The AoC PvP / PK Corruption system ... Love it? Hate it? Please change it?

Taking another hot topic of debate here in the Ashes Community and creating a poll to get a vote / consensus. How do you feel about the current PvP / PK Corruption system as it has been stated by Intrepid at this stage of development?
As always please feel free to vote and comment below on why you feel the way you do about this mechanic. Just keep it classy <3



«13456

Comments

  • Corruption, as is, makes it so that green players then can openly grief purple and red players with minimal losses. Red players don't have adequate means to defend themselves given that they lose stats the more corrupt they become, and therefore have an even higher chance of being punished by dropping gear.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    Tirithel said:
    Corruption, as is, makes it so that green players then can openly grief purple and red players with minimal losses. Red players don't have adequate means to defend themselves given that they lose stats the more corrupt they become, and therefore have an even higher chance of being punished by dropping gear.

    Don't turn purple/red, don't get killed by greens. (Or get good and beat the greens)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Corruption, as is, makes it so that green players then can openly grief purple and red players with minimal losses. Red players don't have adequate means to defend themselves given that they lose stats the more corrupt they become, and therefore have an even higher chance of being punished by dropping gear.
    Don't turn purple/red, don't get killed by greens. (Or get good and beat the greens)
    Saying "get good and beat the greens" wouldn't be an issue because that would meant that they would be purple. Being a green player and screwing around somewhere you shouldn't be should warrant being flagged on by a purple/red player.
  • @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    Keithus said:
    @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
    Think about it this way:

    You're a purple player, you're farming your monsters or whatever, and then a green player comes up and starts taking your things. You can't flag on them and feel good about it and they have no reason to leave considering they know you wont want to go red. If you kill them then all of a sudden you now gain a stat debuff, and gain the possibility to drop your gear. I think that in situations like this the system fails to do what it's supposed to. Especially considering that you, the then red player, will now be hunted by bounty hunters.
  • It's good that greens get protection, but this still feels a little imbalanced in their favour.  

    I think it can easily result in non-lethal griefing by greens who can occupy an area that already has someone else in it and cut that persons available resources in half. 

    I think that red status needs to decay over time, same as purple does 


  • Tirithel said:
    Keithus said:
    @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
    Think about it this way:

    You're a purple player, you're farming your monsters or whatever, and then a green player comes up and starts taking your things. You can't flag on them and feel good about it and they have no reason to leave considering they know you wont want to go red. If you kill them then all of a sudden you now gain a stat debuff, and gain the possibility to drop your gear. I think that in situations like this the system fails to do what it's supposed to. Especially considering that you, the then red player, will now be hunted by bounty hunters.
    Why are you purple to begin with?

    I don't think you understand that a system you advocate doesn't promote PvP like you think it does. Because the people who benefit from it won't be out looking for meaningful PvP, they will be looking for easy target and ganking. 

    The simple concept here is "actions have consequences".  So you turned purple. That means you initiated combat. You brought it on yourself. You didn't attach someone flagged up of combat, you found someone no ready or willing to fight. 

    And now you're purple. Because of actions YOU did. And actions have consequences.

    What charmed life do you lead where you feel this doesn't apply to you?
  • ^ Player versus Player (PvP) is glorious combat, PK murdering is cowardly and toxic behavior, not PvP. 

    "Git gud you gankers and fight real PvPers, not lowbie kids" is the message Intrepid's flagging system is sending.

    You want to gank my guild's gatherers? Give it a try and witness first hand just how carebear and casual our PvPers are ;)
  • Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Keithus said:
    @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
    Think about it this way:

    You're a purple player, you're farming your monsters or whatever, and then a green player comes up and starts taking your things. You can't flag on them and feel good about it and they have no reason to leave considering they know you wont want to go red. If you kill them then all of a sudden you now gain a stat debuff, and gain the possibility to drop your gear. I think that in situations like this the system fails to do what it's supposed to. Especially considering that you, the then red player, will now be hunted by bounty hunters.
    Why are you purple to begin with?

