem. I would make it only return 70% of the materials for the craft so that they are losing not only the item but need to go gain more materials to recraft it.

I would also like to suggest that removing corruption does not remove the ability for a bounty hunter to come claim the bounty on your head. Meaning as long as they have not died to a bounty hunter, the bounty stands. This would make it more viable to be a bounty hunter and create more pvp opportunities for red oriented players. If the bounty hunter attacks a player that was marked due to being red previously, that marked player becomes purple and the two fight it out.

Dolyem

I will also add that with the NDA being lifted, testers have been telling me today the crafting system is VERY elaborate. So it may not be so simple to recraft something that gets destroyed

Goalid

I had a system I wrote about years ago to prevent players from dying to a friend to drop your gear and have them pick it up for you.

The system: At the point and time you become corrupt, the dice rolls on what gear you having the potential to drop on death. The gear that would drop on death while corrupt becomes "Bloodstained". Bloodstained gear always drops on death. If you kill a player and pick up bloodstained gear, it automatically flags you for PvP, and is trackable by bounty hunters. In order to cleanse the bloodstained gear you have to do a quest while avoiding the bounty hunters of a given node, whereas bounty hunters who acquire the gear can put it in the bounty hunter's node auction. If it's on auction, the gold generated goes to the node and the bounty hunter gets an equivalent of currency for the bounty hunting system.

Why it works: bounty hunters get a gameplay loop for hunting for gear, and then either risking it by doing the cleansing quest or simply turning it in for their currency. A corrupt player could buy it from the auction, but they'd lose the gold equivalent of the gear, and anyone else can also get it. If your friend kills you and picks up your gear, it doesn't guarantee at all that your gear will be saved, and you incur the full XP debt penalty, hence not worth it.

This imo is the system Intrepid should look into, because right now with corruption I would absolutely have a friend kill me for my gear if I was corrupt.

Veeshan

Could also make dropped items untradeable for like a week or something too tbh, like even if ally kills them they will need replacement to dropped gear for a week before they can get it back lol

Dolyem

Goalid wrote: »

I had a system I wrote about years ago to prevent players from dying to a friend to drop your gear and have them pick it up for you.

The system: At the point and time you become corrupt, the dice rolls on what gear you having the potential to drop on death. The gear that would drop on death while corrupt becomes "Bloodstained". Bloodstained gear always drops on death. If you kill a player and pick up bloodstained gear, it automatically flags you for PvP, and is trackable by bounty hunters. In order to cleanse the bloodstained gear you have to do a quest while avoiding the bounty hunters of a given node, whereas bounty hunters who acquire the gear can put it in the bounty hunter's node auction. If it's on auction, the gold generated goes to the node and the bounty hunter gets an equivalent of currency for the bounty hunting system.

Why it works: bounty hunters get a gameplay loop for hunting for gear, and then either risking it by doing the cleansing quest or simply turning it in for their currency. A corrupt player could buy it from the auction, but they'd lose the gold equivalent of the gear, and anyone else can also get it. If your friend kills you and picks up your gear, it doesn't guarantee at all that your gear will be saved, and you incur the full XP debt penalty, hence not worth it.

This imo is the system Intrepid should look into, because right now with corruption I would absolutely have a friend kill me for my gear if I was corrupt.

I kinda get it. As long as the bounty hunter isn't getting gold they can give back to their friend if they buy it

hleV

Corruption shouldn't lose you months of progression (like losing a valuable item). That's a recipe for people quitting the game if they end up on the short stick of going corrupted spontaneously without planning ahead and stashing their best gear beforehand.

Dolyem

hleV wrote: »

Corruption shouldn't lose you months of progression (like losing a valuable item). That's a recipe for people quitting the game if they end up on the short stick of going corrupted spontaneously without planning ahead and stashing their best gear beforehand.

As a trade-off for that you become weaker. And from my understanding, the intended design is that you can't remove/swap gear once you become corrupted.

Arya_Yeshe

The real problem is totally flying under the radar for most people, which is why nobody seems to get it, not even Intrepid! Here’s the deal: in AoC, there’s zero way to track the losses from player kills, so good luck trying to collect bounties properly! Hello, Intrepid?

Just measure everything in gold and let the bounty hunters on the loose! It’s that simple and way more fun. When a bounty hunter takes out someone who owes a debt, they should reimburse the victim and pocket a share based on the damage they dealt to the indebted’s gear. Oh, and don’t forget to multiply that damage by 100% and speed up the bounty collection process on those corrupted/indebted people. Seriously, it’s not rocket science!

The key is making those repairs cost gold! The corrupted are always going to be shelling out cash when their gear takes a hit, which guarantees they’re losing gold. It’s the ultimate gold sink, baby!

Not even hard, come on!

Arya_Yeshe

The bounty hunter should totally moonlight as a debt collector. If a PK loses gear, it should go straight to the victim by email. It’s like a high-stakes game of chance: roll in with your legendaries, and bam, they’re at risk. You’re basically forced to run around in trash gear if you want to pk, which totally takes away your edge in a fight.

And let’s not forget, you’re still stuck with that debt. When bounty hunters track down the indebted, they’ll snag a kill with a gear damage penalty of 100-200%. That means the indebted’s gear is going to take a serious beating, and guess what? They’ll have to cough up even more gold to repair it. The PKs and victims get to cash in on that right away, even if the PK decides to sell the damaged gear. The new buyer? They’re on the hook for repairs, too. There’s just no dodging that!

This is solid!

Otr

The green should have a say in what happens after he is killed.
There should be an option to activate the bounty and decide if it should be collected by everyone or by your allies or citizens or guild or by random BH only. Or a delayed activation, for the time when you see the player later.

But Steven's solution with the PK_value will work too once it is implemented.
Unless the games proves to be more fun now and we tell them to let it stay as it is.

Dolyem

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

The bounty hunter should totally moonlight as a debt collector. If a PK loses gear, it should go straight to the victim by email. It’s like a high-stakes game of chance: roll in with your legendaries, and bam, they’re at risk. You’re basically forced to run around in trash gear if you want to pk, which totally takes away your edge in a fight.

And let’s not forget, you’re still stuck with that debt. When bounty hunters track down the indebted, they’ll snag a kill with a gear damage penalty of 100-200%. That means the indebted’s gear is going to take a serious beating, and guess what? They’ll have to cough up even more gold to repair it. The PKs and victims get to cash in on that right away, even if the PK decides to sell the damaged gear. The new buyer? They’re on the hook for repairs, too. There’s just no dodging that!

This is solid!

Players who don't fight back shouldn't be rewarded/reimbersed for dying. Otherwise you are taking away the risk factor for anyone who chooses to remain a non-combatant.

Dolyem

Otr wrote: »

The green should have a say in what happens after he is killed.
There should be an option to activate the bounty and decide if it should be collected by everyone or by your allies or citizens or guild or by random BH only. Or a delayed activation, for the time when you see the player later.

But Steven's solution with the PK_value will work too once it is implemented.
Unless the games proves to be more fun now and we tell them to let it stay as it is.

I don't hate it. But I'd say it's an open contract by default, but the player can make it a private/closed contract for a price.

As for PK value system, I don't have an issue with it as long as it isn't time-gated in regards to working it off. The time to get rid of it shouldn't be so little that it's nothing, but not so much that you're working it off for days for not many kills.