PVP System Discussion & Suggestions

ArchivedUser

You are kidding right? You really think you won't have enough people to slaughter unless you can go after "greens".  How pathetic is that?  

ArchivedUser

Eleanc said:

Tirithel said:

I'm just concerned that I wouldn't be able to kill someone that is in my spot in fear of losing my gear and stats. I'm not asking to be able to kill new players, I'm asking to be able to kill players that are annoying to deal with without fear of stat/gear loss.

Yep , there are many trolls and griefers much worse than the PK. Once they understand that you cant kill them until they agree to, you will get griefed in many ways that had places in bdo.

In 20 years of PvP and PvE  gaming, and being on forums I find this to be a false statement.  

ArchivedUser

In 20 years of PvP and PvE  gaming, and being on forums I find this to be a false statement.  

Why?

ArchivedUser

Annatar said:

Tirithel said:

Annatar said:

Tirithel said:

Annatar said:

Tirithel said:

 I don't think it's about punishment versus crime. I think it creates an unfair disadvantage for the PKer - why should his stats go down AND his gear drop if he commits the crime. Shouldn't they be able to defend themselves too for playing the game how they want to play it? I understand why the system is there but think that the bounty hunter system should be enough to entice other players to protect other green players from the corrupt players.

It is all about choices.

If you attack an green player you are going to know pretty quickly whether or not they are going to retaliate or not.  If they retaliate, they get flagged purple and all is good and you can beat the crap out of each other.  If they don't, and stay green, you have a choice to make; kill them and get corruption, or disengage.

If people want 'meaningful' PvP then they will engage other purple players or engage in whatever other PvP orientated events going on in the game (sieges, arenas etc.), but going after the 'greens' will come with the risk of corruption.  I imagine most times you will get lucky and the green you are attacking will retaliate, but I am pretty sure that there will be some players out there that will live the life of permanent-green (they are playing the trade-skill/economics side of the game), and it comes down to the choice of whether or not killing the green player is worth the corruption hit.

Yeah, you're right, but for a player that chooses to be a bad guy, I don't understand why the consequences have to be so steep - it's one thing to make them lose stats to make it easier to kill them, it's one thing to make them have the chance to drop their gear, but I think it's unfair to make it easier to kill them and have the chance to drop gear. 

I'm just concerned that they will take away the corrupt player's fighting chance to protect them from dropping their gear - especially considering people will already be incentivized to hunt these players.

Choose to be a different type of 'bad guy'.  Find a guild of like minded people and make life hell for another guild(s).  Find their 'node-of-operation' and become the bane of their existence.  Cripple their caravans, ambush their small flagged groups with a much larger one. etc. (And if a smaller group won't 'flag-up' follow them, if they are trying to farm mobs/harvest remove the mobs/nodes from play.  Hamper them until they flag purple or run back home). All safe ways of being 'bad' without risking corruption.

If you are just choosing to target solo greens to be 'bad', then I would say suck up the corruption, because you are more looking for an easy kill.  The developers appear to be encouraging something bigger than that.  They want conflict over territory.  They want conflict over the supply and transportation of resources between nodes/settlements.  They are trying to encourage 'meaningful conflict', and shanking some poor green scrub who is harvesting some corn is not really 'meaningful' and sort of deserves the corruption hit.

Imho, you shouldn't have to go out of your way to harass them out of doing something you don't want them to do - you should be able to kill them for reason. The Corruption system is in place so that they will get punished for having killed the players anyway - gear dropping OR stat degradation. 

i.e. in BDO if you choose to not participate in PVP, but grind in a heavily contested spot, you're bound to get killed and are pretty much asking for it. These players inversely abuse the karma system of the game - sure the PKer could not kill the PVE-er, but the PVE-er should be aware that they are doing something they shouldn't (Karma Griefing).

Tirithel said:

Annatar said:

Tirithel said:

Annatar said:

Tirithel said:

 I don't think it's about punishment versus crime. I think it creates an unfair disadvantage for the PKer - why should his stats go down AND his gear drop if he commits the crime. Shouldn't they be able to defend themselves too for playing the game how they want to play it? I understand why the system is there but think that the bounty hunter system should be enough to entice other players to protect other green players from the corrupt players.

It is all about choices.

If you attack an green player you are going to know pretty quickly whether or not they are going to retaliate or not.  If they retaliate, they get flagged purple and all is good and you can beat the crap out of each other.  If they don't, and stay green, you have a choice to make; kill them and get corruption, or disengage.

