khitomer wrote: » Not through killing bounty hunters, but avoiding being killed by a bunch of them while requiring a certain amount of combat uptime. The odds are heavily stacked against the corrupted player, based on the increasing degree of consequences as corruption goes higher. If say the ability to lower or clear corruption only came once a peak of it had been reached, and it required a significant enough combat uptime with same or higher level players to clear it, so that it would be very difficult to actually survive long enough, then that would be a real feat for anyone who could actually accomplish it. Anyone actually game enough to be willingly corrupt risks their items being looted, so they wouldnt equip gear they would be comfortable losing permanently, which would in turn make them weaker against bounty hunters, on top of all the other already compromising consequences to gaining heavy corruption.
Sathrago wrote: » your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window. Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out.
khitomer wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » your intent: corrupt player outplays a bunch of greens and purples because of leet skillz and gets corruption cleansed after a time window. Reality: corrupt player hides inside his goon squad of 10+ purple and green friends until the timer runs out. Wouldnt matter much if heals have almost no effect on him and he can be 1-2 shot. A single snare might mean certain death. To my mind in that predicament you would have to rely on consumables and knowing the terrain, outfoxing any lazy bounty hunter (which in my scenario would tend to fuel their efforts to kill during the combat uptime window), and other escapades that could be creatively dreamed up. Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
khitomer wrote: » Surely you can see there are ways to innovate within this concept to ensure as little easy exploitation as possible.
Sathrago wrote: » Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up. Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs.
khitomer wrote: » As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged. Thats often how worthwhile concepts get fleshed out over time.
khitomer wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Well it doesn't matter how squishy you are if you have a squad of friends killing anyone that tries to get close to you. Your idea assumes that playing solo will be the norm rather than the exception. It could mayyyybe work if players couldn't help you (this would never happen), but the second you add multiple friendlies to the mix the idea just completely fails to hold up. Unless you can figure out a better way of explaining this or a new idea entirely, you should not expect such a thing to be considered by other players let alone the devs. So make it that players of a certain level of corruption or higher cant group with other players (ie; dont benefit from buffs or heals). I dont know if youve played the bg in wow with the orbs for example.. how squishy the orb holding players get so that they die very easily even with protection. I didnt have expectations going into what I suggested in the first place - its just an idea I floated which makes sense to me. Also, I dont think you and a handful of people here can speak for 'players in general'. Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most. As I told the flamer earlier, its not his opinion (or yours) that Im necessarily interested in, but your objections have helped in the sense that a certain amount of elaboration of the concept has emerged.
Everyone likes to think their opinions are so reasonable that theyre common sense to all or most.
khitomer wrote: » I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test.
Noaani wrote: » If you came up with a suggestion that fit the above, and that wasn't so easily exploited, you could perhaps be taken seriously.
khitomer wrote: » As I said, I have no issue with the corruption system, or the considered rationale for its implementation. Its there for a very good reason. I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test. Its that simple. Devs may not agree, then again they might, if not now, then further down the road. Thats all there is to it.
Asgerr wrote: » khitomer wrote: » As I said, I have no issue with the corruption system, or the considered rationale for its implementation. Its there for a very good reason. I just think that since there will be instances of "...should the occasion arise, where the benefits outweigh the risk, you have the ability to do so", there ought to be a way for exceptionally talented and determined players to be redeemed if they can best the test. Its that simple. Devs may not agree, then again they might, if not now, then further down the road. Thats all there is to it. I think to some extent there is some of that, but it's not in a direct way, nor do I personally believe it would make much sense. Let's say you accrue enough corruption to get Bounty Hunters on your trail. You manage to fend em off in a consensual PvP fight (they are always flagged as combattants to corrupted players). Meanwhile you're not just standing still waiting. You're killing mobs and doing what quests you can without access to the local Node. Doing so works off your corruption and then you can go back in town and be boisterous about your victories over X amount of Bounty Hunters > Get a reputation > ? > Profit. But I would say offering a direct "reward" to remove some of that corruption by fighting off Bounty Hunters, doesn't seem entirely logical, even from a lore/irl perspective. That would be like if you committed a murder irl, and the police came after you. You decide to kill the cops and other forces chasing you. And after a number of dead law enforcers, someone goes: "Everyone go home. He killed 20 cops. He's earned his freedom". Wouldn't make much sense would it? Another example, in videogames would be something like GTA. Once you get that first star, if you keep causing mayhem to the point of getting 5 stars, you don't really expect the game to lower you to 0 stars because you managed to fight off the army for X amount of time. The only way to do so is basically hiding and running away. Which is the most "realistic" scenario for someone on a killing spree not looking to get caught and killed himself. Throw in some possible options for exploits and ultimately, while it could be fun, it wouldn't entirely fit the logic of any world with enough law sense to have bounty hunters chase "criminals".
khitomer wrote: » What kind of 'direct reward' is there in surviving lol.. aside from not dying and losing your gear? Even then you still wont be wearing good gear because of the risk of losing it if you dont survive, which is very high. So the only true reward for surviving is being able to say you beat the very tough odds and did it. And you would likely only be able to say it once or twice in your entire playing career in AOC. If someone tries to exploit being helped by their buds, then other people will see that and know it wasnt a genuine escape. I can imagine those who will actively really try to do this will capture their effort on video so they can have proof of a clean escape without exploiting player help. Logically speaking, if a player could hypothetically evade all attempts to kill them at peak corruption, then it should not be the case that they remain corrupt until they eventually do die. That kind of thing will just lead to corrupted players stashing their gear, letting themselves be killed to get rid of corruption and doing the whole thing all over again. There will be zero incentive to attempt a miraculous escape with life and gear intact at all.
khitomer wrote: » Its not your response or opinion Im concerned with, as I already said several times. You obviously think your response to me matters, but it doesnt.
Asgerr wrote: » There seems to be some contention on whether or not corrupted players will be able to actually remove their equipment. I think it was on the last livestream where Steven was talking about this issue. He wanted to avoid players just dropping their gear to their friends to avoid losing anything upon death while corrupted. We'll see what the tests they conduct on it will leave us with
Noaani wrote: » If you think you are going to get Steven, or anyone at Intrepid for that matter, to comment on this, you are wrong. If you want them to even look at it seriously, you need to have basically all players on board agreeing that it is a good idea, and that Intrepid wmshould consider it. Until you have that, you wont get the opinion you want - and even if we all agree it's a great idea you likely still wont. That is why I said you need to work on your idea. If you actually want Intrepids opinion on your idea, you need to get the posters here on board first - and you have not done that.
