the bounty hunter system wont work as intended

ill keep this short.. so basically as to my understanding bounty hunters can track corrupted players and when tehy fight the corrupted player doesnt have the reductions in abilities.. the idea being to put the fight on equal footing.. as a red.. i like this idea.. i think it adds another level of difficulty and its a good plan that adds the ability for anti pk guilds.. kudos.. the problem is whats gonna happen will be one bounty hunter and x ammt of his friends.. if the corruption debuffs only disable vs the bounty hunter then not only is the red out numbered but hes also fighting at a disadvantage on top of it.. which i think is a bit extreme and not in the spirit of the system.. i would recommend adding an aoe effect to bounty hunters that disables the corruption debuff within the area, otherwise the system wont work as intended... as it stands corrupted players will be walking loot bags..so theres gonna be a lot of incentive to hunt them down and take their stuff

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Songcaller

It is not good enough to have 1vs1 fights between a Corrupted Player and a Bounty Hunter. Hard Counters mean 1 in 8 fights is an automatic loss if Hard Counters are substantial. The system has flaws because no system is perfect. There is nothing to stop corrupted players grouping together or being killed by their friends.

If a Bounty Hunter wants to group they should be allowed to group. If the debuff applies to the group then Bounty Hunters won't even be required.

I'm an advocate for Greens killing Reds regardless of if a Bounty Hunter is present.

daveywavey

I think that's part of the whole "trying to discourage random killing" thing.

There's no saying you can't roam around in a gang of your own. Then, when Bounty Hunter and friends turn up, it's 6 vs 6.

Plus, it's probably a little early to assume it just won't work. I'm sure they'll be open to feedback once it gets going.

Gankez

Neurath wrote: »

It is not good enough to have 1vs1 fights between a Corrupted Player and a Bounty Hunter. Hard Counters mean 1 in 8 fights is an automatic loss if Hard Counters are substantial. The system has flaws because no system is perfect. There is nothing to stop corrupted players grouping together or being killed by their friends.

If a Bounty Hunter wants to group they should be allowed to group. If the debuff applies to the group then Bounty Hunters won't even be required.

I'm an advocate for Greens killing Reds regardless of if a Bounty Hunter is present.

you would need the bounty hunter to track the corrupted players.. so bh's would need to be present. and i didnt say to debuff the group, i said to remove the corruption debuff from the corrupted player (when a bounty hunter is in the area) so that they arnt fighting out numbered AND with reduced skills

Gankez

daveywavey wrote: »

I think that's part of the whole "trying to discourage random killing" thing.

There's no saying you can't roam around in a gang of your own. Then, when Bounty Hunter and friends turn up, it's 6 vs 6.

Plus, it's probably a little early to assume it just won't work. I'm sure they'll be open to feedback once it gets going.

and i understand that the idea is to discourage reds.. but you can tell that the devs want the fight to be a fair(ish) fight between the red and the bounty hunters.. otherwise they wouldnt remove the corruption debuff from the red when fighting a bounty hunter.. what im saying is the system has a flaw that is easily fixed and should be.. being a red in AOC already has a ton of negatives and very little positives (you get inventory items from a green just like you would from a combatant..so whats the point) but by doing so you lose armor/weapons on death, get hunted constantly by groups of people and cant enter cities (from my understanding) .. i dont think asking to have the skill debuff removed when being actively hunted by a group of players (who btw have your location on the map) is asking too much ;p

Songcaller

Skill won't be reduced but fighting efficiency will be reduced. It makes little difference in the situation you advocate for because the disadvantage would be present in terms of 1 player verses a group of players any way. It is not likely 1 player can kill a group of players regardless of handicaps or not.

Incidentally, I will most likely be a Bounty Hunter. There is competition between Bounty Hunters. Greens can't turn purple against Reds. We've discussed greens in combat with Reds to turn purple but then the system would be skewed to serve the undesirables and won't protect the vulnerable.

It is difficult to balance the system without tests. Tests will come and balance will be gleaned.

Gankez

Neurath wrote: »

Skill won't be reduced but fighting efficiency will be reduced. It makes little difference in the situation you advocate for because the disadvantage would be present in terms of 1 player verses a group of players any way. It is not likely 1 player can kill a group of players regardless of handicaps or not.

Incidentally, I will most likely be a Bounty Hunter. There is competition between Bounty Hunters. Greens can't turn purple against Reds. We've discussed greens in combat with Reds to turn purple but then the system would be skewed to serve the undesirables and won't protect the vulnerable.

