corruption debuff idea?

how about a compromise? instead of nerfing the red's stats and gimping their character.. make it so when youre corrupted you are just straight full drop. thats a heavy penalty but one that reds are use to bearing. it makes bounty hunting extremely profitable, its a huge penalty on reds but it doesnt prevent us from playing the way we like to play it. however it will be enough of a hit to deter the vast majority of most people from doing it.. which will make it so the game isnt a gankfest

bad guys are important.. noone wants to have their game destroyed but it adds a much more dangerous aspect to the game when you have reds.. im just saying we should be able to play the game the same as anyone else.. not get nerfed for it ;\

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Warth

no, people would let their friends kill them and circumvent your entire tradeoff.

Sathrago

The corruption system is designed so that you are not incentivized to hunt down non-combatants. The stat penalty is there as a guardian for this, while Bounty Hunters are there to enforce it but give you a "fair" chance at fighting back. No one asks you to go around indiscriminately killing other players, so don't be surprised when a game comes around that punishes that type of gameplay.

Now, if they made corrupted players full loot and removed the stat penalty they would have to make their loot have an increased chance to break to reduce them letting friends take the kill like @Warth said.

Gankez

Sathrago wrote: »

The corruption system is designed so that you are not incentivized to hunt down non-combatants. The stat penalty is there as a guardian for this, while Bounty Hunters are there to enforce it but give you a "fair" chance at fighting back. No one asks you to go around indiscriminately killing other players, so don't be surprised when a game comes around that punishes that type of gameplay.

Now, if they made corrupted players full loot and removed the stat penalty they would have to make their loot have an increased chance to break to reduce them letting friends take the kill like @Warth said.

edit* im stoned srry

--
you could make it so a bounty hunter flags a corrupted player so that if anyone loots the corpse they become corrupted for x min and drop their gear too as a possible solution?

Warth

@Sathrago i believe that the gear of corrupted players should be destroyed instead of dropped either way. Maybe give the person that kills them a broken version of it, that can be salvaged for ~20-50% of the resources needed to craft a replacement.

This would reduce the possibilities of people trying to game the system, further envigorate the economy as crafters, caravans and gatherers become involved into the crafting of a replacement as well as support the scarcity of resources as more resources are taken out of the economy periodically, which in turn drives player conflict in the world.

Gankez

Warth wrote: »

@Sathrago i believe that the gear of corrupted players should be destroyed instead of dropped either way. Maybe give the person that kills them a broken version of it, that can be salvaged for ~20-50% of the resources needed to craft a replacement.

This would reduce the possibilities of people trying to game the system, further envigorate the economy as crafters, caravans and gatherers become involved into the crafting of a replacement as well as support the scarcity of resources as more resources are taken out of the economy periodically, which in turn drives player conflict in the world.

i like this idea.. +1 for being awesome warth

Warth

Gankez wrote: »

that circumvention works on the current system so its not an argument against my suggestion

yeah it is as it is prevents the entire trade off you are suggesting from being relevant at all

All that remains is a simple nerf to the impact of corruption you are hiding behind a non-sensical trade-off that might not be part of the equation at all, as the impact is close to non-existant..

Gankez

Warth wrote: »

Gankez wrote: »

that circumvention works on the current system so its not an argument against my suggestion

yeah it is as it is prevents the entire trade off you are suggesting from being relevant at all.

ya i didnt realize what u were saying till a buddy explained it.. i edited my post

Noaani

Warth wrote: »

This would reduce the possibilities of people trying to game the system

I'm curious as to how you think people would attempt to game this system.

Gankez

another benefit of this system over the one they currently have is that you are still getting your stats nerfed.. but you're doing it in a fair way.. because with this system youre gonna die and lose your gear a lot.. so youll have less than ideal gear more than likely.. but its in the control of the red more because it lets them, if they are good, keep better and better gear.

this is a perk to bounty hunters as well because youre guaranteed to get good loot for hunting down reds (if you win)

daveywavey

Warth wrote: »

no, people would let their friends kill them and circumvent your entire tradeoff.

Can they not just do that anyway? If corruption is lessened by death, then corrupted players can just have their friends kill them after a non-combatant fest?

Warth

Noaani wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

This would reduce the possibilities of people trying to game the system

I'm curious as to how you think people would attempt to game this system.

if the primary penalty for corruption becomes the drop of your entire gear set then people will simply use their friends to kill them and loot the gear they have dropped, returning it once the corruption is gone.

That's why gear drop can at best only be one in a system of multi-layered penalties, as it might be the most significant one, but also the one that is the easiest to circumvent.

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

Warth wrote: »

no, people would let their friends kill them and circumvent your entire tradeoff.

