Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Griefing is amazing!
xthisu
Member
Greetings, fellow humans!
I’ll admit, my title is a bit misleading—laden with a heavy dose of sarcasm—but hey, you’re here, so mission accomplished!
Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.
Full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of PvP whatsoever. However, I can understand the appeal of it and believe it can be made fun and fair for all.
Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:
Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.
The chance of corruption increases with each additional attack within a specific timeframe (reset after 10 minutes, for example).
This chance would also scale further based on the aggressor's level of Blight.
Intended Outcomes
[1] Reduced griefing of non-combatants.
[2] Increased risk for non-PK griefers.
[3] Encourages politically and resource-motivated PK/PvP. (Corrupted debuffs would require major reduction)
[4] Boosted value of bounty hunting: With more corrupted players around, bounty hunters have increased opportunities for action.
Balancing Adjustments
To maintain harmony with the game’s core principles, adjustments would be necessary for non-combatant vs. corrupted interactions. The penalties and rewards need to strike a fine balance to ensure the system feels fair and engaging for all players.
Additional Benefits
[-] Reduces reliance on Customer Support: Placing the onus on victims to report griefers (a double burden, in my opinion) could be minimized.
[-] Streamlined support needs: Fewer reports mean fewer Customer Service Reps required, saving resources for Intrepid.
An Alternate Angle
Perhaps instead of focusing solely on punishing corrupted players, we could explore increasing protections for non-combatants. This might achieve similar goals while offering a more positive approach to the issue.
What do you think? Win-win-win? Or is there another way we can refine this idea further?
I’ll admit, my title is a bit misleading—laden with a heavy dose of sarcasm—but hey, you’re here, so mission accomplished!
Let’s dive into how I believe Intrepid could enhance the PvX experience across the board while staying true to their core values.
Full disclosure, I am NOT a fan of PvP whatsoever. However, I can understand the appeal of it and believe it can be made fun and fair for all.
Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:
Dynamic Corruption Mechanic
Anytime a player attacks a non-combatant, a 20-sided die (D20) roll determines if corruption is applied to the aggressor.
The chance of corruption increases with each additional attack within a specific timeframe (reset after 10 minutes, for example).
This chance would also scale further based on the aggressor's level of Blight.
Intended Outcomes
[1] Reduced griefing of non-combatants.
[2] Increased risk for non-PK griefers.
[3] Encourages politically and resource-motivated PK/PvP. (Corrupted debuffs would require major reduction)
[4] Boosted value of bounty hunting: With more corrupted players around, bounty hunters have increased opportunities for action.
Balancing Adjustments
To maintain harmony with the game’s core principles, adjustments would be necessary for non-combatant vs. corrupted interactions. The penalties and rewards need to strike a fine balance to ensure the system feels fair and engaging for all players.
Additional Benefits
[-] Reduces reliance on Customer Support: Placing the onus on victims to report griefers (a double burden, in my opinion) could be minimized.
[-] Streamlined support needs: Fewer reports mean fewer Customer Service Reps required, saving resources for Intrepid.
An Alternate Angle
Perhaps instead of focusing solely on punishing corrupted players, we could explore increasing protections for non-combatants. This might achieve similar goals while offering a more positive approach to the issue.
What do you think? Win-win-win? Or is there another way we can refine this idea further?
0
Comments
Oh hey, someone else that thinks they can improve on a system that is.only partially in place!
Including design changes to corruption systems that currently aren’t fully working as intended.
Kudos.
Oh, sorry … sarcasm overtook me there for a minute …
Isn't that partially the point of an Alpha and a General Discussion forum?
I mean, they are actively making changes to the system that is partially implemented as a result of player feedback...if it was how you describe it, they would have just brushed all the feedback off and told everyone to just wait until all the pieces were in place.
lol, that's literally what development is.
There’s a difference between saying ideas to tweak something compared to a full rework mate
Lost me immediately right here. RNG is annoying. Attacking alone should never apply corruption if it doesn't result in a PK.
RNG that applies based on non-lethal attacks is an extremely huge miss behind the intent of the system and what it's here to encourage and discourage.
Agreed. I still think corruption hammer needs to drop around the 3rd-ish green kill. We all know some greens just need to be squashed from time to time as a keen reminder of FAFO.
It's RNG, but it isn't. This roll would heavily skew towards "not being RNG"...initially...the idea here is just to try and mitigate a level 20 sitting on a level 10 just poking him for hours with no recourse except "call friends" or "call a DM". You could still poke someone to try and coax them into flagging or to push them out of a camp or insert your reason here without going corrupted, but prevent griefing. The RNG part is just so there's a bit of risk involved so you can't easily abuse it.
Probably a better way of implementing it, it was just an idea.
I'm not sure you read half of my post then because it is literally a tweak to one piece of the system.
Proposed System Enhancements
The foundational structure of the current system (non-combatant/combatant/corrupted) would remain intact. However, here’s an idea to add more nuance and balance:
I don't mind PKs at all honestly. At least you get the chance to go off into a separate direction if you wish after reviving at the spring.
Excellent, lets get started
Excellent, the dis-closure worked, cause Dis-thread just Closed for me.
It is significantly overtuned on purpose right now. The severity of consequences currently isn't reflective of the planned system.
10 PKs is the provided estimate of when combat stat dampening will be felt significantly. Consider the current system in that light, aka being 10X more severe than it's going to end up.
An alpha is not about suggesting anything. It is about finding problems, and then leaving the fix to those that actually know what they are doing.
You can't find problems in a system that is only 10% implemented.
I'm sure your intention was fine, but "feedback" doesn't mean they need suggestions.
We did.
Bluntness and sarcasm are allowed.