Corruption system and getting "the jump" in wpvp

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Whether or not it's good for the GAME is not what I'm talking about.

As a QUEST it's bad, because both of those involve 'someone else having the ability to legitimately stop you from clearing a quest for basically any amount of time, while the quest is not actually intended to be difficult otherwise'.

Binary gatekeeping on quest content is what ruins quests in games of both varieties.

We have not received permission from blat to share the quoted post.

Agreed, absolutely.

Since you reminded me that you're new, please note that I don't like the current corruption system and I would like something that does something closer to what you seem to be talking about now , but I still disagree with the original point of the thread, because I don't feel like 'getting rewarded for getting the jump' is a natural or necessary part of an MMORPG's design.

I do think that 'being unable to kill a clear enemy without penalty' is restrictive.

We have not received permission from blat to share the quoted post.

I agree with wPvP in survival games, but not in MMORPGs.

I agree with your concept that two players who have been having a sweet ninja-battle over the course of two hours trying to get the jump on each other shouldn't have to worry about corruption.

I agree that the current corruption design does not do a particularly good job of dealing with the thing you are concerned about, but in the end, the problem is basically that 'getting wPvP into an entirely factionless MMORPG with no affiliation tracking' is hard to do without enabling griefers.

So Intrepid's current path is 'the one that doesn't enable griefers', and so, forces fair fights more often, even when the two people in question don't 'need to have a fair fight'. For anything else, there's the Open Seas.

We have not received permission from blat to share the quoted post.

Just to make it clear, it punishes KILLING non-combatants, not attacking. And Steven keeps saying that seeing target's hp is good, so the system almost encourages you to hit your target, because you'll know for sue it's safe to do so.

We have not received permission from blat to share the quoted post.

Actually, it's a thing you pointed out yourself.

By pre-flagging for PvP, you open yourself up to extremely unfavorable odds, in a game that is explicitly not meant to be balanced around 1v1.

If I must choose between 'you can pre-flag and be rewarded or compensated for these unfavorable odds' and 'no one can pre-flag', I choose the second.

Pre-flagging does not incentivize negotiation, it turns people into 'targets without penalty'. Which is the same problem I have with the Open Seas in this game. I don't like being on either side of that equation.

Even MOBAs fundamentally protect people from that specific craziness.

We have not received permission from blat to share the quoted post.

I just don't agree that it's likely to do that, or that it actually indicates that.

It's not the people who never flag, that it affects. And I don't really have any opinion on those people.

But I'm not one of them. I flag for PvP basically any time anyone taps me I think it isn't going to become a 3v1.

But I would still never have any reason to pre-flag. Because I've played lots of these games and know that the 'honor PvP' group is by far the minority.

As someone who's seen people camp city exits for hours, just to kill a flagged dude who dropped nothing, I can't even imagine how much people will be camping AoC's city exits, considering that people drop stuff here.

This would then inevitably lead to fewer people choosing to toggle the flag, at which point we have the current system, except devtime was spent on balancing the game around the toggle's benefits.

And if those benefits are so negligible that the system only exists "for people to be flagged" - those same people can always keep up their flag in the current system already, so why even add this feature.