Ganking...if you could call it that

ArchivedUser

How about this:

I see @nagash picking flowers for his graves - the Dead are nice, but sometimes gasy. 
I'm like: "Hey! I want those posies for mah garden! *draws dagger* but wait, I don't wanna be corrupted, I'm one of the good guys!      hmmm..."
So then I attack Nagash and he wisely doesn't fight back thus making me combatant but not corruptted because I disengage before I kill him.
And then I do it again, and again until he gets annoyed and b*itch slaps me, flagging Nagash as a combatant and allowing me my kill.

Should a system like this be countered or is it working like it should (albeit in an uncoventional way)

ArchivedUser

Interesting scenario (although don't give people any ideas).

I have to imagine this behavior would run afoul of some sort of terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed up. @nagash could probably submit a ticket about it.

I can't think of any realistic way to program logic against this without braking something else.

ArchivedUser

I don't see this being that big of a deal. Once you get him low, you are not going to want to attack him until you know there is no risk of killing them. If he doesn't heal himself, this will take a while. You would interrupt him every now and then but he will just go back to picking his flowers.

Also, there will probably be a period of time after you attacked him where if he dies to something, you are penalized with corruption. So if you get him too low and he gets killed by a sneaky flanggler, you will be getting corruption.

ArchivedUser

Most likely they'll settle on a small amount of corruption being given for any aggression regardless of whether they follow through and kill the player. I mean attacking a non-com would certainly warrant that. And it would lessen the chance your situation becomes a wide spread issue. From what they've said so far and their backgrounds I wouldn't expect them to leave loop holes open for long. They know full well despite their intentions certain players will try to find ways to get around their rules.

ArchivedUser

Digital_Wind said:

How about this:

I see @nagash picking flowers for his graves - the Dead are nice, but sometimes gasy. 
I'm like: "Hey! I want those posies for mah garden! *draws dagger* but wait, I don't wanna be corrupted, I'm one of the good guys!      hmmm..."
So then I attack Nagash and he wisely doesn't fight back thus making me combatant but not corruptted because I disengage before I kill him.
And then I do it again, and again until he gets annoyed and b*itch slaps me, flagging Nagash as a combatant and allowing me my kill.

Should a system like this be countered or is it working like it should (albeit in an uncoventional way)

....... I was having such a nice day and now this........*sigh*  Dave ready the wraiths

ArchivedUser

Adding a small amount of corruption might be enough of a mental detterent - but it also goes against the spirit of corruption being a MAJOR soul breaking experience via murder.

Sure I "ganked" him, but I spent the time annoying him enough where he decided to fight back.  Not fighting was never a choice taken away from him.

I agree with the corruption via weakening before a mob kills a player is it could be exploited to grief PvE-ers.

ArchivedUser

Digital_Wind said:

Adding a small amount of corruption might be enough of a mental detterent - but it also goes against the spirit of corruption being a MAJOR soul breaking experience via murder.

Sure I "ganked" him, but I spent the time annoying him enough where he decided to fight back.  Not fighting was never a choice taken away from him.

I agree with the corruption via weakening before a mob kills a player is it could be exploited to grief PvE-ers.

To be completely honest I would not care if I got corruption if I killed you, in fact, I would kill you again if you annoyed me then again im here for my own story.

ArchivedUser

Nagash need only not fight back and he will be fine, death is only a gateway to lichdom for him at this point anyways. What's the saying? Kill me and I only get stronger? Really though if he flags back, that's on him. If he gets PKd, then the other dude has karma and no fast travel, good luck with his gear.

What digital should have done, is wait untill nagash is fighting a mob, and them chain stun and interrupt him. This will flag Digital, but as he wont be the murderer, no karma should acquire. This is a trick I have used many times to gain a good hunting spot in other games without actually earning karma. Ofc nagash could always bone up and defend his spot. To the victor goes the spoils and history.

-CS

ArchivedUser

ChuckSteak said:

Nagash need only not fight back and he will be fine, death is only a gateway to lichdom for him at this point anyways. What's the saying? Kill me and I only get stronger? Really though if he flags back, that's on him. If he gets PKd, then the other dude has karma and no fast travel, good luck with his gear.

