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

Uboon

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, 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

Excellent idea. That will also stop every noob trying their hand at ganking in the starting zones.

Dolyem

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, 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

I'd be ok with this as long as they also couldn't start a profession until this level.

novercalis

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, 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

so constantly create alt gatherers for 20 hrs of safety?

Vaknar

As some have pointed out, it'll be interesting to see player behaviors during Alpha Two testing! ^_^

unknownsystemerror

Neurath wrote: »

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.

You do indeed gain exp for killing players in the open world. There is a diminishing returns mechanic for killing the same player by another player to keep people from "kill trading."

Songcaller

Nooo. My plans have be thwarted. I realised there was no pvp experience but why would you get pve experience for a pvp kill?

Edit: furthermore, xp debt from corruption can just be farmed off more pvp kills too then.

Ludullu

Neurath wrote: »

Edit: furthermore, xp debt from corruption can just be farmed off more pvp kills too then.

Even if the pvp XP mechanic stays, I'd assume it'll give waaay less XP than most mobs. And with corruption grind off being "slower than L2" - ya ain't removing corruption through pvp kills.

And that's not even to say that you probably won't see that many flagged people around you if you're Red.

Songcaller

I feel the xp is rather skewed anyway. Far too little for elite mobs and far too much for a pvp kill. I know the corrupted wont be able to continue to slaughter to kill the experience debt because it would put them deeper into the pit unless countless bounty hunters are slain. I'm just a firm believer in 'Every little helps' and I think the experience per kill for a corrupted player is less time forced to pve.

Dolyem

Can still maintain a twinked character by dying and having xp loss to prevent you from continuing to level.

Songcaller

In theory, the twink would have the best gear possible. The idea of a twink is to be one of the best in a level bracket. I don't feel death on the fly will be easy to maintain the gear. However, death in action will stack and that stack will be beautiful.

Dolyem

I normally make twinks for instance PvP brackets because they are a really fun dynamic. But in ashes I would also make one to clear low level bots and to help newbies. And if it gets exploited I would clear out low level clearcutter gatherers trying to clear out a zones resources.

Gui10

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, 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

@Vaknar hope you saw this post!

Galaturc

Steve has mentioned that he will take every measure to not let this game be a pk friendly gang-fest but rather emphasized the notion of risk vs reward. In Alpha 2, we will all test the appropriate amount of corruption penalties for going the pk route. For all we know, after exhaustive testing, the penalty for killing a neutral player may be as harsh as a criminal act in real life... in that, corruption may impact the player so much that they will very seldom commit to killing a neutral player. By all means, let players commit crimes... As long as the penalties they will face are appropriate deterrents we rarely ever witness them, especially in bigger/safer nodes.

Dolyem

Galaturc wrote: »

By all means, let players commit crimes... As long as the penalties they will face are appropriate deterrents we rarely ever witness them, especially in bigger/safer nodes.

What would you consider appropriate?

Liniker

Vaknar wrote: »

As some have pointed out, it'll be interesting to see player behaviors during Alpha Two testing! ^_^

@Vaknar I hope the Intrepid team take in consideration that your Alpha 2 backers won't exactly represent "normal" player behaviour.

People that pay +250$ to test a game years before launch probably consist of dedicated players that tends to follow the rules.

Making all the decisions based on data gathered from your fans, instead of actual players might be an issue, we'll see.

Vaknar

Liniker wrote: »

Vaknar wrote: »

As some have pointed out, it'll be interesting to see player behaviors during Alpha Two testing! ^_^

@Vaknar I hope the Intrepid team take in consideration that your Alpha 2 backers won't exactly represent "normal" player behaviour.

People that pay +250$ to test a game years before launch probably consist of dedicated players that tends to follow the rules.

Making all the decisions based on data gathered from your fans, instead of actual players might be an issue, we'll see.

There are many, many years of industry experience at Intrepid Studios. You can rest assured that things like this need not be worried about

Galaturc

Dolyem wrote: »

What would you consider appropriate?

Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.