If people want 'meaningful' PvP then they will engage other purple players or engage in whatever other PvP orientated events going on in the game (sieges, arenas etc.), but going after the 'greens' will come with the risk of corruption.  I imagine most times you will get lucky and the green you are attacking will retaliate, but I am pretty sure that there will be some players out there that will live the life of permanent-green (they are playing the trade-skill/economics side of the game), and it comes down to the choice of whether or not killing the green player is worth the corruption hit.

Yeah, you're right, but for a player that chooses to be a bad guy, I don't understand why the consequences have to be so steep - it's one thing to make them lose stats to make it easier to kill them, it's one thing to make them have the chance to drop their gear, but I think it's unfair to make it easier to kill them and have the chance to drop gear. 

I'm just concerned that they will take away the corrupt player's fighting chance to protect them from dropping their gear - especially considering people will already be incentivized to hunt these players.

Choose to be a different type of 'bad guy'.  Find a guild of like minded people and make life hell for another guild(s).  Find their 'node-of-operation' and become the bane of their existence.  Cripple their caravans, ambush their small flagged groups with a much larger one. etc. (And if a smaller group won't 'flag-up' follow them, if they are trying to farm mobs/harvest remove the mobs/nodes from play.  Hamper them until they flag purple or run back home). All safe ways of being 'bad' without risking corruption.

If you are just choosing to target solo greens to be 'bad', then I would say suck up the corruption, because you are more looking for an easy kill.  The developers appear to be encouraging something bigger than that.  They want conflict over territory.  They want conflict over the supply and transportation of resources between nodes/settlements.  They are trying to encourage 'meaningful conflict', and shanking some poor green scrub who is harvesting some corn is not really 'meaningful' and sort of deserves the corruption hit.

Imho, you shouldn't have to go out of your way to harass them out of doing something you don't want them to do - you should be able to kill them for reason. The Corruption system is in place so that they will get punished for having killed the players anyway - gear dropping OR stat degradation. 

Mate, you can kill whomever you want, but if you are going to target greens you have to be prepared to suck up corruption.  That is why I said 'hamper' them until they either flag purple (and can be attacked safely) or they piss off.  You 'win' by either killing them or by denying a rival guild of resources.  If your sole goal in AoC is to be a green-slaying murder-hobo I think you are going to have a less than stellar experience. 

No one is talking about targeting greens, I'm talking about being karma griefed by greens. If a green player comes into my spot and refuses to leave, I should be able to remove them by force. This system would overly punish an individual by slapping on both stat degradation and possible gear loss over something as trollish as a green player that refuses to fight but continues to be a nuisance. 

ArchivedUser

@ Annatar Where did you see flaming? Casual and carebears are officiall termins as well as hardcore, PK .

ArchivedUser

And I already wrote about 2 servers, why the PvX is PvE and why it gives an advantage to trolls. And removes such great experience as open world pvp. Making of it some kind of duel but with xp lose.

ArchivedUser

Tirithel stated:
"No one is talking about targeting greens, I'm talking about being karma griefed by greens. If a green player comes into my spot and refuses to leave, I should be able to remove them by force. This system would overly punish an individual by slapping on both stat degradation and possible gear loss over something as trollish as a green player that refuses to fight but continues to be a nuisance"
. 
Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default.
So if you are mining for instance and you are red for some reason such as having killed another green then what's the problem? Anyone and everyone can use the LIMITED resources scattered around the lands.  That mine doesn't belong to just you.
That again was your choice.

What do you consider YOUR space?

ArchivedUser

CylverRayne said:

Tirithel stated:
"No one is talking about targeting greens, I'm talking about being karma griefed by greens. If a green player comes into my spot and refuses to leave, I should be able to remove them by force. This system would overly punish an individual by slapping on both stat degradation and possible gear loss over something as trollish as a green player that refuses to fight but continues to be a nuisance"
. 
Everyone is a Non-Combatant by default.
So if you are mining for instance and you are red for some reason such as having killed another green then what's the problem? Anyone and everyone can use the LIMITED resources scattered around the lands.  That mine doesn't belong to just you.
That again was your choice.

What do you consider YOUR space?

