Dygz wrote: » iccer wrote: » You don't just get corrupted for attacking and PKing people. You only get corrupted if they don't fight back??? What's the point then? Most people will look to fight back to some extent (depending on balance, which I will cover in the last part), meaning you can go and PK around to your heart's content, without gaining corruption. It's a big no-no for me. Uh. What? How can you "PK (Combatants) to your hearts content?" It's an odd assumption that the initiator of PvP will win most of the time against Greens who flag Purple. iccer wrote: » There will be less corruption, as people will look to fight back, in order not to lose stuff. Let's say that 1 in 8 people you meet will be looking to PK you. In most cases, you will look to fight back, just to prevent loss of items, meaning very low number of PKers will actually go corrupted. Depends on how many Resources the target has and what those Resources are. Also depends on whether the target prefers to punish their PKers with Corruption. iccer wrote: » So let's make some assumptions: 12 out of 100 players you run into are looking to PK you. From those 12 PKers, maybe 1-2 will turn corrupted. So for every 1000 players, you have 10-20 corrupted players, probably generous, and even smaller number than that. Really can't make any valid assumptions at this point. We need to be deep enough into A2 to have Classes and Augments to have a decent idea of how players are likely to react. And, even then, it will really be determined by playstyle demogrpahics for each Realm.
iccer wrote: » You don't just get corrupted for attacking and PKing people. You only get corrupted if they don't fight back??? What's the point then? Most people will look to fight back to some extent (depending on balance, which I will cover in the last part), meaning you can go and PK around to your heart's content, without gaining corruption. It's a big no-no for me.
iccer wrote: » There will be less corruption, as people will look to fight back, in order not to lose stuff. Let's say that 1 in 8 people you meet will be looking to PK you. In most cases, you will look to fight back, just to prevent loss of items, meaning very low number of PKers will actually go corrupted.
iccer wrote: » So let's make some assumptions: 12 out of 100 players you run into are looking to PK you. From those 12 PKers, maybe 1-2 will turn corrupted. So for every 1000 players, you have 10-20 corrupted players, probably generous, and even smaller number than that.
Texas wrote: » Nodes are in competition against one another for greater PvE play, so anything they do to foster ganking is bad. If you turn down pvp punishment enough that it actually affects gameplay that much different than a rival node, it'll just decay back to encampment. The idea is okay, it just doesn't mesh well with existing systems.
Otr wrote: » akabear wrote: » Writing this one again > How about granting regional (node) mayors the ability to decide PK penalty severity through management sliders which could introduce significant points of differentiation between regions. This customization would allow mayors to tailor penalties based on local player / community preferences and playstyles, fostering a deeper sense of player engagement and connection to regional governance. By adapting the severity of penalties, regions can develop unique cultures and play environments, enhancing the role-playing aspect of the game and providing a more immersive experience. Additionally, this dynamic approach would create varied gameplay across different regions, making exploration and regional travel more intriguing for players. I would like something similar but only when I forget that we have caravans. Corruption is supposed to let players explore and gather somewhat less stressed than those who run caravans. We seen the slow caravans meant for groups but they mentioned also solo caravans which will be faster than a player can walk. Those will be ambushed if they are not careful. I see no reason to try to gank explorers and farmers except when - they are acting as spies, observing what other players do - they gather with good reason from places which some bigger guilds consider their own territory I mean the game will be boring if big guilds will vote to lock out soloers and small guilds from gathering in a specific area.
akabear wrote: » Writing this one again > How about granting regional (node) mayors the ability to decide PK penalty severity through management sliders which could introduce significant points of differentiation between regions. This customization would allow mayors to tailor penalties based on local player / community preferences and playstyles, fostering a deeper sense of player engagement and connection to regional governance. By adapting the severity of penalties, regions can develop unique cultures and play environments, enhancing the role-playing aspect of the game and providing a more immersive experience. Additionally, this dynamic approach would create varied gameplay across different regions, making exploration and regional travel more intriguing for players.
Pyrolol wrote: » Otr wrote: » akabear wrote: » Writing this one again > How about granting regional (node) mayors the ability to decide PK penalty severity through management sliders which could introduce significant points of differentiation between regions. This customization would allow mayors to tailor penalties based on local player / community preferences and playstyles, fostering a deeper sense of player engagement and connection to regional governance. By adapting the severity of penalties, regions can develop unique cultures and play environments, enhancing the role-playing aspect of the game and providing a more immersive experience. Additionally, this dynamic approach would create varied gameplay across different regions, making exploration and regional travel more intriguing for players. I would like something similar but only when I forget that we have caravans. Corruption is supposed to let players explore and gather somewhat less stressed than those who run caravans. We seen the slow caravans meant for groups but they mentioned also solo caravans which will be faster than a player can walk. Those will be ambushed if they are not careful. I see no reason to try to gank explorers and farmers except when - they are acting as spies, observing what other players do - they gather with good reason from places which some bigger guilds consider their own territory I mean the game will be boring if big guilds will vote to lock out soloers and small guilds from gathering in a specific area. Only thing that sounds boring is your idea of zero PvP outside of controlled scenarios
akabear wrote: » Texas wrote: » Nodes are in competition against one another for greater PvE play, so anything they do to foster ganking is bad. If you turn down pvp punishment enough that it actually affects gameplay that much different than a rival node, it'll just decay back to encampment. The idea is okay, it just doesn't mesh well with existing systems. I wonder if those who push for PK capability (such as self) without the penalties being too strong, come from an L2 background and see its value as a political tool for strategic gain, power, territory, and creating lawful boundaries. Because in L2, PK was used more for claiming territory and regulating acceptable behavior over outliner players rather than pointless ganking. Giving players, or leaders in this instance, the ability to shape their zone means that if they succeed, they draw players and thrive; if they fail, they decline. It's about the choices made determining the dynamic positioning in the world, with an emphasis of being moderated by players and only overseen by developers for extreme and unacceptable behavior.