Can they not just do that anyway? If corruption is lessened by death, then corrupted players can just have their friends kill them after a non-combatant fest?

it certainly is, that's why you shouldn't shift a larger part of the corruption penalties onto the gear part, but keep the other penalties as part of the equation.

Songcaller

The odds get substantially stacked against a Corrupted Player the more people a Corrupted Player fights. The main point remains that any Green can kill a Corrupted Player at any time. It is highly unlikely a massed killing spree will go ahead without counter play from players.

It is true 'friends' could 'milk' a Corrupted Player but it would be a terrific feat with no fast travel and randomised spawn locations for Corrupted Players.

Warth

Neurath wrote: »

The odds get substantially stacked against a Corrupted Player the more people a Corrupted Player fights. The main point remains that any Green can kill a Corrupted Player at any time. It is highly unlikely a massed killing spree will go ahead without counter play from players.

It is true 'friends' could 'milk' a Corrupted Player but it would be a terrific feat with no fast travel and randomised spawn locations for Corrupted Players.

not really, no.

You simply familiy summon your friend in before killingc somebody, then you murder, then he kills you.

Songcaller

We don't even know the status one would be in after a single green kill.

Would the stacked Experience Debt be worth the hassle?

Furthermore, the risk of dropping armour and weapons is miniscule after one kill...the chance increases the more you stack Corruption.

I love the idea of such time sinks for players. What a load of hassle it will be for griefers and those who support griefers.

So far, the majority of responders on this Forum are all game for PvP Elements, be they meaningful PvP, consensual PvP or non-consensual PvP, therefore the pool of potential Green Victims seems a tad underwhelming at the current juncture. Might be a tad difficult to even go corrupted.

Warth

Neurath wrote: »

We don't even know the status one would be in after a single green kill.

Would the stacked Experience Debt be worth the hassle?

Furthermore, the risk of dropping armour and weapons is miniscule after one kill...the chance increases the more you stack Corruption.

I love the idea of such time sinks for players. What a load of hassle it will be for griefers and those who support griefers.

So far, the majority of responders on this Forum are all game for PvP Elements, be they meaningful PvP, consensual PvP or non-consensual PvP, therefore the pool of potential Green Victims seems a tad underwhelming at the current juncture. Might be a tad difficult to even go corrupted.

@Neurath did you read the original post?
The original post is suggesting to drop your entire gear set upon death as a corrupted player. So it wouldn't be miniscule anymore. That's the whole point I'm making. You can't do that.

Songcaller

I did read the opening post yes, but, I was responding to the thread in flow...more specifically to the suggestion that friends can assist corrupted players.

We do have full loot PvPers in the community. I've done it before myself. The fact remains we are a miniscule aspect of the community as a whole.

I don't see the need to have full loot on a Corrupted Player in Ashes. I like the current theoretical system. I would not be so naïve to state I would never go corrupted. I believe there will be a time and a place for all types of PvP. Yet, Bounty Hunters/Greens can drop loot for Corrupted Players and Corrupted Players can drop loot for anyone who kills them.

There must be risk and reward. Rewards should match the risk. It seems nonsensical for full loot on Corrupted Players to be a blanket response whether one green is killed or one hundred greens are killed.

daveywavey

Neurath wrote: »

the pool of potential Green Victims seems a tad underwhelming at the current juncture. Might be a tad difficult to even go corrupted.

I'll be a green! You can come and kill me if you want to go Corrupted.

Maybe there could be a "Find Daveywavey" aura for players who want to turn Red...?

Mojottv

I dunno what you guys are talking about, either way corruption and all its penalties can be cleared by friends jus killing you and giving back your gear, except for exp debt. So to counter corrupted players need to loose more exp when they die and thats it. You dont want too harsh corruption penalties to a point where its basically game breaking. If you kill one or two guys and can get to secluded spot to clear off corruption, fair play to you.. risk vs reward

Gankez

Mojottv wrote: »

I dunno what you guys are talking about, either way corruption and all its penalties can be cleared by friends jus killing you and giving back your gear, except for exp debt. So to counter corrupted players need to loose more exp when they die and thats it. You dont want too harsh corruption penalties to a point where its basically game breaking. If you kill one or two guys and can get to secluded spot to clear off corruption, fair play to you.. risk vs reward

the argument im making is it makes staying red an unplayable play style.. harsh penalties i can handle and gladly live with.. its a part of being red.. but nerfing stats means i HAVE to find a way around the penalties.. otherwise i cant play the game.. it doesnt prevent me from doing what i want .. it just annoys me and makes the game less fun.. but on your end. nothing changes

Child Item