Should you even PVP ? (Corruption)

When I heard there will be the corruption system on players pvp'ing and debuffs such as being marked for bounty hunters, towns being hostile and dropping weapons, I had a thought.

While this does mean players wanting to roam freely without fear of getting ganked will be safer, for some players they do want to be hunting others for loot (I assume you can loot), not grinding PvE.

Whilst I'm not into PVP other than group style mayhem, I feel like there's no reward for being that kind of bad guy who doesn't afraid of anything.

Scarcity of resources being a reason for PVP doesn't mean everyone wants to pvp because its fun to gank noobs show mad skillz.

Maybe griefing will be a thing that persists, I hope it will because for all its faults and toxicity, it's the necessary salt in our collective wounds. Something like that.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jubilum

They only attack those they know they can beat, they are not looking for a fair fight. They will not start a fight if they think there is any chance they will loose. So what's the point in fighting back, unless just to maybe live a few seconds long hoping the Lone Ranger and Tonto will show up to save you.

Noaani

jubilum wrote: »

So what's the point in fighting back

Halving your death penalties.

Jubilum

For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.

Noaani

jubilum wrote: »

For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.

That's your call, but if you make it, you don't get to complain about it.

Jubilum

Not sure what you meant with that statement but from being familiar with your responses, it probably wasn't supportive of my concerns.

HazardNumberSeven

jubilum wrote: »

For me the penalty is dying to some punk in mommies basement. I could care less what the game does to me. He can go brag to his buddy's that he just killed someone that sat down and let me kill him...they might be impressed but I doubt it.

Trying to frame anyone who PvPs you without consent as a griefer or some child "in mommies basement" is probably a significant part of why people keep wanting to kill you in video games.

jubilum wrote: »

They only attack those they know they can beat, they are not looking for a fair fight. They will not start a fight if they think there is any chance they will loose. So what's the point in fighting back, unless just to maybe live a few seconds long hoping the Lone Ranger and Tonto will show up to save you.

Obviously, yes.

"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."

The point in fighting back is to escape or survive or in the very least halve your penalties. If you die as a non-combatant you'll be worse off.

Noaani

jubilum wrote: »

Not sure what you meant with that statement but from being familiar with your responses, it probably wasn't supportive of my concerns.

Your concern was that the game gives you no reason to fight back. As per

jubilum wrote: »

So what's the point in fighting back

Except the game does give you a reason to fight back, you just don't want to take the game up on that, for external reasons that are absolutely yours to make, but are not a part of the game.

Therefore, as far as I can see, the game has already given you a response to your concern, you just aren't taking it.

That is now an issue with you, not with the game.

Lafi

PvP isnt griefing

Thanks for listening to my ted talk

Nagash

Lafi wrote: »

PvP isnt griefing

Thanks for listening to my ted talk

Thank you ted for your talk

Aardvark

noaani wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

And players attacking each other for mats.

If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

Here's the thing, if they don't fight back, it is still your choice if you want to continue to attack them or not. You can always just not kill them.

You can't grief someone by not fighting back, because all that is doing is giving them the option to stop. You may not get the materials, but you also don't get the corruption.

Except if someone doesn't want to pvp that would be the desired outcome...pvper walks off and leaves them alone

U5urPator

You don't have to do open-world 1v1 non-consensual pvp.
However, you should to sieges, caravans etc as you benefit heavily from it.

Noaani

Aardvark wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

hazardnumberseven wrote: »

Aardvark wrote: »

the main source of pvp appears is going to be sieges

And players attacking each other for mats.

If you kill someone who doesn't fight back you get corruption.

If they do fight back, I don't get corruption though...
And if they don't fight back, they take bigger penalties, so no fighting back probably means they have nothing worth fighting for, and if my opponent has nothing worth fighting for then I don't want to kill them. Not interested in griefing.

Or they are as big of griefers as the pvper and use not fighting back as a way to give them the finger carebear style

Here's the thing, if they don't fight back, it is still your choice if you want to continue to attack them or not. You can always just not kill them.

You can't grief someone by not fighting back, because all that is doing is giving them the option to stop. You may not get the materials, but you also don't get the corruption.

Except if someone doesn't want to pvp that would be the desired outcome...pvper walks off and leaves them alone

Sometimes, yes. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be a whole lot of actual choice between the two options though.

The player being attacked has this choice to make.

Since they have that choice to make, they can't complain about there being no choice, as there is a clear and obvious one.

Child Item