Thats all that "I think" many players are trying to say. That we know steven has already mentioned there will be avenues for bad guy play, we just dont know exactly what they'll be. The monster coins are an excellent example the other gentlemen brought up.
And there will be titles and achievments for war efforts and stuff but we wont see those until we hit around beta phase.
Yes he has and that is why the forums exist and more so my post. This is for people to discuss potential other ways to be bad. Maybe a dev will see it and see an idea or clarify something. It is all a discussion. I appreciate your input good sir/ma'am. Corruption in itself has been addressed as other topics and addressing them with potential changes is a harmless thing to discuss and have a thought process to build a discussion that may lead to a great innovative idea. You can't have good ideas if you don't talk
I think the corruption system should instead reward PKers for attacking high risk targets, whether that is some form of battle points, or anti honor points that form some sort of “evil” rank, or the reward is not getting gatherables, but instead consumables or a potential for inventory(not equipped gear) items to drop. Unless this game is different in some fundamental way, most high level raiders won’t be carrying many gatherables around at any given time, but might have plenty of consumables for dungeons/raids.
Since they have pvp ranks or ladders(right?), it would seem easy enough to tie corruption to pvp rank. So if you are just a douche griefer killing low level players and non pvpers all the time, you will gain no benefit, and get nothing but punishments. However if you choose targets at or above your “evil” rank, which would reflect the opposite of a pvp rank, you will instead grow your rank while possibly getting some sort of monetary reward.
Then pair your “evil” rank to some sort of underground or dark association in the game so that you have new quests or ties to for a little RP fun.
Also because I hate griefing, I think the corruption system should punish you severely for killing a low level player, like instant full corruption. I know it’s going to already do that, I just hope the increased corruption is massive in that situation. Force players who want to ambush players in the world to only target actual challenging players, which is IMO not griefing in any way. Also to stop corpse camping just make it so you gain no further reward for killing the same player more than once in a period of time and start losing rank and gaining loads of corruption if you kill the same target again within a reasonable period of time.
Now that is some creative thinking! I don't personally like the entire direction but I do agree it is a fun thought and something I would love to discuss further.
Also, back to the OP's point. Some players really love that red flag, being known as a bad-azz that you should run from. Well in this game, you'll be a bad azz with a stick vs a carebear with a howitzer. I don't see the fear factor there.
I'm in no way saying that i disapprove of the design choice, I actually think it's pretty cool and unique to this game. In a way, I appreciate it. I think it does, however take away any enjoyment from the criminal characters and takes it beyond harsh to just immoral. Like taking every person ever accused of a crime and sticking a bomb implant in their head.
You could say it's just not.. realistic. Having a big red name and bounty hunters I can dig. That adds an element of danger. The weakening element, I think is taking it a bit far. There's no even play field now. Not only do you risk having the Mounties after you, en-mass to complete a quest, but you're handcuffed and chained to boot, with a orange outfit.
I think the big hang-up here are the people laser-focused on the terms. You can say corruption but let's just say bad guy. So I become bad by a completely fair means, NOT by being a dick player-killing lowbies or griefing or anything like that. So I am a bad guy now, I get to show off that I am indeed that type of player that won't hesitate to defend myself and I go for the kills, but now what? There is so much potential for the bounty system to be fun on top of what is serves currently. There have been some dame good ideas above.
I just want more open discussion for more things bad guys can do to cause that risk-reward for the good guys. The corruption system can work as a passive deterrent for the griefers and with a little tweaking, there could be a secondary system to allow the grey area for good bad guys lol.
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
Perhaps there could be an unique and limited corrupted guild or faction where a FEW limited amount of players who achieved something (even using rng) or whatever, can be invited to join and do "bad things" without being so penalized.