    I don't think you understand that a system you advocate doesn't promote PvP like you think it does. Because the people who benefit from it won't be out looking for meaningful PvP, they will be looking for easy target and ganking. 

    The simple concept here is "actions have consequences".  So you turned purple. That means you initiated combat. You brought it on yourself. You didn't attach someone flagged up of combat, you found someone no ready or willing to fight. 

    And now you're purple. Because of actions YOU did. And actions have consequences.

    What charmed life do you lead where you feel this doesn't apply to you?
    So what if you're purple from defending yourself from being ganked? Being purple isn't supposed to be a bad thing. Being purple just means you protected yourself or participated in PVP.

    Can you please stop trying to make this personal? We are discussing a game.
  • Very happy this is opened up to public input.

  • Tirithel said:
    Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Keithus said:
    @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
    Think about it this way:

    You're a purple player, you're farming your monsters or whatever, and then a green player comes up and starts taking your things. You can't flag on them and feel good about it and they have no reason to leave considering they know you wont want to go red. If you kill them then all of a sudden you now gain a stat debuff, and gain the possibility to drop your gear. I think that in situations like this the system fails to do what it's supposed to. Especially considering that you, the then red player, will now be hunted by bounty hunters.
    Why are you purple to begin with?

    I don't think you understand that a system you advocate doesn't promote PvP like you think it does. Because the people who benefit from it won't be out looking for meaningful PvP, they will be looking for easy target and ganking. 

    The simple concept here is "actions have consequences".  So you turned purple. That means you initiated combat. You brought it on yourself. You didn't attach someone flagged up of combat, you found someone no ready or willing to fight. 

    And now you're purple. Because of actions YOU did. And actions have consequences.

    What charmed life do you lead where you feel this doesn't apply to you?
    So what if you're purple from defending yourself from being ganked? Being purple isn't supposed to be a bad thing. Being purple just means you protected yourself or participated in PVP.

    Can you please stop trying to make this personal? We are discussing a game.
    You don't turn purple if you don't attack first. So impossible if you are truly defending yourself. 

    I really am at a loss how entitled people feel about this. The game isn't even out yet and they want to change it to be like 90% of the other games out there. 
  • The idea here is just to capture a vote on the popular opinion guys. I agree that we really do need to see, feel and experience the system before passing any firm judgements =)
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    Karthos said:
    You don't turn purple if you don't attack first. So impossible if you are truly defending yourself. 

    I really am at a loss how entitled people feel about this. The game isn't even out yet and they want to change it to be like 90% of the other games out there. 
    You do turn purple for retaliating. You are now opted into the PVP system.

    Source: http://www.ashesofcreation-the-odyssey.com/2017/07/pvp-flagging-and-corruption-system.html
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    I am a little worried about the stat decay you get from corruption and think it might be too much. I want pkers to be punished but I also want them to exist.
  • I am a little worried about the stat decay you get from corruption and think it might be too much. I want pkers to be punished but I also want them to exist.
    I agree with this, especially considering they will be hunted, and drop their gear, I think the stat decay is a bit much.
  • Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Keithus said:
    @Tirithel
    From what I understand Purple players (combatants) will lose the least within a conflict. Green players (non-combatants) will lose a little more than combatants and finally red players (corrupted) will lose the most. I can agree with the current system as it forces people into combat  to not only possibly win and gain or not lose as much as one would being a non-combatant. When it comes to corrupted players, who have to kill non-combatants to gain the corrupted status I can still agree with this system as it prevents people who kill non-combatants from continuing as they will be eventually hunted and lose gear and other special items they have.
    Think about it this way:

    You're a purple player, you're farming your monsters or whatever, and then a green player comes up and starts taking your things. You can't flag on them and feel good about it and they have no reason to leave considering they know you wont want to go red. If you kill them then all of a sudden you now gain a stat debuff, and gain the possibility to drop your gear. I think that in situations like this the system fails to do what it's supposed to. Especially considering that you, the then red player, will now be hunted by bounty hunters.
    Why are you purple to begin with?

