Deztox wrote: » I personally hate the idea that you get "weaker" due to corruption. It's fine that you risk losing gear etc., but giving bounty hunters an edge up just creates an unbalanced PvP experience between "Killers" and "Bounty Hunters".
Nagash wrote: » I'm more annoyed that Noaani still has no profile picture
Quiltsharts wrote: » unknownsystemerror wrote: » Ashes was never intended to be full loot. It would not have received the backing that it has if it was. Corruption is not there as a "playstyle" It is a punishment. All stick, no carrot. If you feel you really have to kill people not willing to fight back, then you pay the penalty, in time sink and possible gear loss. I just don't see why you would purposely play down a factor for your game that would enhance it, and not just from a person who wants to be a corrupted player. From your perspective the more corrupted in the world the better. You can't lose anything in the engagement just a little bit of time and maybe some e-honor. You have a hell of a lot to gain though. Nothing changes with what I suggest, it's still completely optional, you just incentivise it a bit more. Is that such a crime? This entire game has literally been the taco girl of "Why not both" and I reckon we can do it here also. I really highly doubt people are going to even do this outside of the gimmick factor and maybe a couple of hours of sitting outside a city naked camping people. It's unlikely to happen due to how much it's going to screw you if you decide you want to go do a dungeon / raid / go into a town etc- Not spend the next X hours online even.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » Ashes was never intended to be full loot. It would not have received the backing that it has if it was. Corruption is not there as a "playstyle" It is a punishment. All stick, no carrot. If you feel you really have to kill people not willing to fight back, then you pay the penalty, in time sink and possible gear loss.
George Black wrote: » Has any1 mmo with meaningful equipment systems ever done full loot upon death? No, because the purpose of mmo is to build up your fantasy class, dress it up with nice looking gear and fitting bonuses, combine your weapon and class abilities to fill a combat role. Losing your gear means that you have to recraft/farm it, instead of discovering new zones, and playing politics and war games. Full loot is best left to SCUM and RUST; games that have one type of scenery, with the sole purpose of players to demonstrate their combat and survival skills, and even organise in much much smaller groups than mmo guilds. I don't want to spend my time going back to get base iron swords and iron helmets every time I die. Nobody does in an mmo. I don't mind doing that in SCUM. Over there it's actually pretty fun, since the combat is basic, but the challenge is not being killed while you gather useful items. If what you propose goes live, the solo purpose of the game would be to kill others to prevent them from looting you. Mmos are much more than just that. As for the corruption system. It has successfully worked before in an open world mmo, with the same purpose. To prevent griefers going on a killing spree. I will PK anybody that annoys me, talks shiet. Nothing prevents me from doing that, and even if I get killed as a Corrupt player, I won't get punished as much. I don't think you have all the facts about the system. This is how the game is going to be. No point arguing in making this mmo, with its so many activities, just kill and loot gear.
Quiltsharts wrote: » > and most likely if it's not timer based you will have to kill other corrupted players just to get out of it Seriously ya'll the answers to most of these concerns are on the wiki and in other posts. You can't provide constructive criticism if you don't even actually know what it is you're criticizing. Normally I'd agree but quite honestly you're just straw manning here. Sure I didn't know exactly how to get out of corruption. That really doesn't matter in the slightest and is completely beyond the point. Argue the point or don't argue. That's a greater thing.
> and most likely if it's not timer based you will have to kill other corrupted players just to get out of it Seriously ya'll the answers to most of these concerns are on the wiki and in other posts. You can't provide constructive criticism if you don't even actually know what it is you're criticizing.
Quiltsharts wrote: » Normally I'd agree but quite honestly you're just straw manning here.
Quiltsharts wrote: » noaani wrote: » Quiltsharts wrote: » Normally I'd agree but quite honestly you're just straw manning here. In my experience, when people post suggestions that are not founded on the basis of what we know of the game, all arguments against it will come across as straw man arguments. Yeah but when you create really basic arguments of "it doesn't matter if it's better because that's how it's suppsoed to be". I basically read your comments and think. Hey. This guy hates fun, and you should never have a say in video game development anywhere ever. So stay strong little strawman, else prove me wrong.
noaani wrote: » Quiltsharts wrote: » Normally I'd agree but quite honestly you're just straw manning here. In my experience, when people post suggestions that are not founded on the basis of what we know of the game, all arguments against it will come across as straw man arguments.
Quiltsharts wrote: » But to me, the PvP system in this game provides zero incentive to become corrupted and to want to PvP under that villainous tag. At this point there's probably a truck load of downsides, for the one upside that "you killed who you wanted to kill". It just doesn't seem worth it.
Celestial Scythe wrote: » I prefer the idea that Runescape put in, where you could select up to X number of items that if you died, you would keep. I would hate to spend hours if not days doing a specific raid for a extremely rare item, just to exit the cave and someone KO'd me and picked it up no time put in.