That would be really interesting and because it being very limited wouldn't be so annoying for many players as "all people having carte blanche to do whatever they want". Adding an interesting layer of concern without beeing too much and at the same time allowing bad minded players to have chance if they try, but not all of them.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
I think the corruption system should instead reward PKers for attacking high risk targets, whether that is some form of battle points, or anti honor points that form some sort of “evil” rank, or the reward is not getting gatherables, but instead consumables or a potential for inventory(not equipped gear) items to drop. Unless this game is different in some fundamental way, most high level raiders won’t be carrying many gatherables around at any given time, but might have plenty of consumables for dungeons/raids.
Since they have pvp ranks or ladders(right?), it would seem easy enough to tie corruption to pvp rank. So if you are just a douche griefer killing low level players and non pvpers all the time, you will gain no benefit, and get nothing but punishments. However if you choose targets at or above your “evil” rank, which would reflect the opposite of a pvp rank, you will instead grow your rank while possibly getting some sort of monetary reward.
Then pair your “evil” rank to some sort of underground or dark association in the game so that you have new quests or ties to for a little RP fun.
Also because I hate griefing, I think the corruption system should punish you severely for killing a low level player, like instant full corruption. I know it’s going to already do that, I just hope the increased corruption is massive in that situation. Force players who want to ambush players in the world to only target actual challenging players, which is IMO not griefing in any way. Also to stop corpse camping just make it so you gain no further reward for killing the same player more than once in a period of time and start losing rank and gaining loads of corruption if you kill the same target again within a reasonable period of time.
Now that is some creative thinking! I don't personally like the entire direction but I do agree it is a fun thought and something I would love to discuss further.
Whelp what part of it would you like to discuss further? I am here, bored at work, and ready to discuss!
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
“War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question.
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
“War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question.
Your guild declares war on another guild by ingame guild war declaration panel. If the guild accepts the war, you can kill any members of that guild without going red.
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
“War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question.
Your guild declares war on another guild by ingame guild war declaration panel. If the guild accepts the war, you can kill any members of that guild without going red.
you didn't need the enemy to accept your declaration in L2. I wouldn't expect it to be any different here
Also, back to the OP's point. Some players really love that red flag, being known as a bad-azz that you should run from. Well in this game, you'll be a bad azz with a stick vs a carebear with a howitzer. I don't see the fear factor there.
I'm in no way saying that i disapprove of the design choice, I actually think it's pretty cool and unique to this game. In a way, I appreciate it. I think it does, however take away any enjoyment from the criminal characters and takes it beyond harsh to just immoral. Like taking every person ever accused of a crime and sticking a bomb implant in their head.
You could say it's just not.. realistic. Having a big red name and bounty hunters I can dig. That adds an element of danger. The weakening element, I think is taking it a bit far. There's no even play field now. Not only do you risk having the Mounties after you, en-mass to complete a quest, but you're handcuffed and chained to boot, with a orange outfit.
I think the big hang-up here are the people laser-focused on the terms. You can say corruption but let's just say bad guy. So I become bad by a completely fair means, NOT by being a dick player-killing lowbies or griefing or anything like that. So I am a bad guy now, I get to show off that I am indeed that type of player that won't hesitate to defend myself and I go for the kills, but now what? There is so much potential for the bounty system to be fun on top of what is serves currently. There have been some dame good ideas above.
I just want more open discussion for more things bad guys can do to cause that risk-reward for the good guys. The corruption system can work as a passive deterrent for the griefers and with a little tweaking, there could be a secondary system to allow the grey area for good bad guys lol.
I'm surprised this thread is still going on haha, I don't think this idea - will be handled better than UO's system, and if that's not the route they're going, is what it is. Lifestyle(with consequences) <- better in my view vs punishment <- what the system actually is presently. The problem with UO's style of pvp in this kind of game world, variable node progression - cities that aren't static, it'd be hard to have dedicated pvp friendly areas, and it'd be limiting to have nodes where corrupted players couldn't go, although it could be up to the mayor/node owners to decide if they allowed "corrupted players"I guess, in any event, good luck with the continued thread haha was just checking back in.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Attacking caravans, past the rewards of the caravan you claim itself, has a progression system for it.