It is difficult to balance the system without tests. Tests will come and balance will be gleaned.

i dont see how making it so a bounty hunter removes the "fighting efficiency" in an area as oppose to vs just himself is changing the spirit of the system any.. the idea is to give the red a fighting chance vs a bounty hunter and their group.. as it stands now you might as well just keep the red neutered vs teh bounty hunter.. because thats basically the argument youre making rn

Songcaller

A Bounty Hunter won't reduce fighting efficiency, the penalties for going red will reduce fighting efficiency. There is nothing stopping a Bounty Hunter from locating a Corrupted Player and not toggling. Then the Bounty Hunter can kill you when they are green and you are red.

We've been told to wait for official updates on the Bounty Hunter System. We have thrashed out multiple threads on this topic. I personally think its a travesty that a Bounty Hunter must fight a corrupted at full strength when certain people won't touch a red at any corruption stage.

Its a cinder pot and a firecracker issue. It links in to the Corruption System and the very basic fundamentals of World PvP in Ashes.

CROW3

Agree w/OP. I think Corrupted players are going to have some rough 30 on 1 fights. Whether there's a BH present or not.

Gankez

Neurath wrote: »

I personally think its a travesty that a Bounty Hunter must fight a corrupted at full strength when certain people won't touch a red at any corruption stage.

wait so.. if im understanding you correctly.. youre saying you think that a bounty hunter should be able to hunt down a corrupted, and the corrupted should be at a disadvantage in the fight just like they were fighting anyone else?

Songcaller

There are two reasons I back the disposition of no level playing field between Bounty Hunters and Corrupted Players.

The first reason is because to become Corrupted you have to kill a Non-Combatant. I do not see why I, as a Bounty Hunter, should have to fight on an equal footing to resolve an issue that was not actuated upon an equal footing.

The second reason is because Corruption is not a desired state by most, and, those few who do desire it want to remove the penalties altogether. It was hilarious to hear the penalties for corruption do not apply to the main source of correction (Bounty Hunters) in combat.

If there was no Hard Counters, then I could understand the reason for the equal footing between Bounty Hunters and Corrupted Players. Skill and skilled play are my preferred states in PvP. Yet, if Hard Counters can't be overcome by skill then it means the corruption reduction functionalities are lacklustre.

Some of us don't particularly want to rise through the Bounty Hunter ranks and don't see a reason to fight fair either. One reaps what one sows.

daveywavey

The bit I liked the least about the whole Bounty Hunting system is the tracking thing. Why would being a Bounty Hunter automatically allow you to know the locations of all nearby Corrupted?

I'd much rather have a system where the Bounty Hunter has to ask local NPCs who can tell them if a Corrupted has been nearby lately, and can point them in the right general direction. Puts the "Hunting" into the name. "Last I heard they were northeast of .....", for example. It's Bounty Chasing if you already know where they are!

Or some other similar idea thought up by somebody more experienced at game design than I am.

CROW3

daveywavey wrote: »

The bit I liked the least about the whole Bounty Hunting system is the tracking thing. Why would being a Bounty Hunter automatically allow you to know the locations of all nearby Corrupted?

I'd much rather have a system where the Bounty Hunter has to ask local NPCs who can tell them if a Corrupted has been nearby lately, and can point them in the right general direction. Puts the "Hunting" into the name. "Last I heard they were northeast of .....", for example. It's Bounty Chasing if you already know where they are!

Or some other similar idea thought up by somebody more experienced at game design than I am.

Yeah - I was hoping for the same. It's the detective in me.

It's also better design to make this harder in the beginning and adjust toward making is easier, than start easier and move to harder.

Gankez

Neurath wrote: »

There are two reasons I back the disposition of no level playing field between Bounty Hunters and Corrupted Players.

The first reason is because to become Corrupted you have to kill a Non-Combatant. I do not see why I, as a Bounty Hunter, should have to fight on an equal footing to resolve an issue that was not actuated upon an equal footing.

The second reason is because Corruption is not a desired state by most, and, those few who do desire it want to remove the penalties altogether. It was hilarious to hear the penalties for corruption do not apply to the main source of correction (Bounty Hunters) in combat.

If there was no Hard Counters, then I could understand the reason for the equal footing between Bounty Hunters and Corrupted Players. Skill and skilled play are my preferred states in PvP. Yet, if Hard Counters can't be overcome by skill then it means the corruption reduction functionalities are lacklustre.

Some of us don't particularly want to rise through the Bounty Hunter ranks and don't see a reason to fight fair either. One reaps what one sows.

so just to be clear (i want to make sure i understand you). Your belief, if i understand it, is that you are simply acting as the hand of justice, correcting a wrong by getting revenge for the non combatant who couldnt kill the red due to level/gear/skill differences. Your belief is that because of that, you should be given an advantage in the fight vs reds because they are only red due to killing people in an unfair way, and since you are the good guy, and the "correction" to reds the fight should be biased towards you for an easy win? you say skill and skilled play are your "prefered state in pvp" but, if i understand you correctly, you are advocating the exact opposite between what is essentially the "bad guys vs the good guys" so.. which is it? do you believe that skilled pvp is important or are you just wanting easy loot bags? either way I'll enjoy killing you and people like you when the game comes out

because the difference between us is, I (and reds like me) don't want an easy fight, and thats why i win more than i lose.. ;P I kill everything that moves, non combatants are just one more body, not a particular target..just something that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Gankez

daveywavey wrote: »

The bit I liked the least about the whole Bounty Hunting system is the tracking thing. Why would being a Bounty Hunter automatically allow you to know the locations of all nearby Corrupted?