Yep thats just happened . I heard enough, does it belong to you, use your words to solve the conflict , spots are for everyone, 20 people on one spot is ok, it was your choice to kill me, and so on. Here we go the karmabombers are real, hello BDO expirience, welcome to AoC. Even the last patch of Black Desert Online is less carebear. If this system wont be changed , the game will make it way for free to play 1 month after the release.

ArchivedUser

@Annatar we speak that the system makes world pvp unreal, it is unbalanced. If it is pvx, PvP and PvE players should have the same privileges. If pvp player suffers from gear loss and xp loss, pve player should drop his gear and loot as well.
And you spoilers or nicknames when you reply , because you wiped the whole page with your reply.

ArchivedUser

You do realize you can modify your default quote line count right? Trying to read this post and all the dead quote lines is like wow.

ArchivedUser

Belewyn said:

You do realize you can modify your default quote line count right? Trying to read this post and all the dead quote lines is like wow.

They are modifying them, to make them not auto-hide

ArchivedUser

Annatar said:

Eleanc said:

 PvX is for carebears and casuals.

Mate, a couple of posts back (of yours) you asked someone to stop 'flaming' because they said that PvPers cry the most, yet the majority of your posts across the AoC forums as a whole contain insults directed at "carebears and casuals".

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and tone down your rhetoric.  

I know a few of these guys from other games, and that's essentially their routine. Talk trash and call people out, then cry foul and say "hey guys let's be cool to each other" when the tables are turned.

ArchivedUser

I'm trying to grasp what the argument is here. The main defense presented for why PvP is weighted more in favor of the "green" player seems to have some holes in it. I could see the removal of stat degradation from corruption as a viable point of contention, since this still provides the "red" player some ability to defend his/herself should bounty hunters arrive and that keeps it fair to a degree. Saying that the red player has a larger loss potential than the green player is true, yes, but at later levels of corruption after they've consciously made the decision to keep killing green players. I doubt the percentage of losses accrued from death will be so severe at the first couple of levels of corruption. More of a "slap-on-the-wrist" scenario then a "you just lost everything."

To compare, lets say two players of the same level are in a resource area (I'm basing this scenario under the assumption that @Tirithel 's comment on 'spots' refers to gathering spots or something similar). Player One was there first and has been gathering for a few minutes now, but Player Two had discovered this area earlier and has returned for more. P2 is of the opinion that the area belongs to them since they were gathering here earlier, and decides to chase away P1 through violent means. Upon being attacked, P1 decides to take the chance P2 might show mercy, and refuses to retaliate. However, P2 kills them. Upon death P1 loses exp, takes damage to their gear, and loses a sizable chunk of the resources they'd just spent their game time gathering.

Player Two is now a (we'll say level 1 for clarity's sake) corrupted red player and attracts the attention of a nearby bounty hunter. The bounty hunter tracks P2 and begins to attack, taking vengeance for P1's death. Upon death, P2 loses exp, a bit of their corruption, and the roll for loss of gear fails, instead damaging the gear. It's entirely possible for RNG to have been a lot harder on P2 and succeeded the gear drop, but that's not the point.

The measure of loss is defined differently for each person. The time and effort spent gathering those materials might have the same meaning to P1 as risking the gear was for P2. It might not. In the end, both players lose something and the only one to come out positive is the bounty hunter. Deciding how much and what to lose are the lines Intrepid has to toe carefully. Before stating that something is unfair, one should see all aspects concerning it, though. Ignorance is most certainly not bliss in most cases. Intrepid has the task of balancing these ideas, and I have no doubt that their final product will at least placate both sides well enough.

tl;dr There's two sides to every coin.

ArchivedUser

CptBrownBeard said:

I'm trying to grasp what the argument is here. The main defense presented for why PvP is weighted more in favor of the "green" player seems to have some holes in it. I could see the removal of stat degradation from corruption as a viable point of contention, since this still provides the "red" player some ability to defend his/herself should bounty hunters arrive and that keeps it fair to a degree. Saying that the red player has a larger loss potential than the green player is true, yes, but at later levels of corruption after they've consciously made the decision to keep killing green players. I doubt the percentage of losses accrued from death will be so severe at the first couple of levels of corruption. More of a "slap-on-the-wrist" scenario then a "you just lost everything."