    I don't think you understand that a system you advocate doesn't promote PvP like you think it does. Because the people who benefit from it won't be out looking for meaningful PvP, they will be looking for easy target and ganking. 

    The simple concept here is "actions have consequences".  So you turned purple. That means you initiated combat. You brought it on yourself. You didn't attach someone flagged up of combat, you found someone no ready or willing to fight. 

    And now you're purple. Because of actions YOU did. And actions have consequences.

    What charmed life do you lead where you feel this doesn't apply to you?
    So what if you're purple from defending yourself from being ganked? Being purple isn't supposed to be a bad thing. Being purple just means you protected yourself or participated in PVP.

    Can you please stop trying to make this personal? We are discussing a game.
    You don't turn purple if you don't attack first. So impossible if you are truly defending yourself. 

    I really am at a loss how entitled people feel about this. The game isn't even out yet and they want to change it to be like 90% of the other games out there. 
    You turn purple when you attack. Doesn't matter who attacked first.
    You turn red when you kill a green. Which inherently means the killer attacked first.


  • It's easy to focus on one thing "PK" and think this system is unfair or unbalanced, but if you look at the wider context of a PvX game with a unique blend of objective based open world warfare, trade system and node systems then flagging red for killing a non-combatant is just one of many mechanics required for balancing such a world. It might be wrong or it might be perfect. I'm a hardcore PvPer and I think it's fine. But time will tell if I'm wrong.
  • If green attacks green they turn purple... if the green dies they turn red?

    If purple attacks green do they turn red right away?  Or only if the green dies?
  • Wraeven said:
    If green attacks green they turn purple... if the green dies they turn red?
    Yes
    If purple attacks green do they turn red right away?  Or only if the green dies?
    Only if the green dies. 
  • Tirithel said:
    I am a little worried about the stat decay you get from corruption and think it might be too much. I want pkers to be punished but I also want them to exist.
    I agree with this, especially considering they will be hunted, and drop their gear, I think the stat decay is a bit much.
    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but risk free PvP is boring.

    I plan to raid caravans. But I also what the caravans to feel just safe enough to keep coming out.

    You balance the PvP system heavily into the ganker's favor, then people don't venture out as much, content dries up and people leave.

    As a PvPer you have to realize your game depends on the non-pvper, so I have no problem throwing them a bone.

    Dealing with corruption makes it more challenging. I'm not into having shit just handed to me. I get bored real fast.
  • Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    I am a little worried about the stat decay you get from corruption and think it might be too much. I want pkers to be punished but I also want them to exist.
    I agree with this, especially considering they will be hunted, and drop their gear, I think the stat decay is a bit much.
    Maybe I'm old fashioned, but risk free PvP is boring.

    I plan to raid caravans. But I also what the caravans to feel just safe enough to keep coming out.

    You balance the PvP system heavily into the ganker's favor, then people don't venture out as much, content dries up and people leave.

    As a PvPer you have to realize your game depends on the non-pvper, so I have no problem throwing them a bone.

    Dealing with corruption makes it more challenging. I'm not into having shit just handed to me. I get bored real fast.
    I don't mind the rest of the system, you can punish someone from being red, I just disagree with stat decay on top of the punishment. 
  • I generally like the system that's implemented.  I think it has been well thought out over many years on both sides of the battlefields in many different games and systems.

    However, I do think that people who want to focus more-so on PVP are being treated a little unfairly.  As much as I want to explore and mind my own business, I hate the thought that I could get ganked at any moment.  But at the same time, any random monster or NPC-pack could do the same thing.  Although I see the risk of PVP combat, I don't see nearly as much on the "reward" side, unless they're only being given incentive to attack people farming raw materials if that is all that is allowed to be looted.

    One thing I would like to add to the system is a great looting-possible reward for the people in PVP.  One example was from a very old game called NexusTK: The Kingdom of the Winds (one of the first mmorpg's ever).  Since every player was given a free banking system, they could deposit all of their items and gold in to that bank.  If the player died - whether to a monster (PVE) or another player in a free-for-all zone (PVP), they would drop all of the gold they were carrying, and a small portion of their gear (randomly chosen).  Only a handful of items in the game would never drop upon death - which made them insanely valuable.

