Should Open World PvP be level restricted - to a degree?

Would it ruin your game experience if you cant level up because everytime you step outside a town, you get PKed by someone who gets no reward out of it exept the feeling of destroying low levels? There are weak people out there who are going to live off this if they can. No my kind of folk tbh.

Im all for Open World PvP, Im all for contesting points of interest, Im all for big groups roaming and killing smaller groups, oor even soloers roaming for gear and materials, nothing will ever be fully equal or "fair" and that's part of the fun, But is there a limit to this idea?

Should level restrictions be used to solve the leveling issue, for example?

Are you FOR the possibility of a max levels killing low levels over and over just for giggles? Do you think that helps the chances of the game surviving long term or doesnt affect it?

Or maybe I am wrong and the corruption mechanics already cover this and prevent it from happening "enough"?

You know, I dont want to bash on the community, I know its full of players from all playstyles, I myself cant ait to get involved in OWPvP. I just believe there needs to be some safeguards for leveling players.

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Taleof2Cities

The answer to your question won't appear until Alpha-2, @Gui10 ... when players will be testing corruption.

But, you're on the right track when you say corruption will be enough to deter "the vast majority" of PKing ... including low levels.

That's what Steven says at least.

I like to think he's right ... until we actually get in and test Alpha-2 to verify that statement's authenticity.

novercalis

Open World PvP is subject to the strength of the Corruption system.

how much punishment, if any do I get killing someone of equal level or higher vs a lowbie.

At max level, I killed a lvl 50 player who didnt fight back - what is my corruption?
now if I kill a lvl 40 and a lvl 1 - what are those difference and are they meaningful.

Everything hangs on the balance of corruption for this game to work as intended.

Ludullu

Gui10 wrote: »

Or maybe I am wrong and the corruption mechanics already cover this and prevent it from happening "enough"?

Yes.

But outside of that, any PKer who really just want to PK lowbies can just go make an lowbie alt and PK them more than they'd be able to on their main. And this is why I'd prefer if PK count was account-wide rather than character-based.

A shitty PKer will still be able to kill quite a few players, but then they'll have such a high PK count across their whole account that any single PK will push them below pvping strength and then make them spend a shitton of time trying to remove that counter, which is the goal of the corruption system - lessen the amount of PKing happening in the game, be that through sheer deterrent or through resulting punishment.

That PKer will also not be able to give their lowbie alt good gear, because they won't be able to return it back to other chars. Though this would probably require a ban on using your freehold storage on your alts (or at least when you're above some PK count value or just currently have corruption).

And if the PKer is a lowbie with shitty gear - they won't really have that much power to kill many people. And there's always the high lvl BHs who're supposed to help hunt these little fuckers.

TL;DR level restrictions on pvp won't help.

And if you're talking about untouchable lowbies, where others can't even flag against them - this brings exploits related to the artisan system and it also separates the game into "non-pvp gameplay" and "pvp gameplay", which pretty much makes it an opt-in system. All the people who don't want to participate in pvp will just stay at lower lvls and do all the other content w/o ever fearing that they'll get attacked, which removes the risk/reward part of the game and ties back to the potential artisanry exploits.

TRR

Allow it, however..

The greater level differential, the greater level of corruption one incurs from killing non-combatants.

So, a level 50 killing a 45 gives the offender [2 units] of corruption, but a level 50 killing a level 15 gives like [20 units] of corruption, perhaps enough to make them "corrupted" from a single kill if the level differential is great enough.

PS: wish they'd call it "Dishonored" / "Dishonorable kills" instead of "Corrupted" / "Corrupted kills" -- seems way more intuitive and natural... unless there's some kind of visual cue to show a player slowing becoming "Corrupted" like they've been afflicted by a dark magic or something. Don't know if there's a lore justification for the name or something...

Ludullu

TRR wrote: »

Allow it, however..

The greater level differential, the greater level of corruption one incurs from killing non-combatants.

So, a level 50 killing a 45 gives the offender [2 units] of corruption, but a level 50 killing a level 15 gives like [20 units] of corruption, perhaps enough to make them "corrupted" from a single kill if the level differential is great enough.

PS: wish they'd call it "Dishonored" / "Dishonorable kills" instead of "Corrupted" / "Corrupted kills" -- seems way more intuitive and natural... unless there's some kind of visual queue to show a player slowing becoming "Corrupted" like they've been afflicted by a dark magic or something. Don't know if there's a lore justification for the name or something...

It's not a scale or a spectrum. It's a binary system. You are either corrupted or not. Even a single point of corruption makes you a Red player.

Also, iirc they said they do want a visual change on your character when they become Red.

unknownsystemerror

TRR wrote: »

Allow it, however..

The greater level differential, the greater level of corruption one incurs from killing non-combatants.

So, a level 50 killing a 45 gives the offender [2 units] of corruption, but a level 50 killing a level 15 gives like [20 units] of corruption, perhaps enough to make them "corrupted" from a single kill if the level differential is great enough.

PS: wish they'd call it "Dishonored" / "Dishonorable kills" instead of "Corrupted" / "Corrupted kills" -- seems way more intuitive and natural... unless there's some kind of visual queue to show a player slowing becoming "Corrupted" like they've been afflicted by a dark magic or something. Don't know if there's a lore justification for the name or something...

Killing a single green, regardless of level difference, makes you red (corrupted). The level disparity gives increasing amounts of that corruption count. Each death while corrupted drops some of that corruption count. The higher your count, the more times you will need to die, or the more exp you will need to grind from mobs before you are "clear." And since each death while corrupted is slamming you with exp debt, the more you have to work off, the bigger the time sink. As others have pointed out, those units and how much is given is tbd in testing, but the "single kill makes you red" has been long established as their envisioned goal.

