Poison Pill - PVP Loot

Myosotys wrote: »

Loss of xp really can make lose some levels or you are kidding?

Functionally you'll be lvl1. Your stats will be decreased that much. But again, that's only if Intrepid has a huuuuge pool of corruption that you could potentially fill up.

Mag7spy

System alone isn't going to have everyone griefing. I've played plenty of pvp games and the worst has to be shadowbane with full inventory loot drops. Corruption ill stop most people and create limits on how much one can do even if they are very evil. And it is fine if those very evil people exist makes fun content.

@songrune agreed.

@NiKr To elaborate on balancing the risk/reward ratio for the gatherer and attacker...

For the gatherer, I believe I have read they are risking 50% of their inventory if they don't fight back. Half that (25%) if they do. Their potential reward is 100% of inventory. So R/R = .25-.50

For the attacker, they're not really risking anything for the potential reward. If they gatherer doesn't fight back, they can disengage and lose nothing. If the gatherer does fight back, the entire scenario is heavily weighted toward probability that the attacker will prevail (too wordy to elaborate on this, but let me know if you want it). So if the gatherer fights back and loses, the attacker gains 25% of the gatherer's inventory. If the gatherer fights back and wins, the attacker's loss is limited to a portion of what they're carrying. As @songrune pointed out, they are unlikely to bring much anything of value if you're attacking. So Risk is 0, reward is .25 of gatherer inventory. R/R = 0.

You are trying to add another layer to a system we haven’t even tested yet. We have no idea of what max corruption is or looks like on death of a red player. If you make the system to unforgiving you either run into 0 PvP or you run into people who make perma red accounts and will spend more time griefing then engaging in “meaningful pvp”

I think where your point does stand is when a player attacks someone they should gain some sort of debug/corruption even if they don’t full kill there target. That is something I can get behind.

But to say no risk is involved to the red player is misleading. I think severe skill damping and chance of gear drop is severe.

Depraved

mcnasty wrote: »

Gatherers keep a "poison pill" in their bags (a crafted item), creating risk for attackers. This poison pill would be disguised as a valuable gathered item, but if dropped and looted, would have severe consequences for the attacker. Maybe it would cause max corruption (regardless of the gatherer's corruption state before the gank), or maybe it would cause a one-hour debuff to health (giving the gatherer a chance to get payback), or maybe it would cause the attacker to immediately die and drop all gear.

This idea would not need to be limited to gatherers.

An added benefit of this approach is increased risk when killing non-combatants, because the poison pill would have a larger chance of dropping.

The idea is to balance risk/reward for both the attacker and gatherer.

1- no

2- ill kill you and not loot you and take the spot

3- ill kill you with my alt and loot you

itsRyanB wrote: »

to say no risk is involved to the red player is misleading. I think severe skill damping and chance of gear drop is severe.

Except I said no risk in the context of being able to disengage before the kill, and in that scenario there is no skill damping or gear drop.

mcnasty wrote: »

itsRyanB wrote: »

to say no risk is involved to the red player is misleading. I think severe skill damping and chance of gear drop is severe.

Except I said no risk in the context of being able to disengage before the kill, and in that scenario there is no skill damping or gear drop.

True which I agree a system for that and that alone needs to be developed but in terms of pvp to the death should remain until tested.

As long as PvE players can wear PvP gear on top there farming gear there should be no issue

Depraved wrote: »

2- ill kill you and not loot you and take the spot

Two gatherers fighting for a spot absolutely needs to be able to happen. Definitely don't want to do anything that will discourage this kind of conflict. Honestly, this is just another reason why the poison pill would be a good approach; it doesn't discourage this kind of PVP.

BTW, I'm probably going to be a crafter.

It's funny that people saying I want gatherers to have no risk seem to be blind to the fact they are asking for people to be able to hunt gatherer's with no risk.

Depraved

mcnasty wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

2- ill kill you and not loot you and take the spot

Two gatherers fighting for a spot absolutely needs to be able to happen. Definitely don't want to do anything that will discourage this kind of conflict. Honestly, this is just another reason why the poison pill would be a good approach; it doesn't discourage this kind of PVP.

BTW, I'm probably going to be a crafter.

It's funny that people saying I want gatherers to have no risk seem to be blind to the fact they are asking for people to be able to hunt gatherer's with no risk.

if the pvp is gonna happen anyways, all u want is someone to not take ur loot if u lose. basically u gonna be bitter and resentful that someone beat u and u dont want them taking the loot reward. shame on u!

mcnasty wrote: »

For the attacker, they're not really risking anything for the potential reward. If they gatherer doesn't fight back, they can disengage and lose nothing. If the gatherer does fight back, the entire scenario is heavily weighted toward probability that the attacker will prevail (too wordy to elaborate on this, but let me know if you want it). So if the gatherer fights back and loses, the attacker gains 25% of the gatherer's inventory. If the gatherer fights back and wins, the attacker's loss is limited to a portion of what they're carrying. As @songrune pointed out, they are unlikely to bring much anything of value if you're attacking. So Risk is 0, reward is .25 of gatherer inventory. R/R = 0.

