Poison Pill - PVP Loot

Why do you want further increased risk when the corruption system is already punishing?

Is there going to be a system in place so you can kill a player and have corruption gain removed to counter balance?

The corruption is already the big attacker risk.

Getting "max" corruption would most likely mean literal days of clearing it by death, if not more (L2 had 9999 limit and that shit took houuurs to remove by death). And at that point you gonna have XP debt that pretty much makes you lvl1.

One-hour debuff to health is already linked to the corruption penalties. Unless it was the attacker's first PK - they'll have a pretty high chance to die while corrupted and get big death penalties, which include decreased stats.

That last one is literally just trolling so I won't even interact with that one.

NiKr wrote: »

The corruption is already the big attacker risk.

Getting "max" corruption would most likely mean literal days of clearing it by death, if not more (L2 had 9999 limit and that shit took houuurs to remove by death). And at that point you gonna have XP debt that pretty much makes you lvl1.

One-hour debuff to health is already linked to the corruption penalties. Unless it was the attacker's first PK - they'll have a pretty high chance to die while corrupted and get big death penalties, which include decreased stats.

That last one is literally just trolling so I won't even interact with that one.

im trying to take him serious instead of just saying this idea is trash lmao.

Mag7spy wrote: »

im trying to take him serious instead of just saying this idea is trash lmao.

I took the first two seriously, but the "you pick it up and you fucking die on the spot and drop literally your entire gear set" is 100% a troll.

NiKr wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

im trying to take him serious instead of just saying this idea is trash lmao.

I took the first two seriously, but the "you pick it up and you fucking die on the spot and drop literally your entire gear set" is 100% a troll.

I didn't read that part was blind to it until you pointed it out lol.

NiKr wrote: »

The corruption is already the big attacker risk.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Why do you want further increased risk when the corruption system is already punishing?

Does this risk exist when killing a gatherer who fights back purely as a means to reduce the drop %?

mcnasty wrote: »

Does this risk exist when killing a gatherer who fights back purely as a means to reduce the drop %?

That gatherer can always just run away. If he didn't plan on fighting back, while also not wanting to die as a green - why stand there and flag up only to die on the spot? The situation is not binary, when it comes to the victim's choice.

But if he does decide to fight back - no matter what the reason for that was, the situation is no longer a PK, it's a pvp kill, because the victim decided to make it one.

SongRune

mcnasty wrote: »

NiKr wrote: »

The corruption is already the big attacker risk.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Why do you want further increased risk when the corruption system is already punishing?

Does this risk exist when killing a gatherer who fights back purely as a means to reduce the drop %?

So your thought is... "I should be able to remove the intended cost of staying green, and then also get the benefit of staying green"? You should just ask to remove the cost of staying green from the game.

NiKr wrote: »

That gatherer can always just run away.

Really? So if you attack someone, and they make the decision to run away, they can evade the kill and resulting loot drop? Hard to imagine you believe that, based on your MMO experience.

@songrune no. The thought is to increase the risk to the attacker, not reduce the risk to the gatherer, in order to better balance the risk/reward. The issue pointed out by many is that an attacker has very little risk in this scenario.

mcnasty wrote: »

Really? So if you attack someone, and they make the decision to run away, they can evade the kill and resulting loot drop? Hard to imagine you believe that, based on your MMO experience.

My experience is mainly based on good pvp and not dickwad PKing though. If I wanted to PK someone, it was usually either a guild war situation or it was a dude who was farming a location I wanted. If said dude just ran away from that location - I wouldn't chase him. I'm gonna operate under the same logic in Ashes too, even with the "you drop stuff on death" addition.

But yes, even then I've seen (and have done so myself) countless situations where the victim could just run away. When ttk is not 2 seconds it's even easier to do. AoC's ttk will supposedly be around 30 secs. If in that amount of time the victim has no way to run away (and iirc we can mount during combat) - there's a problem in the system. If every archetype doesn't have at least a single escape mechanism (that doesn't flag them up) - I'd consider that a bad design.

But even if all of that fails and the last choice of the victim is to either die green or flag up and lose half the stuff - the benefit is still on the green's side. The attacker gets fucked over in all cases but one. That one case being that their whole goal was to just kill the green. And with that kind of goal, the attacker won't be able to play for too long, precisely because of how the corruption system works currently.

NiKr wrote: »

If every archetype doesn't have at least a single escape mechanism (that doesn't flag them up) - I'd consider that a bad design.

....

But even if all of that fails and the last choice of the victim is to either die green or flag up and lose half the stuff - the benefit is still on the green's side. The attacker gets fucked over in all cases but one. That one case being that their whole goal was to just kill the green. And with that kind of goal, the attacker won't be able to play for too long, precisely because of how the corruption system works currently.

Agree on the escape mechanism comment. It will be interesting to test and see how it works in practice. My current view is that the attacker has much less risk in the scenario we're discussing. It doesn't seem balanced. I suspect there will be a need to increase risk for the attacker. Seems like IS sees this too, TBH.

mcnasty wrote: »

@songrune no. The thought is to increase the risk to the attacker, not reduce the risk to the gatherer, in order to better balance the risk/reward. The issue pointed out by many is that an attacker has very little risk in this scenario.

The risk you want if after the kill, which the risk exist already after the kill.....

At some point you need tor realize this is a PvX game, it is not meant for you to run around without ever getting pvp'd. They have their current systems in to lower the amount of pvp and have pvp more group focused than free for all and chaotic.

So i gather yuo currently don't feel the current system is enough risk where
1. you can't trade or put things in your storage
2. any player can freely kill you
3. you can't go to towns or guards attack you
4. You have x4 the death penalty meaning you drop more items than you gained, you lose far more xp
5. every time you pk it permanently increases how much corruption you gain per kill.
6. You are flagged by bounty hunters and they can find you anywhere on the map
7. Your stats get nerfed with higher corruption.

Tell me why again how the system needs more penalties in a game that is suppose to have competitive PvP?

Mag7spy wrote: »

blah blah blah

Tell me why again how the system needs more penalties in a game that is suppose to have competitive PvP?

Balance.

mcnasty wrote: »

Mag7spy wrote: »

blah blah blah

Tell me why again how the system needs more penalties in a game that is suppose to have competitive PvP?

Balance.

Ok so you want greens to never be attacked that is your balance as you avoid the question. Got it you are trolling and that is why you also suggest automatic death with full loot drop.

There are plenty of pve mmorpgs out there you should be good.

mcnasty wrote: »

Balance.

Could you elaborate though? Cause I can't see how the attacker is suffering less than the victim.