Nerror

Anyone should be able to kill anyone, including a lvl 50 killing a lvl 1 over and over.

One thing I would like to see, however, is diminishing penalties for dying for the low level characters, as long as they don't fight back. First kill should be full death penalty, but after that, if the corrupted player keeps ganking and the green low-level player doesn't fight back, I think both XP debt and item loss should be heavily reduced for the low level player.

Zainox

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Each death while corrupted drops some of that corruption count. The higher your count, the more times you will need to die

Wouldn't an easy way out be to have someone kill you until you're clear after PK'ing and then return the dropped items? The only risk is if you happen to get taken out in the time between.

Gui10

Nerror wrote: »

Anyone should be able to kill anyone, including a lvl 50 killing a lvl 1 over and over.

One thing I would like to see, however, is diminishing penalties for dying for the low level characters, as long as they don't fight back. First kill should be full death penalty, but after that, if the corrupted player keeps ganking and the green low-level player doesn't fight back, I think both XP debt and item loss should be heavily reduced for the low level player.

I actually believe fighting back should be encouraged. And diminished penalty for the lower level who got attacked first of course, and increased points if he wins! Should always encourage fighting back, that's just life. A game that encourages "not defending yourself" has its "video-game-morals" upside down haha.

For the rest of yall, thanks fort the answer, I sure do hope also that it willbe tuned properly, so yeah lets wait and see.

Ludullu

zainox wrote: »

Wouldn't an easy way out be to have someone kill you until you're clear after PK'ing and then return the dropped items? The only risk is if you happen to get taken out in the time between.

You'll still suffer all the other penalties. And your respawn location will be random, so there's a pretty high chance that someone else will see you respawn as a red, instead of your friend.

Gui10

zainox wrote: »

unknownsystemerror wrote: »

Each death while corrupted drops some of that corruption count. The higher your count, the more times you will need to die

Wouldn't an easy way out be to have someone kill you until you're clear after PK'ing and then return the dropped items? The only risk is if you happen to get taken out in the time between.

Yes, thats a "legal" exploit for the moment, which is why other penalties apply also, which you cant just have a friend remove for you, such as xp loss. But yeah its not a perfect system yet.

Dolyem

Let corruption take care of it. Fine tune the system in testing.

Veeshan

system already in play tbh values might need tweaked since we dont know the value but the corruption system does a larger penalty based on level differences, just depends on the value on corruption though killing somone ur level might be -1 penalty somone 5 levels lower -2 but somone 20 levels lower might be like -50 because there no real way for them to win where 5 levels is still quite winnable. but realy depends on the values if killing somone 20 levels lower is only -5 corruption then it might not disaway ganking people who have no chance to win.
So atm there is system in place but we dont know how much it will work due to unknown values currently however they can be easily tweaked.

I would also consider making a first attack on a player do alot less dmg (Except maybe for rogues with a passive) just so you cant accidently 1 shot a lowbie if you accidently have the attack player button on or however it works. Dont realy wanna be able to accidently kill somone one shot if u accidently miss target for example. so should be some kind of safety feature, could even be cant do more than 40% of their max hp in one attack as an option too so you would have to hit somone atleast 3 times to kill them so plenty of time to be like o shit oops and stop :P

Zainox

If the penalty is higher between levels, wouldn't that encourage people making low level alts to do stuff like gathering to try and avoid being PK'd?

TRR

zainox wrote: »

If the penalty is higher between levels, wouldn't that encourage people making low level alts to do stuff like gathering to try and avoid being PK'd?

Potentially, but I'm imaging that higher tier resources will be concentrated in higher level areas?

I couldn't find any info on this, but if gathering provides any experience points then you wouldn't be able to remain a twink gathering alt indefinitely (unless, I guess, you deliberately put yourself in XP debt by doing a little murder every now and again).

Zainox

I could see it being partially avoided if higher tier resources require a certain higher character level to harvest. But I could still see people having alts to safely gather away at lower tier resources. I'm sure that itself could have a certain market value, especially due to seasons and if it's being controlled by groups or guilds.

Exp debt could definitely be a way to stay low and avoid the chance of a PK'er.

Songcaller

I don't think we get experience for killing other players. A pvp twink could last absolute months with the 200 plus hour levelling time and limited xp in take. Should be the best environment for a twink.

Nerror

Gui10 wrote: »

Nerror wrote: »

Anyone should be able to kill anyone, including a lvl 50 killing a lvl 1 over and over.

One thing I would like to see, however, is diminishing penalties for dying for the low level characters, as long as they don't fight back. First kill should be full death penalty, but after that, if the corrupted player keeps ganking and the green low-level player doesn't fight back, I think both XP debt and item loss should be heavily reduced for the low level player.

I actually believe fighting back should be encouraged. And diminished penalty for the lower level who got attacked first of course, and increased points if he wins! Should always encourage fighting back, that's just life. A game that encourages "not defending yourself" has its "video-game-morals" upside down haha.

For the rest of yall, thanks fort the answer, I sure do hope also that it willbe tuned properly, so yeah lets wait and see.

Yeah good point I guess. Also, I can see some scenarios where a low level not fighting back can be abused. So yeah, perhaps keep diminishing penalties for those who actively fight. This presumes the low level isn't just one-shotted of course.

Liniker

The only restriction I'd like to see is not being able to flag or be killed by other players until you either hit level 5 or play for 20 hours, there's no point in PKing so early on and it's easy to just delete your char and make a new one if you want to troll,

the 20h thing is to make sure people don't make alts bellow level 5 so they won't get killed

akabear

Liniker wrote: »

The only restriction I'd like to see is not being able to flag or be killed by other players until you either hit level 5 or play for 20 hours,

agree with this one! got to look after new / starting players

Child Item