    That meant the average player was encouraged to actually use the city and bank most of their gear that they don't intend to sell or use right away.  Obviously this will be much more difficult to implement in an open-world setting, since it would make it possible just to put a bunch of people together to raid the people finishing a dungeon, coming out with a cart of loot... or perhaps that's one of the risks of going dungeon delving, too?  Or adding to the value of a specialty rogue that can make the whole group invisible somehow to sneak out?

    Perhaps we just increase what player-killers can loot off of people?  Perhaps potentially all of their carried gold, or a percentage of it (maybe with a cap) can be looted?

    Another thing from NexusTK was having certain valuable weapons (often with much higher stats on them) that broke on death.  Whether it was used or carried, they would essentially shatter and become unrecoverable after the player died.  I think this would incredibly boost crafted items as well as the demand for items that hit harder but carry a bigger risk to using and losing... and also a bigger demand for items without that property, since they can be repaired and essentially never get lost.

    Just a thought - what about the idea of all red/corrupted players just having a friendly-fire combat turned always-on (solo or grouped), but not actually diminish their damage/skills?  In other words, a huge group or raid of corrupted players coming together risks the possibility of killing each other.  It also gives an incredibly dynamic and possible credence to the "Creed is greed" or "No honor among thieves."  In those cases, of course, you would have to dramatically increase the possibility of looting other players as well, or make sure that their "friends" were actually friends.  I also like this idea since the most corrupted player around is still incredibly dangerous.  There would be a huge value to having him on your 'team', but also very rewarding to be the one to say you finally took down the king of the corruption hill.
  • I stand by my vote, but I will say that if they removed the stat reduction I wouldn't be terribly upset. Having some form of check against the bounty hunter system keeps things even on all sides.

    Tirithel said:
    Karthos said:
    Tirithel said:
    Corruption, as is, makes it so that green players then can openly grief purple and red players with minimal losses. Red players don't have adequate means to defend themselves given that they lose stats the more corrupt they become, and therefore have an even higher chance of being punished by dropping gear.
    Don't turn purple/red, don't get killed by greens. (Or get good and beat the greens)
    Saying "get good and beat the greens" wouldn't be an issue because that would meant that they would be purple. Being a green player and screwing around somewhere you shouldn't be should warrant being flagged on by a purple/red player.
    This is where I have an issue worth discussing. It appears you are basing your argument on the assumed fact that any area you enter is yours. This is not true. Every player has a right to any location in the game and though personal feelings may give you reason to want to attack a player thought to be "trespassing" this does not make said player a griefer for wanting to be there. Using another perspective, assaulting a person who enters an area for no other reason than the fact that you don't think they should be there could be considered griefing. It goes both ways.

    With that said, I believe every player has a choice to decide if they want to be aggressive or passive. Hence the need for such a system in the first place. However, I don't see the system as needing change based on ideas of assumed guilt. The testing in alpha and beta stages will provide a good indication of what needs tweaking and what works for the purpose of the game.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2017
    Caelron said:
    -snip-

    However, I do think that people who want to focus more-so on PVP are being treated a little unfairly.  As much as I want to explore and mind my own business, I hate the thought that I could get ganked at any moment.  But at the same time, any random monster or NPC-pack could do the same thing.  Although I see the risk of PVP combat, I don't see nearly as much on the "reward" side, unless they're only being given incentive to attack people farming raw materials if that is all that is allowed to be looted.

    -snip-
    In your example, you're talking about two completely different mechanics. In the case of player-controlled characters, you're talking about a living, breathing person who decides to attack. In the case of NPC characters, you're talking about characters driven by game-driven AI.

    Why do I stress these differences? Simple. Game-driven AI will not willfully hunt down, follow, stalk, and repeatedly attack player characters simply for the joy of messing up their gaming. Most NPC characters are leashed, so players know, if they can't kill it, they can run from it and eventually break its leash. 

