Exp loss due to being hunted? AkA being griefed or trolled

ArchivedUser

So I have been away for a while now and have not been following as close as I wish I could be on updates. However a guildie of mine from World of Warcraft has mention to me today about the exp loss per death. Now we started talking about PvP and how a group of players could group up and basically troll a targeted player killing them over and over costing them resources and XP. Yes they get corruption but lets think about what current game you play and I bet you can think of a guild that specifically goes around and attacks either a certain player or guild just because they can.

ArchivedUser

Ideally players would respawn in an area, like a town, where they can't be attacked so spawn camping can't happen.

If you are talking about a scenario where a group of players randomly decides to spend 100% of their time trying to find you then I'd think that would be very rare. In the unlikely event that does happen then i'd recommend asking for some help from other players or hope the bounty hunters catch on. Joining a guild might help.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Ideally players would respawn in an area, like a town, where they can't be attacked so spawn camping can't happen.

If you are talking about a scenario where a group of players randomly decides to spend 100% of their time trying to find you then I'd think that would be very rare. In the unlikely event that does happen then i'd recommend asking for some help from other players or hope the bounty hunters catch on. Joining a guild might help.

What about caravans? Or would that fall under the "signed-up" category and falling into a different rule (read: respawn) setting? Would be interesting to see how they are going fill that in.

But regarding the OP's concern. You wouldn't want to have to feed the grievers that would follow you everywhere just to make your life in game a hell. I have seen it happen more than once, Would be nice if they could tackle something like that.

ArchivedUser

Well for example on my old sever of world of warcraft I am horde and there was an alliance guild that hated my guild due to us being ahead on progression in raiding. Whenever two or more of that alliance guild saw a single one of our players alone they would kill them. Now joining a guild may help but you are not gonna have a guild member on your hip at all times. I just see the potential for bully oriented guilds to seek out other guilds and kill their player regardless of if bounties are placed on their head.Most trolls might see a bounty on their head as a badge of honor.

ArchivedUser

squirrelacus said:

Most trolls might see a bounty on their head as a badge of honor.

I agree, it is an intention and infamy type of gameplay.

ArchivedUser

Digma76 said:

What about caravans? Or would that fall under the "signed-up" category and falling into a different rule (read: respawn) setting? Would be interesting to see how they are going fill that in.

Not sure how they will handle death at a caravan. I could see reasons why they would choose either respawning at the caravan or respawning in town. I kind of want to lean towards you respawning at town. I could see things getting turtly if you could respawn at the caravan.

Digma76 said:

But regarding the OP's concern. You wouldn't want to have to feed the grievers that would follow you everywhere just to make your life in game a hell. I have seen it happen more than once, Would be nice if they could tackle something like that.

They have already given us the corruption system that marks and punishes griefers, I think we (the community) should do the rest. We have a bounty system where we can see these players on our map, they have done almost all the work for us. 

ArchivedUser

Traditionally death penalties of experience loss do not apply to PvP, only PvE.
They are meant to encourage smart gameplay and add risk vs reward to keep it real.
You don't want to discourage players from participating in PvP which adds a dynamic to the game. PvP usually has rewards for killing opponents as opposed to penalties for losing in combat Those rewards can be points, rank, status, etc. which can be redeemed in-game. It can give your faction or side control of geographic areas and access to content.

ArchivedUser

That is called a real PvP boys, you should try it sometimes.

No restrictions on PvP is the only real PvP you can have. Everything is handled by community and people working together.

That is the only real type of PvP, everything else (restrictions and punishments by game mechanics) is a "fake PvP" designed to cater to care bears.


PvX should mean PvE AND PvP.
PvX should not mean PvE AND "restricted PvP".


That's just my 2 cents.

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

Digma76 said:

What about caravans? Or would that fall under the "signed-up" category and falling into a different rule (read: respawn) setting? Would be interesting to see how they are going fill that in.

