Ganking shouldn't be punished with combat stat nerfs.

sometime we get gear to gank and have a little fun here and there.we like being bandits. bounty system is ok. but combat stat nerf is too much it makes the game no open world pvp.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dolyem

Marcet wrote: »

Yeah but I still prefer to be the players who deal with bad guys, more bounty hunters, or some other community based more organic way to do it, not a disapointing stat nerf. I think bounty hunters among other things would increase in value. It's not that I don't want griefers to get punished, just a more gameplay and comunity based way of doing it.

Bounty hunters are simply another deterrent to gankers while adding a fun way to reward players for punishing them. They aren't assassins, they are just another factor to keep gankers from getting away without consequences. The stat punishment just ensures that griefers can't run rampant and are able to be stopped, its isn't stopping pvp, just griefing.

Sathrago

another thing to point out is that you will not suffer the debuffs when fighting against a bounty hunter.

Tacualeon

Marcet wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

I agree, lowering stats is totally anti-fun, Im not even gonna gank people or any of that but I just don't like it, pretty unfair.

You talk of fairness yet you only gain corruption if you kill players that are non-combatants (people that don't fight back) and this increases the lower the targets level. So buddy, why do you think this is unfair?

Because you directly deny a role in the game...
...I prefer that players take care of that

Being a bully is not a role.

There is a small line between a thriling and dangerous world out there, and unfun times for the player and client.

nuro

Tacualeon wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

Sathrago wrote: »

Marcet wrote: »

I agree, lowering stats is totally anti-fun, Im not even gonna gank people or any of that but I just don't like it, pretty unfair.

You talk of fairness yet you only gain corruption if you kill players that are non-combatants (people that don't fight back) and this increases the lower the targets level. So buddy, why do you think this is unfair?

Because you directly deny a role in the game...
...I prefer that players take care of that

Being a bully is not a role.

There is a small line between a thriling and dangerous world out there, and unfun times for the player and client.

If you are equal in level / power , then you really don't have much of an excuse to not fight back. Its really not bullying if its equal in that sense and also numbers wise.

You just dont want to be forced to engage in pvp in an open world pvp game it sounds like.
I am not advocating for no punishment for reds before you say that

Look. there are equitable solutions to this problem that allow for these players a harsh but fun experience. I believe ashes will find that happy medium. They already have the base system, its just a matter of tinkering with the percentages. Tweaking a little here and there.

maouw

@nuro
What's wrong with not wanting to fight all the time?

Atama

nuro wrote: »

You just dont want to be forced to engage in pvp in an open world pvp game it sounds like.

Of course not. Being "forced" to PvP against your will is one of the things that the game is discouraging. It is an open world PvP game but it's not an all the time PvP game. It's PvX. This is an attempt to maintain balance.

One thing I see being missed in this thread is the consequences for the player not fighting back. If you are green and get killed by another player, you suffer double the amount of death penalty (dropped resources and XP debt). There will be incentives to fight back, for sure.

Heartbeat

I can agree with OP that the game shouldn't lower your stats just because you killed someone. I would estimate that the majority of people who enjoy OwPvP don't go out of there way to gank and kill someone for no reason as well either, even though there will be some incentive to do just that in Ashes. Corruption already seems like a decent enough deterrent to ward off unreasonable killing of other players, the game arbitrarily lowering your stats because you killed someone makes no sense and it seems like a system designed to just get the killer to back off after a kill or two especially so if the lowered stats stacks with more corruption.

It seems like no matter what, players always have a huge, unfathomable hate for open world pvp or ganking, just because there is a chance they could die to another player when they didn't want to fight in the first place. For example, there is ALWAYS a discussion for pve only servers someplace somewhere.

Atama wrote: »

nuro wrote: »

One thing I see being missed in this thread is the consequences for the player not fighting back. If you are green and get killed by another player, you suffer double the amount of death penalty (dropped resources and XP debt). There will be incentives to fight back, for sure.

I haven't actually heard of this and I thought I followed the game pretty well for the last few years, it's nice to see that people will at least be encouraged to fight back instead of "oh hurry and kill me while i lose nothing so you can get corrupted quicker." cough cough bdo.

Sathrago

Heartbeat wrote: »

I haven't actually heard of this and I thought I followed the game pretty well for the last few years, it's nice to see that people will at least be encouraged to fight back instead of "oh hurry and kill me while i lose nothing so you can get corrupted quicker." cough cough bdo.

