Warth wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. While I get what you are saying, this causes mechanical errors. If attacking a player generates corruption, that player that was attacked can't flag as a combatant by fighting back - as you don't flag as a combatant for fighting a player that has corruption. This would require a complete redesign of the flagging system. Perhaps allow that player that was attacked and not killed a period of time in which they can report the attack to a guard, and upon that report, the player gains that small amount of corruption. It's just a random thought at this stage (as I agree that attacking players at random should have potential to generate corruption), and I am sure it will have issues with it, but the premise is promising, imo. From what was told to me by Fuppo Headhunter on the discord, the game will have a button to flag yourself at any time because as you said attacking as a non combatant into a corrupted does not flag you. I had this same issue last night when talking on discord lol. Also I would be down for a reporting system that stacks up reports until the current life they were committed on expires. So you need to do it asap if you really want to get them corrupted. There is no confirmation of a button, and there is a comment from Steven stating all the ways you shift between flag states, with no mention at all of a button. While there is one for the pre-alpha build, that exists purely because the flagging system has not been developed. yeah he mentioned it in a Video, that flagging yourself can be done through pressing a single button. He used "F" as an example. Should have been either the Asmongold/TimTheTatman or Shroud interview.
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. While I get what you are saying, this causes mechanical errors. If attacking a player generates corruption, that player that was attacked can't flag as a combatant by fighting back - as you don't flag as a combatant for fighting a player that has corruption. This would require a complete redesign of the flagging system. Perhaps allow that player that was attacked and not killed a period of time in which they can report the attack to a guard, and upon that report, the player gains that small amount of corruption. It's just a random thought at this stage (as I agree that attacking players at random should have potential to generate corruption), and I am sure it will have issues with it, but the premise is promising, imo. From what was told to me by Fuppo Headhunter on the discord, the game will have a button to flag yourself at any time because as you said attacking as a non combatant into a corrupted does not flag you. I had this same issue last night when talking on discord lol. Also I would be down for a reporting system that stacks up reports until the current life they were committed on expires. So you need to do it asap if you really want to get them corrupted. There is no confirmation of a button, and there is a comment from Steven stating all the ways you shift between flag states, with no mention at all of a button. While there is one for the pre-alpha build, that exists purely because the flagging system has not been developed.
Sathrago wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. While I get what you are saying, this causes mechanical errors. If attacking a player generates corruption, that player that was attacked can't flag as a combatant by fighting back - as you don't flag as a combatant for fighting a player that has corruption. This would require a complete redesign of the flagging system. Perhaps allow that player that was attacked and not killed a period of time in which they can report the attack to a guard, and upon that report, the player gains that small amount of corruption. It's just a random thought at this stage (as I agree that attacking players at random should have potential to generate corruption), and I am sure it will have issues with it, but the premise is promising, imo. From what was told to me by Fuppo Headhunter on the discord, the game will have a button to flag yourself at any time because as you said attacking as a non combatant into a corrupted does not flag you. I had this same issue last night when talking on discord lol. Also I would be down for a reporting system that stacks up reports until the current life they were committed on expires. So you need to do it asap if you really want to get them corrupted.
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. While I get what you are saying, this causes mechanical errors. If attacking a player generates corruption, that player that was attacked can't flag as a combatant by fighting back - as you don't flag as a combatant for fighting a player that has corruption. This would require a complete redesign of the flagging system. Perhaps allow that player that was attacked and not killed a period of time in which they can report the attack to a guard, and upon that report, the player gains that small amount of corruption. It's just a random thought at this stage (as I agree that attacking players at random should have potential to generate corruption), and I am sure it will have issues with it, but the premise is promising, imo.