To touch briefly back to the safe vs unsafe nodes... The current corruption system allows an ecosystem where players and guilds can contribute to the safety of a node where pk'ing is rare due to active hunting for pk's committing crimes in their nodes. There will be nodes that are assumed to be safe because local blue guilds provide extra protection to visitors and traders so their nodes are more prosperous. Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.

Ludullu

Galaturc wrote: »

Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.

If the risk outweighs the reward so greatly that there's no point in even taking said risk - you have a bad "risk vs reward" system.

Galaturc wrote: »

Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.

Except I'm 99% sure that there won't be any "red guilds" in the game if the corruption is tuned to deter people from PKing as much as some people want. If even a solo player is afraid to PK someone then how can a guild support itself if their members are constantly hunted, are constantly at shitty pvp stats, and are somewhere at lvl20 pve power after they've removed their corruption? Oh, and their PK counts are through the roof so even a single kill will get them right back to that super low power lvl.

Dolyem

Galaturc wrote: »

Dolyem wrote: »

What would you consider appropriate?

Appropriate as in "appropriately deterring"... penalties so deterring that 99% of the player base will not commit pk'ing. That the reward for the risk of killing a non-combatant player is just not worth it, but the option exists. If the current temporary rules are not deterring enough, I have no doubt Intrepid will make sure they're "appropriately" adjusted based on feedback. Again, I'm all for having that option in the game, but I desire a risk vs reward system to manage how often players chose that option.

To touch briefly back to the safe vs unsafe nodes... The current corruption system allows an ecosystem where players and guilds can contribute to the safety of a node where pk'ing is rare due to active hunting for pk's committing crimes in their nodes. There will be nodes that are assumed to be safe because local blue guilds provide extra protection to visitors and traders so their nodes are more prosperous. Just as well, there will be unsafe nodes where pk'ing happening more often because red guild raids are rampant and trade and the economy of the node suffer as a consequence. Risk vs reward.

The goal isn't to deter PKing, it's to deter griefing. PKing someone a couple times and moving on isn't griefing. What you suggest leaves no risk for going out to gather resources or participate in PVE. In order for this game to be PVX there must be a balance of risks for both PvP and PvE when participating in either, and incorpating both together as much as possible.

Galaturc

NiKr wrote: »

Except I'm 99% sure that there won't be any "red guilds" in the game if the corruption is tuned to deter people from PKing as much as some people want.

I disagree, I think the majority (including myself) desires a corruption system where pk'ing and red guilds exist and grieving other players is actively deterred. This is a process of balancing and Intrepid has the right direction and principles atm. We will all have to wait and see the feedback of our community during alpha 2, beta, and even after release, and see how Intrepid plays with their corruption penalty gauges. I expect there will be gradual adjustments as new players join our community.

Dolyem wrote: »

The goal isn't to deter PKing, it's to deter griefing. PKing someone a couple times and moving on isn't griefing.

Agreed.

Dolyem wrote: »

What you suggest leaves no risk for going out to gather resources or participate in PVE. In order for this game to be PVX there must be a balance of risks for both PvP and PvE when participating in either, and incorpating both together as much as possible.

I am not proposing to remove the ability to pk or create a pk guild. For instance, this system provides a scenario where a guild may decide to hunt down "trespassers" in a node, where players who "assume ownership" to a node or a particular resource in a node take the risk to kill non-combatant players who are also taking the risk of being hunted by trying to gather the rare resource they're after.

The ultimate goal should deter from griefing and the system with appropriate deterrence should allow players the freedom to self-regulate by allowing instances of pk'ing, raids, and defense in nodes.

Putting it into numbers based on a 10k server, I'd say, about 90% of the player community will never take part in world PvP outside caravan raids, arenas, Guild vs Guild, and other instanced activities. If a player is within one of those PvP guilds that I assume will make less than 10% of the player community who has an interest in defending free resources for their own guild within a node, and deter other players from access, only a small number of those players should take the risk for going red and hunt down other players trespassing.

Any player should be able to kill another non-combatant player, but the system should strongly deter this at such a level that the player has a strong motive and the backing of a strong guild present within the node.

Child Item