    This is not the case with player characters. In the case of a griefer, that player will repeatedly stalk and kill the same other player character. The griefer can follow the PC, it can taunt the PC, it can repeatedly make that player's game experience miserable -- and if you've never run across someone who's done this to you, you're amazingly lucky.

    The risk here isn't the stat decay, it's being willing to accept that stat decay in order to grief a PC that does not fight back. And I'm sorry, but ganking and griefing ain't my speed. If I decide I wanna engage in PvP I'd much rather do it with other people who're on the same page as I am.

    Simply put: 

    Green1 meets Green2
    Green1 attacks Green2; Green1 becomes Purple1
    <Does Green2 fight back?>
            <Yes>
    Green2 becomes Purple2

    In the above scenario, both fighters choose to fight, and neither become red

    Green1 meets Green2
    Green1 attacks Green2; Green1 becomes Purple1
    <Does Green2 fight back?>
            <No>
    Green2 remains Green2
    <Does Purple1 kill Green2?>
          <Yes>
    Purple1 becomes Red1 and takes on stat decay
         <No>
    Purple1 remains purple, Green2 remains green, and no repercussions occur

    So, what all that happy little logic tree above is pointing out is that in order to turn red, a player must choose to kill a non-fighting player.

    If you're willing to do that, then, I believe, you should be bloody well willing to suffer the consequences, since you thought you had the right to force me to deal with consequences I didn't want to deal with.

    I believe the system will work just fine as it is.



  • I need to see how it really works before I can judge it.
  • Caelron said:
    -snip-

    Just a thought - what about the idea of all red/corrupted players just having a friendly-fire combat turned always-on (solo or grouped), but not actually diminish their damage/skills?  In other words, a huge group or raid of corrupted players coming together risks the possibility of killing each other.  It also gives an incredibly dynamic and possible credence to the "Creed is greed" or "No honor among thieves."  In those cases, of course, you would have to dramatically increase the possibility of looting other players as well, or make sure that their "friends" were actually friends.  I also like this idea since the most corrupted player around is still incredibly dangerous.  There would be a huge value to having him on your 'team', but also very rewarding to be the one to say you finally took down the king of the corruption hill.
    I believe that the goal of the stacking stat-decay is to do exactly what you don't want to see happen -- it's to give green players a higher chance of fighting back and killing the griefer. 

    I PvPd a good deal, in my younger days. Nowadays? I don't wanna PvP unless I choose to PvP. So, another scenario:

    I'm gathering
    EvilPlayer comes up and I see he's red
    He attacks me anyway, cuz, you know, he's red -- what can be worse?

    Where's the deterrent in that?

    Rather, what we will see is:
    I'm gathering
    EvilPlayer comes up and I see he's red
    He attacks me 
    I decide, "Screw this, I'm going to fight back" and my measly little healing-based character actually kills him!
    I take his stuff that he drops

    THAT is a deterrent. THAT is the goal of the stat reduction. It's not that turning red is a reward, it's that turning red is a deterrent to griefers to grief in Ashes.

  • Isende said:
    Caelron said:
    -snip-

    However, I do think that people who want to focus more-so on PVP are being treated a little unfairly.  As much as I want to explore and mind my own business, I hate the thought that I could get ganked at any moment.  But at the same time, any random monster or NPC-pack could do the same thing.  Although I see the risk of PVP combat, I don't see nearly as much on the "reward" side, unless they're only being given incentive to attack people farming raw materials if that is all that is allowed to be looted.

    -snip-
    In your example, you're talking about two completely different mechanics. In the case of player-controlled characters, you're talking about a living, breathing person who decides to attack. In the case of NPC characters, you're talking about characters driven by game-driven AI.

    Why do I stress these differences? Simple. Game-driven AI will not willfully hunt down, follow, stalk, and repeatedly attack player characters simply for the joy of messing up their gaming. Most NPC characters are leashed, so players know, if they can't kill it, they can run from it and eventually break its leash. 