What digital should have done, is wait untill nagash is fighting a mob, and them chain stun and interrupt him. This will flag Digital, but as he wont be the murderer, no karma should acquire. This is a trick I have used many times to gain a good hunting spot in other games without actually earning karma. Ofc nagash could always bone up and defend his spot. To the victor goes the spoils and history.

-CS

You may have just found a loophole. let the PvE monsters do the PvP work. I love it 

ArchivedUser

But if the the Monster gets the kill, I won't get any rewards right?

With this method 10/10 be able to disengage from a fight.  Roll Rouge/Rogue most likely.

ArchivedUser

We had discussed this option last year and the concensus was that until we get the system for testing so we know whether there is a timer or not on the action it is basically unknown. Whether once you "tag" someone how long you are considered to be available for a corruption hit if they die. It is the same argument used for people who say "What if my friend and I aren't grouped. I hit Nagash but don't land the killing blow, but my friend does, who gets corruption? Both or only him?" But don't worry little Ashholes, those pesky loopholes will be found and closed.

ArchivedUser

UnknownSystemError said:

But don't worry little Ashholes, those pesky loopholes will be found and closed.

Loopholes should be closed, but I'm slightly more inclined to say this isn't one since the "victim" still has the ultimate choice to engage in PvP or not - the fact I'm annoying Nagash, a bonus, is irrelevant.

ArchivedUser

Just like one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter it will come down to what IS decides is harrassment and griefing. In the past very few people had the resources or even knew how to capture gameplay video. Now it is built in to most cards software. Hell, I have to tell NVidia at least once a week that "No, I don't want to turn on your handy tool, so quit bothering me with popups." So if you do "pesky" behavior, don't be surprised when the person turns on capture, logs it all, and sends the file along with their "harrassment" ticket. Kinda hard to refute with "I wasn't griefing, that's just my style of play!" when they have you on video.

ArchivedUser

why do you all want to hit me? did I do something wrong 

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

why do you all want to hit me? did I do something wrong 

Dead people should be dead.

ArchivedUser

Digital_Wind said:

the fact I'm annoying Nagash, a bonus, is irrelevant.

This would likely fall under "undesired player behavior" that Intrepid have stated in the past that they will be quick to rectify.

This isn't the kind of thing a game could leave in and not expect to lose subscriptions over.

We all know there are people (especially in NA/EU regions) that have nothing better to do than annoy others online.

ArchivedUser

I do hope some amount of corruption is given to people running around CCing random people and running away for the memes. I think open world pvp is necessary for this game with its mechanics. I also get why a lot of people dislike that they would have to be subjected to having their peaceful time picking flowers, roleplaying, or doing organized events bashed on because someone knows they can get a reaction out of those people for messing with them.

ArchivedUser

Beardo said:

nagash said:

why do you all want to hit me? did I do something wrong 

Dead people should be dead.

Then you can stay dead when you die. see no problems ^^Noaani said:

Digital_Wind said:

the fact I'm annoying Nagash, a bonus, is irrelevant.

This would likely fall under "undesired player behavior" that Intrepid have stated in the past that they will be quick to rectify.

This isn't the kind of thing a game could leave in and not expect to lose subscriptions over.

We all know there are people (especially in NA/EU regions) that have nothing better to do than annoy others online.

I think he meant he is annoying me as a person not as he will annoy everyone.

ArchivedUser

Yeah, just Nagash, clearly I wouldn't be doing this for the memes, I saw him pick a valuable resource (posies) and I want them, but I don't want to be corrupted.



I believe the Penalty for attacking a Non-Combatant is that you are flagged as a Combatant for a short time.  Think of the above Map as Tree #1 leading to Tree #2, and while on Tree #2, Nagash has the choice of sitting there staying a Green, or becoming Purple as well - but ultimately the choice is 100% his, no matter how many times I attack and retreat.

ArchivedUser

Digital_Wind said:

Yeah, just Nagash, clearly I wouldn't be doing this for the memes, I saw him pick a valuable resource (posies) and I want them, but I don't want to be corrupted.



