Corrupted State and how to hide it

Post by Ludullu on 2022-09-24 17:22:03

We have not received permission from Dreik to share the quoted post.
I'm all for doing stuff for the antagonists. I'm against it being linked or in any way related to corruption.

Post by Dreik on 2022-09-25 08:43:15

We have not received permission from Dreik to share this post.

Post by akabear on 2022-09-25 10:34:15

We have not received permission from akabear to share this post.

Post by akabear on 2022-09-25 10:36:13

We have not received permission from akabear to share this post.

Post by akabear on 2022-09-25 10:36:59

We have not received permission from akabear to share this post.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-25 11:54:53

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Ehrgeiz on 2022-09-25 12:02:15

We have not received permission from Ehrgeiz to share this post.

Post by Strevi on 2022-09-25 14:07:42

We have not received permission from Strevi to share this post.

Post by CroakerRPG on 2022-09-25 14:33:07

We have not received permission from CroakerRPG to share this post.

Post by Songcaller on 2022-09-25 14:35:24

We have not received permission from Songcaller to share this post.

Post by maouw on 2022-09-25 15:03:40

We have not received permission from maouw to share this post.

Post by Aerlana on 2022-09-25 15:12:40

We have not received permission from Aerlana to share this post.

Post by CptBrownBeard on 2022-09-25 15:14:27

We have not received permission from CptBrownBeard to share this post.

Post by maouw on 2022-09-25 15:18:09

We have not received permission from maouw to share this post.

Post by Dreik on 2022-09-25 19:01:00

We have not received permission from Dreik to share this post.

Post by Malcador_Sigillite on 2022-09-25 20:25:00

We have not received permission from Malcador_Sigillite to share this post.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-26 12:04:20

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Ludullu on 2022-09-26 12:19:11

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
Time to kill is supposed to be 30 secs to a minute. If one hit is "a good chunk" - that ain't really a 30sec ttk then, now is it.

But it's more about the victim's awareness than just someone hitting them first. If you're farming smth valuable enough for someone to risk going corrupt for - you should be aware of your surroundings and prepared for anyone to attack you. And even better to just shoot first if you see someone approaching your location.

And if you choose to not fight back till you die, it's gonna be on the attacker to decide whether your potential loot or the location itself is worth the corruption. That's the "risk vs reward" equation that Intrepid's going for with their design.
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
The reason to not allow that is the risk vs reward thing I mentioned. Why would a pvper flag himself when doing pve stuff. And if pvpers are not flagged for pvp during those times, than it's literally no different from the current system.

And if you're a pvper who believes in his strength and is always ready to square up - you just do what I described in the first response. You just shoot first to let the approaching player know that you're ready to fight him. I've done so and had other people do so against me in L2 for years.

Post by Lethality on 2022-09-26 12:39:32

We have not received permission from Lethality to share this post.

Post by Dreik on 2022-09-26 14:52:12

We have not received permission from Dreik to share this post.

Post by Sathrago on 2022-09-26 23:29:03

We have not received permission from Sathrago to share this post.

Post by daveywavey on 2022-09-27 00:49:11

We have not received permission from daveywavey to share this post.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-27 14:54:35

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Ludullu on 2022-09-27 15:37:25

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
And melee classes usually have more hp/defense to make up for that matchup, so those few hits would still be in the range of "equal strength". Also, I'd expect melee players to spec into at least some kind of gap-closing ability.
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
And if that PvEer is fine with risking his loot - it's the system working as intended.
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
If you're a PvPer who's doing pve and see a potential attack approaching you and you want to show him that you're ready to fight for your spot - yes. If that "potential attacker" didn't mean to bother you, he definitely won't bother you now and just move along. And if he did want to fight, he'll have himself a proper fight now.
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
There's gonna be multiple ways of achieving "random owpvp" and attacking random greens for no good reason is not one of them. But if you have a reason to do so - you're free to.
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
And that pvp can be experienced in even more ways than the "random owpvp" I was talking about above. Attacking a green gatherer who's just minding his own business has nothing to do with "rewarding pvp".
We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
If you're so hellbent on advertising your willingness to have random fights, just have a title above your head that says "I WANT TO PVP". Well, at least I hope we can have custom titles like that cause that was one of my favorite mechanics in L2.

All in all, the game is not about random attacks on green players. If you want to pvp, there's a shitton of ways to do that. If you wanna harass people minding their own business - you're free to do that, but there'll be consequences for that. And if you want to use the flagging system to fight over content - you have risks and a variety of decisions to make that are based on those risks. And the risks are present for both sides.

Attacker won't know if the defender is stronger or not and whether he fights back or not. The defender doesn't know the former either and has to decide about the latter based on the situation at hand. The attacker's risk is ultimately higher because the game deters you from killing greens. But if there's mobs around, there's a chance that the mob will do the finishing blow, which would put more risk onto the defender.

None of that risk would be present if the attacker always knows who's gonna fight back or not. And any potential pvp defender would most likely not indicate that he's a pvper when he's doing pve, because if he wanted to pvp in that moment - he'd just use multitudes of other ways to do that instead of pveing. And this whole setup would just lead us back to the current setup of the flagging system. The attacker would just have to risk it, if he had the reason to, or just go pvp the people who're participating in pvp activities.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-27 16:13:12

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Ludullu on 2022-09-27 16:31:24

We have not received permission from hleV to share the quoted post.
And this entire mechanic is present within the guild/node wars features. If you like pvping, you'll find a group of like-minded people (cause you'll have to). That group will be doing things that'll garner them some rivals and enemies. And then whatever you do will be under the threat of an attack from the enemy.

Except, in case of wars, there's more meaning behind the fighting and people are signed up for it for as long as the war goes. And if your guild makes a reputation for themselves of being good pvpers, anyone else who's interested in pvping (but is not an enemy member) would attack you to try their luck against a good opponent.

I've played under these kinds of social and game rules in L2 and it was the funnest experience ever. Each fight was meaningful and each rivalry had a huge history behind itself. And out of those rivalries you'd build years-long friendships.

Having a flag above your head that says "kick me" doesn't add anything like that. And how would that flag function? Could you change it on the fly or would you have the NW mechanic? What if you change your mind deep in a dungeon, in the context of the NW's method? Now your attackers would be confused as to why'd you put that flag up if you didn't mean to fight back. And the mechanic would lose its point.

And if you can change it on the fly, then how is it any different from you just fighting back when you want to or the attacker attacking whoever he wants? It's not like all of the people with this flag on would just fight each other every time they meet. You'd have some "flagged" people not fighting each other and then some "unflagged" people fighting each other because the situation made them to.

Well, this is in the context of a non-forced flag of course. Because if you did have it as an opt-in feature just like in NW, I'm sure the majority would never even touch it. And those few who do, might change their minds after getting attacked by superior forces several times over. NW had factions so you'd be sure that at least some part of the playerbase would never attack you, but Ashes won't have that. And the factions that it will have would just use the already-present features to participate in pvp.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-27 16:39:06

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Strevi on 2022-09-27 16:47:32

We have not received permission from Strevi to share this post.

Post by hleV on 2022-09-27 17:52:40

We have not received permission from hleV to share this post.

Post by Dreik on 2022-09-27 18:13:23

We have not received permission from Dreik to share this post.