Corruption: Does it / Should it Diminish While Logged Out?

The wiki at this time doesn't specify if corruption diminishes while you're logged out. Being corrupt puts a 60-second log-out timer on logging out - but there's no mention if it diminishes while your logged out.

It kind of feels like it probably should, if you're gone *long enough*. If a player has to leave the game for 2 or 3 months, there's probably no sense in them returning to find out they're still corrupted. If you come back after 2 days, though, it doesn't really feel like it should be gone.

Maybe auto-remove corruption after something like 30 days?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Arya_Yeshe

Even tough, most people here didn't support the op's idea... what if he is the only one who is right?

Let's spin this around and settle his idea in a better way, just for the sake of brain exercise. If corruption only wears off by time, then the alt is burned for that time, the alt will have the corruption penalties plus will drop gear all along. So the player who is running corrupted could simply sit this alt for days.

In a sense, this will offer more in protecting the greens over letting the corrupted pick a few flowers and wash the corruption and gank again

@Tyranthraxus you did not advertise your idea in an appealing way, but I fixed your idea for you LOL... your idea would protect the greens way more, it would be more effective

Arya_Yeshe

To me, Intrepid's view on how to wash corruption away is disturbingly bad... guy ganks a miner, then ganker do some mining and he is in green again. Bwahhaueha!!

Also, this is very unapppealing

The OP's idea about washing corruption through time is more effective, the player would have to delete his alt or sit his alt for days, maybe weeks if he ganked a lot. This player will have to spend his extra alt slots just to store corrupted and stay out of the game with them

Not that I think that washing through time i ground breaking good, it's just that Intrepid's proposal is so bad that almost anything will be better and efficient... even time will be

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Even tough, most people here didn't support the op's idea... what if he is the only one who is right?

Let's spin this around and settle his idea in a better way, just for the sake of brain exercise. If corruption only wears off by time, then the alt is burned for that time, the alt will have the corruption penalties plus will drop gear all along. So the player who is running corrupted could simply sit this alt for days.

In a sense, this will offer more in protecting the greens over letting the corrupted pick a few flowers and wash the corruption and gank again

Tyranthraxus you did not advertise your idea in an appealing way, but I fixed your idea for you LOL... your idea would protect the greens way more, it would be more effective

And it would completely ruin the corruption system. No reasonable person would do it and we'd see no non-event owpvp. That's shit and exactly what I'd want to avoid.

Arya_Yeshe

@NiKr oh baby, you couldn't be more wrong about this

There will be plenty of owpvp... you can come as purple and land a couple shots on a green... if he doesn't fight back you can just go away and don't finish your kill... some people will turn purple on you and kill you tough

These 30 days of corruption are too much, but 1 day per kill is fine... maybe it could be hour based ... if a level 50 kills a level 1 then he gets 50 hours, something like this... maybe could be rebalanced or even double the amount of time

Plus, could do other activities to speed this up

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

There will be plenty of owpvp... you can come as purple and land a couple shots on a green... if he doesn't fight back you can just go away and don't finish your kill... some people will turn purple on you and kill you tough

Why would people ever fight back if they know for sure that not doing so would mean removing that annoying attacker from the game for days?

This is exactly why I want the corruption balancing to be way laxer than what it seems to be. If victims know that not fighting back is endlessly more beneficial - they'll never fight back.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

There will be plenty of owpvp... you can come as purple and land a couple shots on a green... if he doesn't fight back you can just go away and don't finish your kill... some people will turn purple on you and kill you tough

Why would people ever fight back if they know for sure that not doing so would mean removing that annoying attacker from the game for days?

This is exactly why I want the corruption balancing to be way laxer than what it seems to be. If victims know that not fighting back is endlessly more beneficial - they'll never fight back.

Some people will be green baiting
Some people will fight back and win
Some people are great pvpers and that's just the work alt chopping trees, he is thirsty for a fight

Anyway, you don't have to fight back, just turn yourself purple and you will lose only half the stuff and xp

Nobody said the pk will be red for days, except for the OP, even tough 30 days is too much

Making the pk run errands is just a form of carebear spite against the pk, it's not even logical... now the corrupted will simpy have their network of friends and safe farm spots... he will wash the corruption off in no time

Arya_Yeshe

The top 3 pk punishments:

slavery
time
Intrepid's proposal

In many cases, pk are heroes tough, but in AoC there will be no rewards for PK... except when it is the bounty hunter pkilling the corrupted... the big guild pkilling the smaller guild in a guild war... the better node pkilling the other node etc. If it's sanctioned and community driven then it's fine?