I believe the Penalty for attacking a Non-Combatant is that you are flagged as a Combatant for a short time.  Think of the above Map as Tree #1 leading to Tree #2, and while on Tree #2, Nagash has the choice of sitting there staying a Green, or becoming Purple as well - but ultimately the choice is 100% his, no matter how many times I attack and retreat.

I think its just a matter of fight or flight some people will smack you across the head like me and others will leave the area and do something else. in the end it comes down to personal choices 

ArchivedUser

Well if someone was trying to progressively hit you over time you could just take off your gear in the last minute so you die and they get corrupted no ?

ArchivedUser

Okay.  I know why you won't be corrupted just for initiating an attack on a player.
The Devs have said there will be competition for limited resources.


This is us the player.  If you've ever watched any Documentaries, you'd know that they're fighting for some African resource, most likely Posies  and may wound eachother, but one will eventually back off.

If someone is in 'my spot' we might square off or even trade blow, but it hopefully won't come to murder.

Have the Devs said anything along these lines?  I have a very strong feeling they have but I can't recall.

ArchivedUser

AutumnLeaf said:

Well if someone was trying to progressively hit you over time you could just take off your gear in the last minute so you die and they get corrupted no ?

Brilliant idea!!!  Especially if you are wearing a 'skin', so no one would be able to tell if you were in your birthday suit underneath or not!

ArchivedUser

ashlynmae said:

AutumnLeaf said:

Well if someone was trying to progressively hit you over time you could just take off your gear in the last minute so you die and they get corrupted no ?

Brilliant idea!!!  Especially if you are wearing a 'skin', so no one would be able to tell if you were in your birthday suit underneath or not!

What is this "skin" you speak of

ArchivedUser

nagash said:

ashlynmae said:

AutumnLeaf said:

Well if someone was trying to progressively hit you over time you could just take off your gear in the last minute so you die and they get corrupted no ?

Brilliant idea!!!  Especially if you are wearing a 'skin', so no one would be able to tell if you were in your birthday suit underneath or not!

What is this "skin" you speak of

Like how you would use your magic to make everybody think your a big bad ass Underlord decked out in the usual Death Drag, but really you're wearing your Pajamas and crocs to work.

ArchivedUser

Digital_Wind said:

nagash said:

ashlynmae said:

AutumnLeaf said:

Well if someone was trying to progressively hit you over time you could just take off your gear in the last minute so you die and they get corrupted no ?

Brilliant idea!!!  Especially if you are wearing a 'skin', so no one would be able to tell if you were in your birthday suit underneath or not!

What is this "skin" you speak of

Like how you would use your magic to make everybody think your a big bad ass Underlord decked out in the usual Death Drag, but really you're wearing your Pajamas and crocs to work.

Like this ^^

ArchivedUser

What if i purposely enter another Player's AoE abiltiy right before death

• Green player now becomes insta-Red name  

ArchivedUser

danjohnson3141 said:

Interesting scenario (although don't give people any ideas).

In all honestly, that'll be one of the main purpose of Alpha ( phase 1 and/or 2 ) and Beta - to purposely find any loop-holes in Intrepid's 1st iteration in order to fix any potential issues In the future 

ArchivedUser

Eragale said:

What if i purposely enter another Player's AoE abiltiy right before death

• Green player now becomes insta-Red name  

Now thats one way to get pve players to hate you

ArchivedUser

Eragale said:

What if i purposely enter another Player's AoE abiltiy right before death

• Green player now becomes insta-Red name  

Except that they have already addressed this in the past and stated that aoe unless someone is flagged won't affect them. You have to force flag on someone to attack them, otherwise nothing happens. If you have attacked them, then you are purple, and not green. So trying to stir hyperbole through "OMG, I have found the loophole!! This forces greens to pvp!" is weak kung-fu at best.

ArchivedUser

Eragale said:

What if i purposely enter another Player's AoE abiltiy right before death

• Green player now becomes insta-Red name  

Confirmed that you cannot attack player like this, only "Forced targeting"