Not sure how they will handle death at a caravan. I could see reasons why they would choose either respawning at the caravan or respawning in town. I kind of want to lean towards you respawning at town. I could see things getting turtly if you could respawn at the caravan.

Digma76 said:

But regarding the OP's concern. You wouldn't want to have to feed the grievers that would follow you everywhere just to make your life in game a hell. I have seen it happen more than once, Would be nice if they could tackle something like that.

They have already given us the corruption system that marks and punishes griefers, I think we (the community) should do the rest. We have a bounty system where we can see these players on our map, they have done almost all the work for us. 

The whole mechanics around the caravan system might be a winner or a loser to the game. Sure there is a local economy to thrive on but that will only go that far. Concern is that if caravans in 99% of the occassions slip to easily into the hands of hardcore and heavily geared pvp guilds, the game will bleed dry quickly. As commerce is one of the things that keeps games like this afloat in the long run. But that is just my perspective.

Thanks for the heads up on corruption system. That kinda slipped my attention.

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

That is called a real PvP boys, you should try it sometimes.

No restrictions on PvP is the only real PvP you can have. Everything is handled by community and people working together.

That is the only real type of PvP, everything else (restrictions and punishments by game mechanics) is a "fake PvP" designed to cater to care bears.


PvX should mean PvE AND PvP.
PvX should not mean PvE AND "restricted PvP".


That's just my 2 cents.

If you took the time and read what I said fully. I don't feel that a group not one single person but a group of people that make it their duty to hunt one certain person or group and kill them over and over disrupting their gameplay is real PvP. But if that is what the quoted person feels and the community takes that approach I am sure there will be many who are not interested in that sort of gameplay and losing say all the resources they have been farming because they were hunted and sought out. And I am sure those folks will walk away from the game. I am all for PvP but I don't think "Real PvP" is 5 Vs 1 I think that is for people who have no skilll but that's just my two cents.

ArchivedUser

Also Digma76 thank you for your input throughout this thread.

ArchivedUser

squirrelacus said:
If you took the time and read what I said fully

I didn't.

Lalalala lalalallala

  

ArchivedUser

I know I am kinda hijacking this thread for caravan systematics. But does anyone know if there is a mechanic in place where "false" sign-ups can be prevented. Or is the defence and/or attack always limited to already grouped up/raided or caravan accompanying groups? As I could see it happening that the opposition pushes people in the "defensive" to ensure less actual defenders can sign-up, if there is a limit at all that is.

ArchivedUser

Digma76 said:

I know I am kinda hijacking this thread for caravan systematics. But does anyone know if there is a mechanic in place where "false" sign-ups can be prevented. Or is the defence and/or attack always limited to already grouped up/raided or caravan accompanying groups? As I could see it happening that the opposition pushes people in the "defensive" to ensure less actual defenders can sign-up, if there is a limit at all that is.

From what we have been told, upon entering the area surrounding the caravan (we do not know the exact size of the area at this time) you will be prompted to choose whether to 1. attack the caravan, 2. defend the caravan, or 3. ignore. As far as we know there is no limit to how many people can participate in a caravan fight.

ArchivedUser

squirrelacus said:

So I have been away for a while now and have not been following as close as I wish I could be on updates. However a guildie of mine from World of Warcraft has mention to me today about the exp loss per death. Now we started talking about PvP and how a group of players could group up and basically troll a targeted player killing them over and over costing them resources and XP. Yes they get corruption but lets think about what current game you play and I bet you can think of a guild that specifically goes around and attacks either a certain player or guild just because they can.

I think that Intrepid needs to design the corruption system with this particular situation in mind. I think two things that should probably be included in the corruption system are
1. Tracking of the same player repeatedly killing the same other non-combatant character over x amount of time with quickly scaling ever increasing corruption penalties.
2. Tracking of the same non-combatant repeatedly dying to any pker with ever increasing corruption penalties, but at a slower rate of increase than above. 