Ganking though? No. They are trying to discourage ganking. It shouldn't be rewarded.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
I think in a guild war everyone is purple to the enemy, so yeah I think that would work. But I’m not sure, we don’t have much info about guild wars yet except that they will be a thing and that there will be “meaning” to them, it won’t just be senseless brawling.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Guild Halls and Guild Fortresses will have something to do with wars. Maybe sieging them, maybe burning them down (I remember blowing up enemy bases in SWG, so satisfying). But there will be a special PvP mode, that’s what a guild war will be.
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
“War” isn’t a verb so I’m not sure what you are asking. There will be actual wars a guild can declare on another guild, actually multiple guilds can be involved. I don’t know what context you mean with your question.
Your guild declares war on another guild by ingame guild war declaration panel. If the guild accepts the war, you can kill any members of that guild without going red.
The guild doesn’t accept the war, you declare war and there is war until someone surrenders or succeeds. We don’t know what “success” might look like yet. But when the war is active you can say the members of each guild are in a special “PvP mode” where they can kill each other without corruption. Like a permanent purple state where everyone else is involved.
Whilst being a 'bad guy' isn't something I'm that interested in, I prefer less of a black and white situation and more of a grey zone (one persons hero is another villain). I do like the systems that create a feeling of tension in the world such as the allowed pvp events they have such as caravans etc.
I have a bit of confusion over the bounty hunter system, as it will have a progression but you can't bounty hunt players that aren't red, that means you can't play as a bounty hunter unless there are griefers in the area... just seems strange to me
some ideas I think could be cool:
If there was an opposing faction to bounty hunters such as bandits who have events to raid villages, disrupt supply chains, kidnap rich NPC nobles, etc. You make people who are playing in these events targets for bounty hunters. This way you can have a villain type role that isn't related to greifing and have an incentive for more random pvp happening.
religious faction wars, so that say a religion worships corruption (the in game lore corruption not player corruption) and wants to spread it you can have players spread corruption by placing totems in the area and patrons of the opposing religion could have quests to destroy the totems.
NPC supply routes with ships on the ocean so that the pirates life can be an option for players.
I really support the notion of opposing factions partaking events to control objectives that give their members some sort of benefit.
Say like the thieves guild wants to have a hideout at a port, but that would effect the merchants guild in that port so they have a quest to try and stop that happening.
I guess my point is that people playing villain roles should have an outlet that doesn't relate to greifing other players and promotes consensual pvp and has some sort of consequence.
I don't think AoC will really promote outlaw/pirate game play in the same way Archeage did.
If Steven continues to go the direction of L2 for his PVP model, no one is going to want to go red. Nonetheless, players will go red. They will kill people on principle if someone offends them or due to over-emotional response... read: triggered. This in spite of the high risk of having a chance to drop some of your equipped items and what you have in your inventory.
You will not have bands of players running through zones PKing everyone, ain't gonna happen.
In Lineage II, red players were EXTREMELY restricted. You could not interact with most NPCs. Guards posted at the entrances and throughout towns were aggro to red players. You could not use gatekeepers for fast travel.
Caravan is an in-game example of greedy good guys taking the risks and us bad guys being there as the repercussion.
You are 100% wrong in this statement. The Caravan is not about being Greedy. It's a necessity. If you can only carry X amount of goods, say 100, and you have to travel some distances to get Y Goods, then it's not very efficient and would actually kill the game to have players spend all their time going from point A to B. You can get a Mule out, which will allow you to carry 1000 of X goods, plus the 100 you can carry and it takes some risk as you can have your Mule killed and potentially lose most of that stuff.
It's about balancing the economy. It's not about Greed. It's also about offering up another Open World PvP system for players to compete and interact. Remember, you have 3 choices. You can ignore the Caravan, you can defend or attack it. It's not just about attacking another player. There is reward for the defenders too that the game gives, not the caravan owner to promote its defense. Players can also hire additional defense.