I hope you actually read the posts here in the thread instead of just reading the OP and posting. Would help everyone out.

daveywavey

nuro wrote: »

If you are equal in level / power , then you really don't have much of an excuse to not fight back. Its really not bullying if its equal in that sense and also numbers wise.

I'm very much looking forward to the group PvP in the game. I absolutely suck at 1v1, and will likely lose against anyone, regardless of level. So, I won't be bothering to fight back. If someone attacks me, then they're turning red, and a Bounty Hunter's coming for them. That's the only way I'm getting revenge on them. So, I lose a few more resources by doing it - sob sob sob.

Noaani

daveywavey wrote: »

nuro wrote: »

If you are equal in level / power , then you really don't have much of an excuse to not fight back. Its really not bullying if its equal in that sense and also numbers wise.

I'm very much looking forward to the group PvP in the game. I absolutely suck at 1v1, and will likely lose against anyone, regardless of level. So, I won't be bothering to fight back. If someone attacks me, then they're turning red, and a Bounty Hunter's coming for them. That's the only way I'm getting revenge on them. So, I lose a few more resources by doing it - sob sob sob.

There are a lot of people that will purposely not fight back so that any would be attacker needs to gain corruption in order to get the kill.

A lot of people will make the split second decision based on what they are carrying as well - they may well have a good chance of winning the fight, but decide to let the play gain that corruption, then come back in a few minutes and kill their assailant who then gets 4 times the death penalty.

The thing I think people are forgetting is - you always have a choice as to whether or not you gain corruption. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, you can always break off the fight. You only gain corruption when you kill the player.

Sathrago

Noaani wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

nuro wrote: »

If you are equal in level / power , then you really don't have much of an excuse to not fight back. Its really not bullying if its equal in that sense and also numbers wise.

I'm very much looking forward to the group PvP in the game. I absolutely suck at 1v1, and will likely lose against anyone, regardless of level. So, I won't be bothering to fight back. If someone attacks me, then they're turning red, and a Bounty Hunter's coming for them. That's the only way I'm getting revenge on them. So, I lose a few more resources by doing it - sob sob sob.

There are a lot of people that will purposely not fight back so that any would be attacker needs to gain corruption in order to get the kill.

A lot of people will make the split second decision based on what they are carrying as well - they may well have a good chance of winning the fight, but decide to let the play gain that corruption, then come back in a few minutes and kill their assailant who then gets 4 times the death penalty.

The thing I think people are forgetting is - you always have a choice as to whether or not you gain corruption. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, you can always break off the fight. You only gain corruption when you kill the player.

My two worries with corruption pvp are this. Non-combatants gain a lot of detriments when they die, the stat, loot chance, hp/mana, and exp tax are really rough. I don't see myself ever wanting to die as a non-combatant even if it means giving someone corruption. Especially if they are a group of players, only one person will get corruption even though they were all attacking you.

I wish corruption was gained upon attacking a non-combatant. Not enough to turn you red but enough that it stacks up. You can choose to stop fighting but if you continuously attack green players that little bit of corruption will stack up and make you red.

Bricktop

Noaani wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

nuro wrote: »

If you are equal in level / power , then you really don't have much of an excuse to not fight back. Its really not bullying if its equal in that sense and also numbers wise.

I'm very much looking forward to the group PvP in the game. I absolutely suck at 1v1, and will likely lose against anyone, regardless of level. So, I won't be bothering to fight back. If someone attacks me, then they're turning red, and a Bounty Hunter's coming for them. That's the only way I'm getting revenge on them. So, I lose a few more resources by doing it - sob sob sob.

There are a lot of people that will purposely not fight back so that any would be attacker needs to gain corruption in order to get the kill.

A lot of people will make the split second decision based on what they are carrying as well - they may well have a good chance of winning the fight, but decide to let the play gain that corruption, then come back in a few minutes and kill their assailant who then gets 4 times the death penalty.

The thing I think people are forgetting is - you always have a choice as to whether or not you gain corruption. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, you can always break off the fight. You only gain corruption when you kill the player.