Some UI notice for both of these would be nice just to prevent accidents like a 'recently killed twice' debuff on non-combatants only visible to corrupt players.
The number of players required to 'camp' a non-combatant and kill them the second they walk out of a safe area should scale VERY quickly - for instance if a large guild wanted to camp a player who said something mean about them on the forum, the first person to PK them should loose an hour worth of their time in the amount of xp they need to grind out after eventual corruption death, the second person to kill them in quick succession should need to grind xp for two hours make up for the corruption death, the third person should need four hours, the fourth person should need 6 hours of xp grinding, etc. until you reach something like player number 100 needing to grind xp for 800 hours (aka hopefully they where long ago decentiveized from continuing to do that (I roughly used the formula y=.8x^{1.5} where x is the number of recent deaths a non-combatant has suffered - tweaks could be made to make the penalties scale slower / cap out at something more reasonable (80 days worth of playing the game for 10 hours a day is NOT reasonable - at least over a single kill ;p)

ArchivedUser

It's like something that I was suggesting previously.

Add corruption for griefing (more griefing, more corruption and at a harder pace), but do not add corruption instantly for occasional single attacks.

For example, you see someone in forest mining same nodes as you, and you attack and kill the player to capture those resources, player was green but since it was first attack, there is no corruption.

Second attack on same player is mild corruption, but then every consecutive attack adds corrpution exponentially.

This way, occasional PvP in game is not punished, it is even adviced. However griefing is strongly discouraged as when repeatedly killing the same player many times over (that now has no loot cause you already took it) because exponentially stacking corruption rekts you.

So I would add corruption for griefing (killing same target many times over), and for killing lower level players (unless they attacked you first ofc and flagged themselves), so griefers are punished.

However I would avoid giving corruption completely for occasional "single time" green attacks, that happen over resources, and do not turn into griefing.


Certain players though were against this, because even though they say they are only against griefing, they are in fact against any PvP attacks performed against them, and they want attacker to get rekt with corruption even if he attacks them 1 time per year...

ArchivedUser

The point is to incentivize occasional (meaningful) PvP conflict over resources, even if other player is trying to get around it by "being green", but to punish griefing and ganking that's not meaningful but serves only to grief a player for no purpose.


The point is not to discourage any sort of attacks at any time, and to allow people to exploit "green mechanics" to get away from ALL fights.

ArchivedUser

Admittedly, I thought the way you do where there it would technically be possible to just farm newbies but we gotta look at the facts;

1) It's a sub-based game. If a guild goes around doing this they are basically paying to grief, and, given enough time, lose stats.  
  
2) At lv 1 (or wherever you are), you and the griefers will be the same level. So you can fight back the corrupted and lose basically nothing while they start becoming at risk of losing everything  
  
3) Make friends. This is possibly the best community I've seen so far and I myself have found a guild. Find friends, fight back the corruption. They are far more at risk than you are.  
  
I know it doesn't seem it at first, but Intrepid have made a pretty good system to fight griefers. We just have to use it.

ArchivedUser

What I find most distressing about all these PvP discussions is that this is exactly what UO went through and what forced them into making care-bear land. Literally, every thought in this thread has been previously said about UO.

You know what?  Griefers are better at PvP than 99% of the players.  They are more organized because this is what they do.  There are more of them and they have a plan that is practiced and tested because they spend their time doing this.  They understand the rules and have no problem sitting (or 'botting') around for 12 hours to burn off their red.  It caused a lot of problems for the player base and cost the company a lot in lost subscriptions.

That's not to say that it won't be better here...I really hope it can be.  I just don't get how you can have meaningful PvP without enabling meaningless PvP.

ArchivedUser

Or in another words, by punishing meaningless PvP you are also punishing meaningful PvP (as long as other party is using "green exploit" to get away from it), thus de facto you are creating PvE game with "fake PvX" declaration.

