Benefits for corrupt players

The current Corruption and Flagging system kills the vibe. Of course, no one wants to be PKed right after leaving a Node, but at the moment, there is literally no reason to PK. There is no Risk vs. Reward, it's just death.

Corrupt players can only remove corruption by dying or by slowly leveling for x amount of time. Plenty of bounty hunters might try to kill you and the consequences for dying are massive. Not only that, but combat becomes more and more difficult the more corrupt you are. Just a 10% decrease in stats would cripple me in PVP, so why would I ever become corrupt?

The only benefit is that non-combat players suffer twice the death penalty as combat players, so if you kill one of these players, you might get slightly more resources. This is not at all worth it. It would be cool if Corrupted players could receive some tangible benefits, rather than just having a ban on PKing in disguise.

My idea is, if the NPC reputation system is expanded to have evil NPCs be more favorable to Corrupted players, they might be able to exchange rare resources and items. The more PKs under your belt, the better the items. If you already have killed five players, let's assume you suffer a 5% decrease in stats and are a very tempting target for bounty hunters. If your goal is to get 10 PKs so you can trade for some really good items or resources, then the risks and benefits would balance each other.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

maouw

Return to the forums to find a new corruption thread!

good to see things are business as usual~
Perhaps we need a new diagram. Are people having trouble understanding the chart?

Taleof2Cities

maouw wrote: »

Return to the forums to find a new corruption thread!

good to see things are business as usual~
Perhaps we need a new diagram. Are people having trouble understanding the chart?

I don't think so, @maouw.

The PK crowd fully understands the chart. But, they're still gonna post their weekly new thread anyway ... of why the current corruption mechanic is "unfair" and to bargain for something better.

Razelthethird

i would hope killing people is more focused on justifiable reasons such as sieges, declared clan wars, etc. If you want to be a overall low life ganking noobs, then you should be punished appropriately. They make FPS games for those types of people.

ThexBlackxKnight

Razelthethird wrote: »

i would hope killing people is more focused on justifiable reasons such as sieges, declared clan wars, etc. If you want to be a overall low life ganking noobs, then you should be punished appropriately. They make FPS games for those types of people.

Unfortunately a lot of pvp players have been , are now and will continue to be a-holes because they like being a-holes. This game will be no different with toxicity , you really cant get around it in open world pvp games.

Biccus

The only problem I have with the corruption system is that non combatants have double the death penalty of combatants. Maybe it is fair but currently I just can’t get my head around it.

Edit: will add that my information comes solely from the wiki.

ThexBlackxKnight

Biccus wrote: »

The only problem I have with the corruption system is that non combatants have double the death penalty of combatants. Maybe it is fair but currently I just can’t get my head around it.

Edit: will add that my information comes solely from the wiki.

Maybe its incentive to make the player try to pvp back and not just stand there. I really don'[t know otherwise.

Biccus

ThexBlackxKnight wrote: »

Maybe its incentive to make the player try to pvp back and not just stand there. I really don'[t know otherwise.

Yes for sure it gives an incentive to fight back. But against an enemy you can’t beat who is essentially ganking you. The only way for them to get corruption is for the non combatants to take a 2x death penalty. Which to me feels like a double punishment to the non combatant.

George_Black

Biccus wrote: »

The only problem I have with the corruption system is that non combatants have double the death penalty of combatants. Maybe it is fair but currently I just can’t get my head around it.

Edit: will add that my information comes solely from the wiki.

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

Yuyukoyay

Currently the system isn't working properly. They need to increase the difficulty in removing it for it to work. So far what I heard the tuning is now isn't enough for it to be an actual penalty. I'm sure it's not the final balance for it. However, I will voice now that with the balance it had is not going to be an actual deterrent,

The system is meant to have no rewards because the reward is getting to PvP whenever you want essentially. The penalty is mostly in effect to stop griefing so you are really not meant to be able to stay corrupted for long without the entire map trying to kill you.

If the penalty doesn't prove to be enough to stop widespread pvp they will probably buff it until it does. At least against those that stand no chance or do not want to pvp.

The game will almost always have something pvp to do without risk of corruption. So actual PvPers will probably be in those areas. PKers are most likely to be corrupted and will probably be killed since people have hated them since Diablo 1. xD

ThexBlackxKnight

Corruption balance will be tricky , reducing the ganking but given players agency to remove unwanted players from certain areas. Plus it is going a big source of drama in the future since the game got hype up and there is going to be a lot players unaware that they have no real pvp immunity in the game. Do your research before buying is my advice.

Biccus

George Black wrote: »

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

I can understand what you’re saying but it’s not, in my opinion a fair way of doing it.
Say you gank someone gathering that’s way lower level than yourself. You can think great.. if you want me to get corruption for this, I’ll get twice as much loot than if you fight back and die either way.

Maybe it is just the way I’m looking at it but I don’t think my opinion is invalid.