To compare, lets say two players of the same level are in a resource area (I'm basing this scenario under the assumption that @Tirithel 's comment on 'spots' refers to gathering spots or something similar). Player One was there first and has been gathering for a few minutes now, but Player Two had discovered this area earlier and has returned for more. P2 is of the opinion that the area belongs to them since they were gathering here earlier, and decides to chase away P1 through violent means. Upon being attacked, P1 decides to take the chance P2 might show mercy, and refuses to retaliate. However, P2 kills them. Upon death P1 loses exp, takes damage to their gear, and loses a sizable chunk of the resources they'd just spent their game time gathering.

Player Two is now a (we'll say level 1 for clarity's sake) corrupted red player and attracts the attention of a nearby bounty hunter. The bounty hunter tracks P2 and begins to attack, taking vengeance for P1's death. Upon death, P2 loses exp, a bit of their corruption, and the roll for loss of gear fails, instead damaging the gear. It's entirely possible for RNG to have been a lot harder on P2 and succeeded the gear drop, but that's not the point.

The measure of loss is defined differently for each person. The time and effort spent gathering those materials might have the same meaning to P1 as risking the gear was for P2. It might not. In the end, both players lose something and the only one to come out positive is the bounty hunter. Deciding how much and what to lose are the lines Intrepid has to toe carefully. Before stating that something is unfair, one should see all aspects concerning it, though. Ignorance is most certainly not bliss in most cases. Intrepid has the task of balancing these ideas, and I have no doubt that their final product will at least placate both sides well enough.

tl;dr There's two sides to every coin.

Well stated.

ArchivedUser

Also, with crafting being such a major component of the available gear in game, who is to say that an economically savvy Red player won't have a stash of 83 other identical weapon & armor sets squirreled away, just in case they lose one here or there?

I think what we're more likely to see is, anyone who wants to PK greens for the sake of ... well.. whatever reason.. will use effective tools, but not their best tools for the job. 

That is, the average PKer mayhave a full set of their best gear for Raid/PvE content, and a separate, less valuable set for Pking. 

I mean, if I was concerned about being punished for murder by having my murder toys taken away, that's what I would do ^^

ArchivedUser

Wiliestrogue 

Don't throw in the towel on PVP just yet

If you check through the forums you'll see there's a balance between the PVPers worried about the system favoring carebears, and just as many carebears worried that the system favors PVPers.

What we do know for sure is that the devs are listening, and they are MMO players, not just MMO creators. They want to make the game the best it can be, and they have the same hopes that all of us do about how this game will turn out.

The PVP system as it currently stands is an idea... a pretty thorough idea.. but an idea nonetheless.

Until they have put it through significant testing, and had a chance to tweak it I would hesitate to come out against it on either side.  It might turn out to be rubbish, or it might turn out to be the best PVP system in the history of time itself

ArchivedUser

That what I trying to say, the PvX is just another name for PvE. The idea of the pve is for getting gear for the pvp, open world pvp. Arenas are good but that is not the same experience. Carebears would never understand what I saying. People sireulsy saying something  like "use your words as a weapon , lets talk instead of fighting" or "In real life you have penalties for murder".
Just make 2 separate servers. PvP and PvE.

ArchivedUser

@CylverRayne dont mind that "new guy", i bet that account is just created for trolling and heating up the discussion.

@Eleanc Its just stupid to try argue that PvE is same as PvX, because that is just not true. If there is system which prevents/degreeses players to attack green non-combatants, that does not make it not even close to PvE. That ganking green players is maybe 5% (at most) the whole PvP what happens so it does not even close kill the PvP in game. 

Making separate servers for PvP and PvX could be one option so we dont have to go this same discussion all over again. But i understand if devs dont want to do that because PvP servers PvE side will be harmed and PvX servers PvP side will be harmed also. Maybe the servers are not in balance with each other and creates a problem if characters can be moved from PvP server to PvX for example. This could also lead to situation where some servers will turn to ghost towns with time.  

ArchivedUser

I suggested something like this already.

Basically my suggested compromise was that you get stat degradation only for killing lower levels than you (it's fair, you attack weaker targets, you become weaker as a result).

HOWEVER, there shouldn't be any stat degradation for attacking equal level players. This should be handled by bounty system more than well.

You will become wanted anywhere, you will not be safe anywhere. Everyone will want to kill you for reward. This is more than enough punishment.

ArchivedUser

[spoiler][/spoiler]
[spoiler]idk what else you expected from PvP!?~[/spoiler]

ArchivedUser

Thread has been closed per request.