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Anyway, you don't have to fight back, just turn yourself purple and you will lose only half the stuff and xp

Again, why would he fight back when removing the PKer completely is way more beneficial.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Nobody said the pk will be red for days, except for the OP, even tough 30 days is too much

Even if it's just few days of offline time - it's still much better than having an annoying attacker next to you.

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Making the pk run errands is just a form of carebear spite against the pk, it's not even logical... now the corrupted will simpy have their network of friends and safe farm spots... he will wash the corruption off in no time

And BHs should have enough time to get to the PKer's location and try killing them. That's the fun of the suggested system. "Errands" are just there to keep the PKer playing the game instead of literally not existing in it.

Arya_Yeshe

You will never remove the pk, NiKr! People will just wash it and return

Time is not a bad idea if it's well balanced, even if time runs 10x slower than running errands

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

You will never remove the pk, NiKr! People will just wash it and return

It's as if you're not reading my comments. I literally want more PK in the game. Like, way more than there'll be under the currently planned balancing.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

You will never remove the pk, NiKr! People will just wash it and return

It's as if you're not reading my comments. I literally want more PK in the game. Like, way more than there'll be under the currently planned balancing.

I recognized that we both kinda have interests that are in the same neighbourhood
But I think that things should unfold in a different way, but still be on the table for everybody

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I recognized that we both kinda have interests that are in the same neighbourhood
But I think that things should unfold in a different way, but still be on the table for everybody

Yeah, you want all the greens to leave the game, while I want more of them

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

I recognized that we both kinda have interests that are in the same neighbourhood
But I think that things should unfold in a different way, but still be on the table for everybody

Yeah, you want all the greens to leave the game, while I want more of them

No! Why do you even say that? That makes no sense

Everybody should have neutral and green alts, that's where all the market pvp, logistics, spying and industry of war comes from

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

No! Why do you even say that? That makes no sense

Everybody should have neutral and green alts, that's where all the market pvp, logistics, spying and industry of war comes from

Alts are not mains. I mean mains. I want a ton of completely casual completely carebear players in the game. And I want a ton of PKers to exist. And I want the system to support both, all the while supporting BHs who'd be killing the reds and supporting the greens.

Majority of your suggestions would just remove any and all casual/carebear players from the game.

Arya_Yeshe

If I say "greens are not the good guys", I mean it with double meaning and sometimes literal meaning

The good guys are the pirates

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If I say "greens are not the good guys", I mean it with double meaning and sometimes literal meaning

The good guys are the pirates

I had a nightmare once where you were revealed to be Steven Sharif's alt account on the forums.

Arya_Yeshe

NiKr wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

No! Why do you even say that? That makes no sense

Everybody should have neutral and green alts, that's where all the market pvp, logistics, spying and industry of war comes from

Alts are not mains. I mean mains. I want a ton of completely casual completely carebear players in the game. And I want a ton of PKers to exist. And I want the system to support both, all the while supporting BHs who'd be killing the reds and supporting the greens.

Majority of your suggestions would just remove any and all casual/carebear players from the game.

Absolutely not, tell me one idea that I gave that would overkill carebear?
There's not even one, I even suggested that people should have freehold pvp settings and be able to opt for no pvp in the freehold yard

Arya_Yeshe

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If I say "greens are not the good guys", I mean it with double meaning and sometimes literal meaning

The good guys are the pirates

I had a nightmare once where you were revealed to be Steven Sharif's alt account on the forums.

I made a joke to a friend that I am Steven's alter ego when he is thirsty for pvp, people would be shocked... what if he is just like me behind the curtains?

Azherae

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

If I say "greens are not the good guys", I mean it with double meaning and sometimes literal meaning

The good guys are the pirates

I had a nightmare once where you were revealed to be Steven Sharif's alt account on the forums.

I made a joke to a friend that I am Steven's alter ego when he is thirsty for pvp, people would be shocked... what if he is just like me behind the curtains?

It's because it is actually so believable, that it was a valid nightmare instead of triggering a lucid dream.

Ludullu

Arya_Yeshe wrote: »

Absolutely not, tell me one idea that I gave that would overkill carebear?
There's not even one, I even suggested that people should have freehold pvp settings and be able to opt for no pvp in the freehold yard

I'd look for it, but right now I'm barely holding this page active, cause my RAM has gone completely fucked and my PC barely works. But your every other post is about how carebears are bad and shouldn't exist. And most of your suggestions are hardcore even for the hardcore players on the forum, so I'd say ~90% of your suggestions would absolutely remove all the greens from the game in one way or another.

Child Item