Since this is a group based game, that caravan may not be just 1 players goods, but the collection of various members. It's not going to be very likely that you will find just 1 player running a caravan for that reason. Also the time invested in filling a caravan is going to be great. You are in effect robbing a person of their time, not just their goods and we all pay the same $15/m
If through your actions you make enough people feel they are not getting their value, then they stop playing. That reduces the population and then you only have people like you to attack and I know how much whining that will cause.
Yes, there are some good and fun ideas, most of them are mine, on ways to let you play a bad guy and still make PKing for no reason punishing. I think your way of stating things is making it very clear to all of us that even if those ideas were a reality in the game, you would still seek to Pk and grief other players which doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you a A-Hole if that is what you actually plan to do.
You are 100% wrong in this statement. The Caravan is not about being Greedy. It's a necessity. If you can only carry X amount of goods, say 100, and you have to travel some distances to get Y Goods, then it's not very efficient and would actually kill the game to have players spend all their time going from point A to B. You can get a Mule out, which will allow you to carry 1000 of X goods, plus the 100 you can carry and it takes some risk as you can have your Mule killed and potentially lose most of that stuff.
Yes, there are some good and fun ideas, most of them are mine, on ways to let you play a bad guy and still make PKing for no reason punishing. I think your way of stating things is making it very clear to all of us that even if those ideas were a reality in the game, you would still seek to Pk and grief other players which doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you a A-Hole if that is what you actually plan to do.
You are just adorable lol. I am not sure why you feel the need to win a pissing contest but if you need it that bad then I can give you that. However, you cannot cherry-pick parts of the caravan system to fit your argument when it is convenient. The caravan system allows players to take loot/rewards and bring them to another node to gain higher payouts, thus a greedy system that openly allows players to attack. So... yea...
Just want to leave that there, everything is fine, I don't need to argue over a thread I created, in which I am enjoying the conversation. You can contribute or just be overlooked, no room for petty ego for the sheer sake of trying to one up others in a topic based on creative and hypothetic ideas lol.
Perhaps there could be an unique and limited corrupted guild or faction where a FEW limited amount of players who achieved something (even using rng) or whatever, can be invited to join and do "bad things" without being so penalized.
That would be really interesting and because it being very limited wouldn't be so annoying for many players as "all people having carte blanche to do whatever they want". Adding an interesting layer of concern without beeing too much and at the same time allowing bad minded players to have chance if they try, but not all of them.
It is def an idea, I think the system of creating a sub-faction would work better with religion imo
I'm surprised this thread is still going on haha, I don't think this idea - will be handled better than UO's system, and if that's not the route they're going, is what it is. Lifestyle(with consequences) <- better in my view vs punishment <- what the system actually is presently. The problem with UO's style of pvp in this kind of game world, variable node progression - cities that aren't static, it'd be hard to have dedicated pvp friendly areas, and it'd be limiting to have nodes where corrupted players couldn't go, although it could be up to the mayor/node owners to decide if they allowed "corrupted players"I guess, in any event, good luck with the continued thread haha was just checking back in.
Actually this topic is now spread out over 4 threads, this is just the one with the numbers ALSO a streamer apparently was reading through this thread and giving ideas, it was some guy who is Tim but not Timthetatman. I haven't watched the VOD yet.
If there was an opposing faction to bounty hunters such as bandits who have events to raid villages, disrupt supply chains, kidnap rich NPC nobles, etc. You make people who are playing in these events targets for bounty hunters. This way you can have a villain type role that isn't related to greifing and have an incentive for more random pvp happening.
VERY interesting take!!! I love this idea. It's an easier way to say bad guy without being associated with griefing.
religious faction wars, so that say a religion worships corruption (the in game lore corruption not player corruption) and wants to spread it you can have players spread corruption by placing totems in the area and patrons of the opposing religion could have quests to destroy the totems.