Again though, what's the attacker's goal in this situation?

Was it to just kill the green? Was it his resources? Was it the farming location?

If it's the first: as I said, the attacker won't be able to do it for too long, because they'll get hunted or get too much stat dampen due to high corruption.

If it's the second: I'd assume the goal would be to get as much as possible, right? So anything that is not a green kill would be a hit against the goal. Either you stop or the victim runs away - and you have no loot at all. If the victim fights back and you die - you've lost time (in the context of you having low-mid gear and no mats on you). If victim dies - you only got half as much as they had on them.

And in case you did manage to kill the green and loot their mats, you're now a hunted player with a ticking bomb on you. The mats you got would most likely get lost if you die and you'll lose even more gameplay time. And depending on how Intrepid designs gathering locations, you might not even be able to find mobs to clear corruption in a short amount of time, so the chances of you dying as a red go way up. So the risk gets higher.

And if it's the third: you'd only benefit from your victim running away, because the kill was never the goal. But in every other situation you'll risk more stuff. If victim fights back - you're now at lower hp and any thirds party player can kill you easier (or mob could too). If they don't fight back and die to you - you have a timer, in which you must clear corruption or your good gear will decay (assuming good gear because you came to farm). If the victim only hits you back once, guess that'd be the same as them running away, in terms of risk, but I don't see this happening as often cause imo that'd be waaay too illogical on the green's part.

Also, you don't see how much hp your victim has, so you still risk becoming a Red if you keep attacking, even if you think that your attacks shouldn't kill the victim from their lowest nameplate decay state.

Mag7spy

People need to get out the idea that all those rare mats they have on them is their property to never lose. Moment you walk out those gates and gather mats they do not belong to you until you make it back to town and put those in your storage. It is part of the game and why crafting will be so important to the game.

NiKr wrote: »

Again though, what's the attacker's goal in this situation?

Was it his resources?

Yes

NiKr wrote: »

If the victim fights back... If victim dies - you only got half as much as they had on them.

Correct. With very little risk. This is the scenario I am referring to.

mcnasty wrote: »

Correct. With very little risk. This is the scenario I am referring to.

And as I already said, this is not a PK. This is a pvp kill. And the green got rewarded with lessened drops for fighting back.

NiKr wrote: »

mcnasty wrote: »

Correct. With very little risk. This is the scenario I am referring to.

And as I already said, this is not a PK. This is a pvp kill. And the green got rewarded with lessened drops for fighting back.

The issue is not reward for the gatherer so much as the lack of risk for the attacker. The idea is to increase risk for the attacker to ensure balanced risk/reward for both parties.

But the game is meant to encourage PvP, the risk the aggressor takes is loosing the fight. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the game meant to incentivize PvP not griefing? Aren’t players going to be allowed to wear PvP and PvE gear on top of each other. So the only disadvantage of that farmer is not being aware and loosing.

mcnasty wrote: »

The issue is not reward for the gatherer so much as the lack of risk for the attacker. The idea is to increase risk for the attacker to ensure balanced risk/reward for both parties.

I've already listed the risks. The smallest risk was in case of the victim only hitting the attacker once and then dying. I think that this will be the least likely situation in the game. The victim will either fight back as much as they can (risk of dying for the attacker or being at low hp so someone else can finish him off) or they'll just run away to keep all of their stuff.

itsRyanB wrote: »

Aren’t players going to be allowed to wear PvP and PvE gear on top of each other. So the only disadvantage of that farmer is not being aware and loosing.

There's only gear, no separation. You'll have your artisan stuff, but as Steven said, that's a separate set of gear that got nothing to do with the combat stuff. And if you were talking about artisan gear, then you're right.

itsRyanB wrote: »

But the game is meant to encourage PvP, the risk the aggressor takes is loosing the fight. Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the game meant to incentivize PvP not griefing? Aren’t players going to be allowed to wear PvP and PvE gear on top of each other. So the only disadvantage of that farmer is not being aware and loosing.

For sure. It's a good point. But ofc there need to be sensible measures taken to ensure players want to log in. Unrestricted PVP without some mitigation would cause the game to fail. That is the whole reason for the corruption system. And as I mentioned, it seems like IS also sees the potential for a problem with gatherers being hunted. Obviously there is a need for ideas to address it.

NiKr wrote: »

I've already listed the risks.

I have too.

NiKr wrote: »

or they'll just run away to keep all of their stuff.

Again, hard to imagine you believe this. But as I said, I agree with your 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.