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

Ludullu

Galaturc wrote: »

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.

I think we have different definitions of "a red guild". To me it means a guild whose players PK pretty much 99% of anyone they see, like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqInYTpzsU

Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with in that quote.

Galaturc

NiKr wrote: »

Otherwise, I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with in that quote.

Yes, "a red guild" may have different definitions than the one you assume. It could be a pk guild coordinating with a regular guild, tasked with only deterring non-combatant players from gathering in a node. It could be a pirate guild protecting an island node and its surrounding sea, reserving all its resources for itself. It could also be the red guild you mentioned, attacking pretty much 99% of anyone they see, but I doubt they would survive long in a well-protected node. Eventually, they'd be pushed toward the edges of the map, and hunted down... that's why I think an island node could be a good base for such a guild with all members red and with a strong naval presence. A red guild could also purely aim to grieve other players to no end and risk a ban.

In my opinion, ideally, many red guilds will be local, they will always need the backing and control of a base node, and they will have certain motives that most other players will be aware of. The pk activity should not be random or widespread in Verra, and the corruption system should effectively deter and reduce it to rare occurrences in safe and protected nodes. I welcome dangerous nodes with red guilds well known to traders and other players so they avoid them.

Ludullu

Galaturc wrote: »

Yes, "a red guild" may have different definitions than the one you assume. It could be a pk guild coordinating with a regular guild, tasked with only deterring non-combatant players from gathering in a node. It could be a pirate guild protecting an island node and its surrounding sea, reserving all its resources for itself. It could also be the red guild you mentioned, attacking pretty much 99% of anyone they see, but I doubt they would survive long in a well-protected node. Eventually, they'd be pushed toward the edges of the map, and hunted down... that's why I think an island node could be a good base for such a guild with all members red and with a strong naval presence. A red guild could also purely aim to grieve other players to no end and risk a ban.

In my opinion, ideally, many red guilds will be local, they will always need the backing and control of a base node, and they will have certain motives that most other players will be aware of. The pk activity should not be random or widespread in Verra, and the corruption system should effectively deter and reduce it to rare occurrences in safe and protected nodes. I welcome dangerous nodes with red guilds well known to traders and other players so they avoid them.

Again though, I don't really see how a guild full of red players can survive for anything longer than a day or two (if that). Any character that has gear better than utter trash would become a juicy piñata for any other player. A "red guild" suggests that its members have good enough gear to PK anyone, or they're running around in PKing groups, at which point it's bordering on griefing.

If a guild is known for being red and known for operating in a certain node - pretty much any guild even remotely close to their location will constantly be on the hunt for those red players. They'll have a single BH to know the location of the reds, but they'll be attacking with their greens, so that it's way easier to kill the reds. And then those red guilds will just lose a shitton of time and money on trying to get back to their full powerlvl. And with each PK they'll just keep making it worse for themselves.

Also, seas won't have corruption, so if some group of people want to protect an island (I'd assume it's gonna have something valuable to protect?) - they can just attack any nearing ship, instead of risking corruption for no reason.

This is why I'm saying that I'm sure there's gonna be no red guilds, especially if the corruption is tuned harshly enough to deter corruption to the point you're describing. The risk is too assured and too great to attempt it.

Dolyem

Galaturc wrote: »

... 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.

I disagree, there should be a risk for attacking another player but the level of that risk via corruption should only be increased due to level disparity or griefing that player. Otherwise, initial corruption should be a simple bet of "is this player worth risking 30mins of being pinged on the map and put at a disadvantage for that time?"

Galaturc

We can disagree all day long. At the end of the day, Intrepid will decide on the appropriate corruption and penalties pks will receive based on the amount of lash back from the player community. They will assess how often the players are being grieved and how often killing a non-combatant player is fair game. I am fairly certain that an appropriate amount of corruption and a balanced penalty system will allow local variation of criminal activity. In that, the existence of pk activity will be highly localized where some nodes will be fairly safe and some nodes will be more dangerous based on the players and guilds inhabiting these nodes, as well as due to their geographical attributes.

To recap my opinion: the appropriate amount of pk instances should be rare but not inexistent in most prosperous nodes as these nodes will be protected by highly invested guild members and citizens. In comparison, the pk instances should be fairly common (but with a healthy measure of deterrence for grieving) in some far edges of Verra, in undeveloped nodes under the control of players and guilds who care little to less about their trade or economy but rely solely on piracy and raiding of other nearby players or ships in neighboring nodes.

Perhaps, in each server, the location of safe versus dangerous nodes will vary... More likely, there will be geographically advantageous nodes that are well-situated for trade and prosperity, and therefore, corrupt players will be hunted endlessly in these regions... and then, some other nodes better situated for free-for-all activity. Given how the open sea is currently free-for-all, I predict that the island nodes will host more dangerous players and guilds.

Villefort

NiKr wrote: »

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.

Ehhh I don't think this is a good idea. That approach seems over the top controlling of a player's experience.
I could see myself having 1 char that follows the rules and is an upstanding citizen....and another char that has a bounty on his head.

I don't see why one character's activities have to be linked to the other...
I doubt people would advocate for good things being account-wide...why should bad things?

Liniker wrote: »

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

follow the rules....? with pvp...? aren't we supposed to be testing? Part of testing is finding vulnerabilities and ways to break it

Ludullu

Villefort wrote: »

Ehhh I don't think this is a good idea. That approach seems over the top controlling of a player's experience.
I could see myself having 1 char that follows the rules and is an upstanding citizen....and another char that has a bounty on his head.

But if you only have one char that goes on PKing sprees - you wouldn't care that his exploits influence your "good" char. There'd be no crossover. But those who like to PK overall, will definitely try having a character that PKs everyone they see, while their main may only PK when it truly needs it. But if that need outweigh the "fun" of ruining others' gameplay - that player would PK less, which is the point of the corruption system.

Villefort wrote: »

I don't see why one character's activities have to be linked to the other...
I doubt people would advocate for good things being account-wide...why should bad things?

Quite a fair bit of people advocated for guild membership being account-wide. We also don't know whether citizenship and freeholds will be account-wide or not, and I'd imagine people would prefer not to pay x8 (or more) taxes on their freehold, nor would they want to buy that many freeholds in the first place.

Intrepid could just say "your account is your family, so your in-game reputation spills over to other chars".

Child Item