NPC supply routes with ships on the ocean so that the pirates life can be an option for players.
I think the religion system could be much simpler with a good and bad flag as for the pirate thing, it has been said that there will be a caravan system for ships and more to come when they go over everything you can do with that type of gameplay.
I really support the notion of opposing factions partaking events to control objectives that give their members some sort of benefit.
Say like the thieves guild wants to have a hideout at a port, but that would effect the merchants guild in that port so they have a quest to try and stop that happening.
I guess my point is that people playing villain roles should have an outlet that doesn't relate to greifing other players and promotes consensual pvp and has some sort of consequence.
Comments
Yes he has and that is why the forums exist and more so my post. This is for people to discuss potential other ways to be bad. Maybe a dev will see it and see an idea or clarify something. It is all a discussion. I appreciate your input good sir/ma'am. Corruption in itself has been addressed as other topics and addressing them with potential changes is a harmless thing to discuss and have a thought process to build a discussion that may lead to a great innovative idea. You can't have good ideas if you don't talk
Now that is some creative thinking! I don't personally like the entire direction but I do agree it is a fun thought and something I would love to discuss further.
I think the big hang-up here are the people laser-focused on the terms. You can say corruption but let's just say bad guy. So I become bad by a completely fair means, NOT by being a dick player-killing lowbies or griefing or anything like that. So I am a bad guy now, I get to show off that I am indeed that type of player that won't hesitate to defend myself and I go for the kills, but now what? There is so much potential for the bounty system to be fun on top of what is serves currently. There have been some dame good ideas above.
I just want more open discussion for more things bad guys can do to cause that risk-reward for the good guys. The corruption system can work as a passive deterrent for the griefers and with a little tweaking, there could be a secondary system to allow the grey area for good bad guys lol.
Ganking should always be rewarded when you do it on guilds you're in war with.
1. You don't get corrupted.
2. You hate them. Killing them will give you satisfaction.
3. You stop them from progressing.
4. Maybe some guild points as reward or something?
Perhaps there could be an unique and limited corrupted guild or faction where a FEW limited amount of players who achieved something (even using rng) or whatever, can be invited to join and do "bad things" without being so penalized.
That would be really interesting and because it being very limited wouldn't be so annoying for many players as "all people having carte blanche to do whatever they want". Adding an interesting layer of concern without beeing too much and at the same time allowing bad minded players to have chance if they try, but not all of them.
Its never senseless, as I said you kill them at a boss or in a dungeon. You don't need the devs to give you a specific map or pvp mode to make guild wars meaningful.
Whelp what part of it would you like to discuss further? I am here, bored at work, and ready to discuss!
Thats cool, but won't you be able to war a guild outside of that pvp mode?
Your guild declares war on another guild by ingame guild war declaration panel. If the guild accepts the war, you can kill any members of that guild without going red.
you didn't need the enemy to accept your declaration in L2. I wouldn't expect it to be any different here
I'm surprised this thread is still going on haha, I don't think this idea - will be handled better than UO's system, and if that's not the route they're going, is what it is. Lifestyle(with consequences) <- better in my view vs punishment <- what the system actually is presently. The problem with UO's style of pvp in this kind of game world, variable node progression - cities that aren't static, it'd be hard to have dedicated pvp friendly areas, and it'd be limiting to have nodes where corrupted players couldn't go, although it could be up to the mayor/node owners to decide if they allowed "corrupted players"I guess, in any event, good luck with the continued thread haha was just checking back in.
I have a bit of confusion over the bounty hunter system, as it will have a progression but you can't bounty hunt players that aren't red, that means you can't play as a bounty hunter unless there are griefers in the area... just seems strange to me
some ideas I think could be cool:
If there was an opposing faction to bounty hunters such as bandits who have events to raid villages, disrupt supply chains, kidnap rich NPC nobles, etc. You make people who are playing in these events targets for bounty hunters. This way you can have a villain type role that isn't related to greifing and have an incentive for more random pvp happening.
religious faction wars, so that say a religion worships corruption (the in game lore corruption not player corruption) and wants to spread it you can have players spread corruption by placing totems in the area and patrons of the opposing religion could have quests to destroy the totems.