ArchivedUser

Zastro said:

Digma76 said:

I know I am kinda hijacking this thread for caravan systematics. But does anyone know if there is a mechanic in place where "false" sign-ups can be prevented. Or is the defence and/or attack always limited to already grouped up/raided or caravan accompanying groups? As I could see it happening that the opposition pushes people in the "defensive" to ensure less actual defenders can sign-up, if there is a limit at all that is.

From what we have been told, upon entering the area surrounding the caravan (we do not know the exact size of the area at this time) you will be prompted to choose whether to 1. attack the caravan, 2. defend the caravan, or 3. ignore. As far as we know there is no limit to how many people can participate in a caravan fight.

I can see a pvp heavy guild making great money by NOT attacking caravans.  You know,  like when the local mafia comes to your business for "protection" money.  Man I can't wait to "protect" some businesses.  

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

It's like something that I was suggesting previously.

Add corruption for griefing (more griefing, more corruption and at a harder pace), but do not add corruption instantly for occasional single attacks.

For example, you see someone in forest mining same nodes as you, and you attack and kill the player to capture those resources, player was green but since it was first attack, there is no corruption.

Second attack on same player is mild corruption, but then every consecutive attack adds corrpution exponentially.

This way, occasional PvP in game is not punished, it is even adviced. However griefing is strongly discouraged as when repeatedly killing the same player many times over (that now has no loot cause you already took it) because exponentially stacking corruption rekts you.

So I would add corruption for griefing (killing same target many times over), and for killing lower level players (unless they attacked you first ofc and flagged themselves), so griefers are punished.

However I would avoid giving corruption completely for occasional "single time" green attacks, that happen over resources, and do not turn into griefing.


Certain players though were against this, because even though they say they are only against griefing, they are in fact against any PvP attacks performed against them, and they want attacker to get rekt with corruption even if he attacks them 1 time per year...

Yah sounds alot like BDO and pretty much the player thats getting killed over and over again is the true "TROLL" this is called passive agressive trolling.... HOW about, you dont get any penalty and thr only way to control anything is by playing the game and building your charater to become strong enough to contest things...... This generation is Fucking hopeless

ArchivedUser

Flatline said:

Yah sounds alot like BDO and pretty much the player thats getting killed over and over again is the true "TROLL" this is called passive agressive trolling.... HOW about, you dont get any penalty and thr only way to control anything is by playing the game and building your charater to become strong enough to contest things...... This generation is Fucking hopeless

I think this is an awesome idea.  This way, me and my buddies can gang up and control the mining areas.  We'll practice a bit to make sure that we're good at PvP and have backup standing by, but trust me, we'll be so much better at PvP than almost everyone else, including bounty hunters....because we do this together as a group, we do it all the time and we are professionals at it.  It will literally be how we make our money

Brilliant.

ArchivedUser

@Flatline how is a person who wants nothing to do with PvP and only wants to do professions and gather material a passive aggressive troll? Don't they have a right to play the game that they are paying for in any way they chose? Just like those who want to gank and engage non flagged player have the right to play as they wish even though others may not agree with that type of play style?

ArchivedUser

squirrelacus said:

@Flatline how is a person who wants nothing to do with PvP and only wants to do professions and gather material a passive aggressive troll? Don't they have a right to play the game that they are paying for in any way they chose? Just like those who want to gank and engage non flagged player have the right to play as they wish even though others may not agree with that type of play style?

He is a passive agressive troll by wanting a system that will opress the other game style... All he has to do is simply return to the area conti ue farming while the person thats trying to contest for resources incures a stiffer penalty for killing him, once he turns corrupt he attacks him takes his stuff........ TROLL

ArchivedUser

Flatline said:

squirrelacus said:

@Flatline how is a person who wants nothing to do with PvP and only wants to do professions and gather material a passive aggressive troll? Don't they have a right to play the game that they are paying for in any way they chose? Just like those who want to gank and engage non flagged player have the right to play as they wish even though others may not agree with that type of play style?