    This is not the case with player characters. In the case of a griefer, that player will repeatedly stalk and kill the same other player character. The griefer can follow the PC, it can taunt the PC, it can repeatedly make that player's game experience miserable -- and if you've never run across someone who's done this to you, you're amazingly lucky.

    The risk here isn't the stat decay, it's being willing to accept that stat decay in order to grief a PC that does not fight back. And I'm sorry, but ganking and griefing ain't my speed. If I decide I wanna engage in PvP I'd much rather do it with other people who're on the same page as I am.

    -snipped-

    If you're willing to do that, then, I believe, you should be bloody well willing to suffer the consequences, since you thought you had the right to force me to deal with consequences I didn't want to deal with.

    I believe the system will work just fine as it is.




    As much as I agree with you, we also don't know that A.I. will be as "dumb" as you're putting it.  They very well could have something close to that.  Also with the Monster tokens, it's possible to be that ruthless during one of those events, since players will have control of the monsters in some cases.  I would argue that if a low level Ranger was hunting bears, and just killed a bear-cub... that momma bear "better" chase you down until one of you dies.  But yes, they can't "grief" you in the same setting or be nearly as cunning to bait you in to things, too.

    In a similar sense, and related to the whole topic:
    What about putting in a justice system based on the node or city?
    Of course, you would have to 'capture' a person to kill them (or kill them as a Bounty Hunter and 'tag' them so they respawn inside a jail cell).

    Since the cities and much of the game are supposed to be player driven (outside of the main story development, of course), like a city Mayor, politics, economics, etc. - why not have a justice system?

    Catch a player "griefing" others - then, if they're caught - actually put them to a trial and then administer a punishment?

    NexusTK actually had a player-run Justice system (overseen by Archons/GMs, of course), where people would be "branded" as a criminal, if convicted (seen on their character's personal achievement sheet, which could be viewed by everybody).  The punishment could be anything from nothing, except the red-mark (which might exclude you from many player-driven events who saw you were a criminal); all the way to removing every single skill you have, all of your gold and equipment, and putting you in a jail cell where you literally had to type out a certain phrase 100x (the phrase would change slightly so you couldn't just copy/paste every time) before you would be released.  Even then, you would still have to recover all of your gear and money from scratch, unless you had friends or support.
    There weren't too many things that would actually get you flat-out "banned", but there definitely were some!  And the complexity of modern games definitely makes this system either not-possible, or incredibly complex.
  • Monster tokens will still be players, and I'm pretty sure there will be large groups going out to hunt & play with these bad boys, as I understand it.

    Yes, AI may be "smarter" or more tenacious than we're used to -- but it still isn't driven by the goal of making someone else's day miserable. Therein lies the major difference. When you are a victim of a griefer or ganker who then spends lots of time t-bagging your body, laughing, spitting on you -- all of that screams, loud and clear, that that person wants to make you miserable.

    That is the most distinctive difference, and it's the behavior that the devs have promised to strive to keep from happening.
  • I feel that whether or not it will work depends largely on unrelated mechanics like resource spawns.


    in some mmos there will be a particular area that is good for one person to occupy... let's call it a farm. A resource farm, a creature farm.. whatever.


    now a farm will provide 100 units of mcguff to one person. Cool I'm getting tons of mcguff this way!

    suddenly a wild scavenger appears and starts farming in the same field.  Before you were getting 100 units.. now your lucky to get 50, in the same time with twice the effort cuz the newcomer isn't any keener on sharing than you are.

    hey can you go somewhere else plz? I'm farming here.

    mak mi nub.

    challenge accepted, you kill him and flag red.  He's back a minute later doing the same thing but now you're running from a bounty hunter and getting 0 mcguff while this troll is now getting all 100.

    thos is my concern 

    if the resources in game don't work this way, that is, if there are no 'sweet spots' that everyone wants to have to themselves, then it isn't a problem.

    but in my mmo experience this nearly always comes up
«13456
This discussion has been closed.