Lol well let's hope it doesn't become the meta game for most people to just stand still and let people go red on them. If the devs don't incentivize dying as a flagged player enough and everybody is just standing there letting people go red on them I would be worried about the health of the game. The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

And let's also hope it takes more than "a few minutes" to run back to an area you were in when you get killed. Since there are no fast travels and the world is massive there shouldn't be a situation where someone goes red on somebody and two minutes later while they are working off the corruption they have to fight the same person again who is now conveniently ready to actually fight. That wouldn't work very well would it, especially for world bosses. It should take someone a solid 10-15 mins to get back to their grind spot to prevent people from gaming the system like that.

daveywavey

Bricktop wrote: »

The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

The problem is, that effectively forcing a non-combatant to fight when they don't want to due to the penalties involved for not doing so, means that the game itself becomes part of the griefing mechanic.

Bricktop

daveywavey wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

The problem is, that effectively forcing a non-combatant to fight when they don't want to due to the penalties involved for not doing so, means that the game itself becomes part of the griefing mechanic.

The problem is people will game the corruption system if it isn't painful to die as a non-combatant. One scenario I could see easily is Guilds will just let other guilds go red on them at world bosses instead of actually fighting over them and come back and kill them while they are attempting a boss with dampened stats.

The game will be zero fun if it's smarter to let people go red on you and you can easily come back and kill them a few minutes later in any potential PvP situation. Why would anybody who already doesn't love PvP actually PvP if it doesn't make it painful to die unflagged.

Atama

Bricktop wrote: »

Lol well let's hope it doesn't become the meta game for most people to just stand still and let people go red on them. If the devs don't incentivize dying as a flagged player enough and everybody is just standing there letting people go red on them I would be worried about the health of the game. The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

Literally doubling the death penalty if you die unflagged is a pretty big incentive. You don’t want to lose the progress you’ve just made in PvE. Most people are going to want to fight back.

Bricktop

Atama wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

Lol well let's hope it doesn't become the meta game for most people to just stand still and let people go red on them. If the devs don't incentivize dying as a flagged player enough and everybody is just standing there letting people go red on them I would be worried about the health of the game. The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

Literally doubling the death penalty if you die unflagged is a pretty big incentive. You don’t want to lose the progress you’ve just made in PvE. Most people are going to want to fight back.

Yeah I'm really really hoping the exp debt and dropped gatherables will be plenty of incentive.

daveywavey

Atama wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

Lol well let's hope it doesn't become the meta game for most people to just stand still and let people go red on them. If the devs don't incentivize dying as a flagged player enough and everybody is just standing there letting people go red on them I would be worried about the health of the game. The devs should really focus on making sure there is actually incentive for people to flag. Corruption is there to prevent griefing/camping not PvP altogether.

Literally doubling the death penalty if you die unflagged is a pretty big incentive. You don’t want to lose the progress you’ve just made in PvE. Most people are going to want to fight back.

I'm a petty, petty, man. If I can punish you even slightly, it's your own fault! Hahahahaha!

Tyrantor

Noaani wrote: »

There are a lot of people that will purposely not fight back so that any would be attacker needs to gain corruption in order to get the kill.

A lot of people will make the split second decision based on what they are carrying as well - they may well have a good chance of winning the fight, but decide to let the play gain that corruption, then come back in a few minutes and kill their assailant who then gets 4 times the death penalty.

The thing I think people are forgetting is - you always have a choice as to whether or not you gain corruption. If you attack someone and they don't fight back, you can always break off the fight. You only gain corruption when you kill the player.

This is prime example of why there needs to be player enabled combatant flagging. There is zero fun in attacking or killing people who do not fight back, for the people who are willing to risk being attacked we should be allowed the option to circumvent the non combatant flagging all together.

In regards to the OP the stat dampening related to corruption is likely there to prevent repeated kills on the same player more than multiple players. As an example if you're level 30 and some level 10 tells you where to stick something you may decide that's worth killing them over. However if you've killed them 3-4 times your stats may be lowed to the point that same level 10 could fight back and effectively kill you. If he does this you would then suffer the same (or worse) death penalty because yours would come with substantially more exp/material loss.

Marcet

Tacualeon wrote: »

Being a bully is not a role.

That's just not true, it is a role. Maybe you get triggered by it, maybe is not something pleasant to others, but it is a role.

Dolyem

Marcet wrote: »

Tacualeon wrote: »

Being a bully is not a role.

That's just not true, it is a role. Maybe you get triggered by it, maybe is not something pleasant to others, but it is a role.

You could argue it is a role, but intrepid doesn't want it to be a role in their game sooooo. Yea.

Child Item