He is a passive agressive troll by wanting a system that will opress the other game style... All he has to do is simply return to the area conti ue farming while the person thats trying to contest for resources incures a stiffer penalty for killing him, once he turns corrupt he attacks him takes his stuff........ TROLL

So what you are saying is, a person who is fully skilled at crafting and therefore not built for combat, should be forced to fight and lose 'everytime' anyway, because not built for combat.

You arent asking for a fair PvP fight. You are asking for easy kills just like the typical ganker.

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Flatline said:

squirrelacus said:

@Flatline how is a person who wants nothing to do with PvP and only wants to do professions and gather material a passive aggressive troll? Don't they have a right to play the game that they are paying for in any way they chose? Just like those who want to gank and engage non flagged player have the right to play as they wish even though others may not agree with that type of play style?

He is a passive agressive troll by wanting a system that will opress the other game style... All he has to do is simply return to the area conti ue farming while the person thats trying to contest for resources incures a stiffer penalty for killing him, once he turns corrupt he attacks him takes his stuff........ TROLL

So what you are saying is, a person who is fully skilled at crafting and therefore not built for combat, should be forced to fight and lose 'everytime' anyway, because not built for combat.

You arent asking for a fair PvP fight. You are asking for easy kills just like the typical ganker.

So you are assuming that said person is thr best pvper on the server and said troll being killed is completely help less........ Right get off your entitled mentality and welcome adversity.... Improvise, adapt, overcome..... Stop running to mommy and daddy .. Its this kind of mentality that ruins MMOs and maked them bussiness as usual. We as a community have tired it "this way" for several years only to account one failure after another.. Keep in mind this is PVX stop trying to make it as every other worthless and failed title tjat has came out for the past 10+ years....

ArchivedUser

Gothix said:

The point is to incentivize occasional (meaningful) PvP conflict over resources, even if other player is trying to get around it by "being green", but to punish griefing and ganking that's not meaningful but serves only to grief a player for no purpose.


The point is not to discourage any sort of attacks at any time, and to allow people to exploit "green mechanics" to get away from ALL fights.

CORRECT, thus making those green players the REAL TROLLS............

ArchivedUser

McStackerson said:

They have already given us the corruption system that marks and punishes griefers, I think we (the community) should do the rest. We have a bounty system where we can see these players on our map, they have done almost all the work for us. 

It is a nice thing to have this feature as long as items don't give too much difference between players so they can act as "gods" in game, i may not know too much about AOC since i found out about it not long ago but my experience with having items vs not having items in pvp create a big gap and lead to people leaving game as they see that is not possible to compete. I mean mostly about items that can't be farmed in game and can be bought from some ingame store

ArchivedUser

Well @flatline if you actually took a minute and read the whole discussions it states a group of player. Not one but a GROUP who seek out either and individual or a entire guild and kills them over and over.

ArchivedUser

Rune_Relic said:

Flatline said:

squirrelacus said:

@Flatline how is a person who wants nothing to do with PvP and only wants to do professions and gather material a passive aggressive troll? Don't they have a right to play the game that they are paying for in any way they chose? Just like those who want to gank and engage non flagged player have the right to play as they wish even though others may not agree with that type of play style?

He is a passive agressive troll by wanting a system that will opress the other game style... All he has to do is simply return to the area conti ue farming while the person thats trying to contest for resources incures a stiffer penalty for killing him, once he turns corrupt he attacks him takes his stuff........ TROLL

So what you are saying is, a person who is fully skilled at crafting and therefore not built for combat, should be forced to fight and lose 'everytime' anyway, because not built for combat.

You arent asking for a fair PvP fight. You are asking for easy kills just like the typical ganker.

Somebody that understands what I am trying to say thank you @Rune_Relic This is not about defending a resource. This is about a group of people who look specifically for a certain person or guild and kills them over and over as a form of entertainment. Or to cause them to lose materials and XP because they think it is fun.