NPC supply routes with ships on the ocean so that the pirates life can be an option for players.
I really support the notion of opposing factions partaking events to control objectives that give their members some sort of benefit.
Say like the thieves guild wants to have a hideout at a port, but that would effect the merchants guild in that port so they have a quest to try and stop that happening.
I guess my point is that people playing villain roles should have an outlet that doesn't relate to greifing other players and promotes consensual pvp and has some sort of consequence.
If Steven continues to go the direction of L2 for his PVP model, no one is going to want to go red. Nonetheless, players will go red. They will kill people on principle if someone offends them or due to over-emotional response... read: triggered. This in spite of the high risk of having a chance to drop some of your equipped items and what you have in your inventory.
You will not have bands of players running through zones PKing everyone, ain't gonna happen.
In Lineage II, red players were EXTREMELY restricted. You could not interact with most NPCs. Guards posted at the entrances and throughout towns were aggro to red players. You could not use gatekeepers for fast travel.
You are 100% wrong in this statement. The Caravan is not about being Greedy. It's a necessity. If you can only carry X amount of goods, say 100, and you have to travel some distances to get Y Goods, then it's not very efficient and would actually kill the game to have players spend all their time going from point A to B. You can get a Mule out, which will allow you to carry 1000 of X goods, plus the 100 you can carry and it takes some risk as you can have your Mule killed and potentially lose most of that stuff.
It's about balancing the economy. It's not about Greed. It's also about offering up another Open World PvP system for players to compete and interact. Remember, you have 3 choices. You can ignore the Caravan, you can defend or attack it. It's not just about attacking another player. There is reward for the defenders too that the game gives, not the caravan owner to promote its defense. Players can also hire additional defense.
Since this is a group based game, that caravan may not be just 1 players goods, but the collection of various members. It's not going to be very likely that you will find just 1 player running a caravan for that reason. Also the time invested in filling a caravan is going to be great. You are in effect robbing a person of their time, not just their goods and we all pay the same $15/m
If through your actions you make enough people feel they are not getting their value, then they stop playing. That reduces the population and then you only have people like you to attack and I know how much whining that will cause.
Yes, there are some good and fun ideas, most of them are mine, on ways to let you play a bad guy and still make PKing for no reason punishing. I think your way of stating things is making it very clear to all of us that even if those ideas were a reality in the game, you would still seek to Pk and grief other players which doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you a A-Hole if that is what you actually plan to do.
Love a good story and lore.
Twitch Streamer : PRO Discord
You are just adorable lol. I am not sure why you feel the need to win a pissing contest but if you need it that bad then I can give you that. However, you cannot cherry-pick parts of the caravan system to fit your argument when it is convenient. The caravan system allows players to take loot/rewards and bring them to another node to gain higher payouts, thus a greedy system that openly allows players to attack. So... yea...
Just want to leave that there, everything is fine, I don't need to argue over a thread I created, in which I am enjoying the conversation. You can contribute or just be overlooked, no room for petty ego for the sheer sake of trying to one up others in a topic based on creative and hypothetic ideas lol.
It is def an idea, I think the system of creating a sub-faction would work better with religion imo
Actually this topic is now spread out over 4 threads, this is just the one with the numbers ALSO a streamer apparently was reading through this thread and giving ideas, it was some guy who is Tim but not Timthetatman. I haven't watched the VOD yet.
VERY interesting take!!! I love this idea. It's an easier way to say bad guy without being associated with griefing.
I think the religion system could be much simpler with a good and bad flag as for the pirate thing, it has been said that there will be a caravan system for ships and more to come when they go over everything you can do with that type of gameplay.
another very interesting idea!!!!!
Couldn't agree more!!!!