I'd much rather have a system where the Bounty Hunter has to ask local NPCs who can tell them if a Corrupted has been nearby lately, and can point them in the right general direction. Puts the "Hunting" into the name. "Last I heard they were northeast of .....", for example. It's Bounty Chasing if you already know where they are!

Or some other similar idea thought up by somebody more experienced at game design than I am.

i think they went with the map system because something like what you described would likely be much more difficult to code/implement, I think the map system is fine as long as its not a direct "evil pk is here" on the map. If the map shows instead, a decent sized circle that the red is inside of, i think that'll be fine.

mcstackerson

I don't see this as a problem and just as another risk of Corruption, at least, atm. If a bounty hunter wants to zerg down corrupted players then cool.

I don't see the corruption/bounty hunter system as a source of skilled pvp. You aren't supposed to kill someone who isn't fighting back because you want a fair fight. Taking corruption is a risk you take when you want to kill someone for a reason outside of the system, whether it's for the resources they have, the spawn they are trying to farm, or any other reason you think is worth the risk.

Gankez

mcstackerson wrote: »

I don't see this as a problem and just as another risk of Corruption, at least, atm. If a bounty hunter wants to zerg down corrupted players then cool.

I don't see the corruption/bounty hunter system as a source of skilled pvp. You aren't supposed to kill someone who isn't fighting back because you want a fair fight. Taking corruption is a risk you take when you want to kill someone for a reason outside of the system, whether it's for the resources they have, the spawn they are trying to farm, or any other reason you think is worth the risk.

and i understand taht.. my point is that the devs are clearly looking to have a system where bounty hunters track down and kill corrupted players but what they seem to be aiming for is to have a system where the reds are able to defend themselves vs the bh's .. without the bh disabling the corruption debuffs in an area it defeats the purpose and is against the spirit of what tehy are after.

personally i dont think that debuffing a character's ability to fight for killing non combatants is a good idea at all.. i think having people able to actively track you, losing gear on death and being kos at cities is plenty to deter people from being griefers.. but im not trying to argue that

mcstackerson

Gankez wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

I don't see this as a problem and just as another risk of Corruption, at least, atm. If a bounty hunter wants to zerg down corrupted players then cool.

I don't see the corruption/bounty hunter system as a source of skilled pvp. You aren't supposed to kill someone who isn't fighting back because you want a fair fight. Taking corruption is a risk you take when you want to kill someone for a reason outside of the system, whether it's for the resources they have, the spawn they are trying to farm, or any other reason you think is worth the risk.

and i understand taht.. my point is that the devs are clearly looking to have a system where bounty hunters track down and kill corrupted players but what they seem to be aiming for is to have a system where the reds are able to defend themselves vs the bh's .. without the bh disabling the corruption debuffs in an area it defeats the purpose and is against the spirit of what tehy are after.

personally i dont think that debuffing a character's ability to fight for killing non combatants is a good idea at all.. i think having people able to actively track you, losing gear on death and being kos at cities is plenty to deter people from being griefers.. but im not trying to argue that

While that is an aspect of it, I think the spirit of the system is to punish corrupted players. As I said, the purpose of gaining corruption is not to get a fair fight, at least I don't think it is.

I also don't like the debuff but its purpose is to stop people from going on killing sprees. We don't know how quickly this will start affecting you. If would be one thing if it started affecting you right away after one kill but if it's impact was only felt after someone has gone on a rampage, I don't think it's a big deal a bounty hunter and gang were able to role over them.

Balrog21

Pretty simple, dont go around friggin ganking people and you will be fine. If you do, pay the price and be prepared to suffer from your own choice to kill someone for fun or their goods.

Gankez

Balrog21 wrote: »

Pretty simple, dont go around friggin ganking people and you will be fine. If you do, pay the price and be prepared to suffer from your own choice to kill someone for fun or their goods.

i think you completely missed the point

CROW3

Gankez wrote: »

either way I'll enjoy killing you and people like you when the game comes out because the difference between us is, I (and reds like me) don't want an easy fight, and thats why i win more than i lose.. ;P I kill everything that moves, non combatants are just one more body, not a particular target..just something that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There's a graphic t-shirt in there somewhere...

Child Item