ThexBlackxKnight

You will get a huge amount of corruption for attacking low level players as a high level , I don't see it being very common in the game.

Yuyukoyay

Biccus wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

I can understand what you’re saying but it’s not, in my opinion a fair way of doing it.
Say you gank someone gathering that’s way lower level than yourself. You can think great.. if you want me to get corruption for this, I’ll get twice as much loot than if you fight back and die either way.

Maybe it is just the way I’m looking at it but I don’t think my opinion is invalid.

It was done to punish players for not fighting back, but ya it is a question to why are you punishing players for a decision that is like 90% of the time not going to be their decision to make. Technically getting one shot will be determined by the game as not fighting back.

ThexBlackxKnight

We will get better feed back on this when non-nda Alpha ! starts , some people where not liking xp debts in past tests. It up in the air and anything can change.

Noaani

Biccus wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

I can understand what you’re saying but it’s not, in my opinion a fair way of doing it.
Say you gank someone gathering that’s way lower level than yourself. You can think great.. if you want me to get corruption for this, I’ll get twice as much loot than if you fight back and die either way.

Maybe it is just the way I’m looking at it but I don’t think my opinion is invalid.

The thing with that is if you attack someone that is a lower level, and they don't fight back, the corruption you gain is multiplied due to that level difference.

So sure, the attacker may gain more easy to access harvests, but they also gain far more corruption.

Noaani

Yuyukoyay wrote: »

Currently the system isn't working properly.

This is not a comment that can be made with any sense of reality right now.

Also, I think you are totally unaware of a key aspect of the system - kill count. Kill count increases the corruption you gain per kill

Lets say that I gain 10 corruption for killing an equal level player, and another 1 point of corruption per 10 kill count.

So, I go out and kill 10 people. The first 9 kills get me 10 corruption each, but the 10th one gets me 11, as I then have a kill count of 10.

So I now have 101 corruption, and a kill count of 10.

Lets say I now work off my corruption. I now have a corruption of 0, and a kill count of 10.

Lets say I now go out and kill another 10 players. The first 9 kills (11-19) give me 11 corruption each, and the 10th kill (my 20th over all), gives me 12.

This means I gained 111 corruption for those 10 kills, as opposed to the 101 previously.

Now imagine this when people have months worth of kills in their kill count.

insomnia

George Black wrote: »

Biccus wrote: »

The only problem I have with the corruption system is that non combatants have double the death penalty of combatants. Maybe it is fair but currently I just can’t get my head around it.

Edit: will add that my information comes solely from the wiki.

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

It still depends on how you look at it. I don't think he looks at it the wrong way. That is how math works
Plus, the attacker will have the advantage. You might not be prepared. The attacker can have buffs up or what not. While you are buisy doing something else. They proberly attack you from behind. How much damage will they have done to you, before you can even attack back. So unless you are higher level, better geared, way better player. Your build is good at countering theirs etc. A combination of those, you will most likely lose the fight anyway. So they only reason to fight back, is to get punished less. You will still get a death penalty and lose stuff

George_Black

Biccus wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

You are looking at it the wrong way.
Combatants will have HALF the penalties of non combatants.
Steven wants to encourage fighting back.
If you, the player, die as non combatant to another player or mob, you will lose the same xp and drop the same raw material/certificates.

If you, the player, fight back and lose to another player, you will lose half the xp and drop half the raw materials that you would have dying to a mob.

I can understand what you’re saying but it’s not, in my opinion a fair way of doing it.
Say you gank someone gathering that’s way lower level than yourself. You can think great.. if you want me to get corruption for this, I’ll get twice as much loot than if you fight back and die either way.

Maybe it is just the way I’m looking at it but I don’t think my opinion is invalid.

Seriously? You think people will risk dropping gear by gaining corruption, gear that took thousands of mats and recipes to combine just so that can loot 200 animal bones from you?

Dygz

Biccus wrote: »

The only problem I have with the corruption system is that non combatants have double the death penalty of combatants. Maybe it is fair but currently I just can’t get my head around it.

Edit: will add that my information comes solely from the wiki.

It's really that non-combatants have normal death penalty, combatants are rewarded with half the normal death penalty and Corrupted are penalized with increasingly more than the normal death penalty.

Biccus

George Black wrote: »

Seriously? You think people will risk dropping gear by gaining corruption, gear that took thousands of mats and recipes to combine just so that can loot 200 animal bones from you?

That depends on how the system works and how much is looted tbh. If they'll save hours of gathering by killing someone and they think they can get away with it.. You're saying there's no chance? Seriously?

for players less inclined on PvP, it might feel less like a reward and more like a requirement to fight back just so they lose less on death. I'm not convinced that "they'll get corruption for killing me" will outweigh "I'll lose less if I hit them back"

I'm just trying to throw a potential problem out here so I can see how it works..

Child Item