Sathrago wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
Tyrantor wrote: » Warth wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » 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. While I get what you are saying, this causes mechanical errors. If attacking a player generates corruption, that player that was attacked can't flag as a combatant by fighting back - as you don't flag as a combatant for fighting a player that has corruption. This would require a complete redesign of the flagging system. Perhaps allow that player that was attacked and not killed a period of time in which they can report the attack to a guard, and upon that report, the player gains that small amount of corruption. It's just a random thought at this stage (as I agree that attacking players at random should have potential to generate corruption), and I am sure it will have issues with it, but the premise is promising, imo. From what was told to me by Fuppo Headhunter on the discord, the game will have a button to flag yourself at any time because as you said attacking as a non combatant into a corrupted does not flag you. I had this same issue last night when talking on discord lol. Also I would be down for a reporting system that stacks up reports until the current life they were committed on expires. So you need to do it asap if you really want to get them corrupted. There is no confirmation of a button, and there is a comment from Steven stating all the ways you shift between flag states, with no mention at all of a button. While there is one for the pre-alpha build, that exists purely because the flagging system has not been developed. yeah he mentioned it in a Video, that flagging yourself can be done through pressing a single button. He used "F" as an example. Should have been either the Asmongold/TimTheTatman or Shroud interview. Noaani if that's true above then i'm awaiting your rage response 10..9..8..
Sathrago 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, Im not gonna be the "bad guy", but some people wanna take this given role in a Role Playing Game. So I think they should be prosecuted by the Bounty Hunters, wich is an amazing mechanic and they will be more important and shine if they do their job and dont fight ultra-nerfed people. I feel the reward doesnt scale with the risk on this one, is more like Risk vs Risk. I prefer that players take care of that and not just a simple stat nerf, that completely denies the role. I stand with Steven on what he decides tho. I say this as a non ganker. Just want that role to matter. If you kill someone then go do some pve for a while, the effects go away pretty fast. Corruption is not there for players to be straight up punished if you do one bad thing. Its there to gradually punish you if you are being a griefing piece of crap mass murdering your way through an area and this only applies if the targets do not fight back. It is a risk/reward system that progressively risks more the longer you do bad things. I think this is fair.
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, Im not gonna be the "bad guy", but some people wanna take this given role in a Role Playing Game. So I think they should be prosecuted by the Bounty Hunters, wich is an amazing mechanic and they will be more important and shine if they do their job and dont fight ultra-nerfed people. I feel the reward doesnt scale with the risk on this one, is more like Risk vs Risk. I prefer that players take care of that and not just a simple stat nerf, that completely denies the role. I stand with Steven on what he decides tho. I say this as a non ganker. Just want that role to matter.
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?
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.
insomnia wrote: » Sathrago 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, Im not gonna be the "bad guy", but some people wanna take this given role in a Role Playing Game. So I think they should be prosecuted by the Bounty Hunters, wich is an amazing mechanic and they will be more important and shine if they do their job and dont fight ultra-nerfed people. I feel the reward doesnt scale with the risk on this one, is more like Risk vs Risk. I prefer that players take care of that and not just a simple stat nerf, that completely denies the role. I stand with Steven on what he decides tho. I say this as a non ganker. Just want that role to matter. If you kill someone then go do some pve for a while, the effects go away pretty fast. Corruption is not there for players to be straight up punished if you do one bad thing. Its there to gradually punish you if you are being a griefing piece of crap mass murdering your way through an area and this only applies if the targets do not fight back. It is a risk/reward system that progressively risks more the longer you do bad things. I think this is fair. Where does it say's it goes away fast? Don't get me wrong, don't have an issue with it staying for a while Removing corruption Cemetery concept art by Tad Ehrlich.[27] The primary means to remove corruption is through death. Multiple deaths may be necessary to remove all corruption.[28][12] Dying removes a significant portion of a player's corruption score.[29] Gaining experience will also slowly reduce a player's corruption score.[28] That creates a fun kind of experience for the bounty hunters to try to catch you while you're working it off.[28] – Steven Sharif A quest may be utilized to reduce the player kill (PK) count of a corrupt player in order for them to accumulate less corruption score in the future.[30][29] This is a design shift from a religious quest being used to directly reduce the corruption score.[31] Corruption duration is reduced in military nodes.
Caeryl wrote: » Warth wrote: » yeah he mentioned it in a Video, that flagging yourself can be done through pressing a single button. He used "F" as an example. Should have been either the Asmongold/TimTheTatman or Shroud interview. You seem to be confusing the option for Force Attacking for a Combatant toggle. You have to enable Force Attack in order to target Non-Combatants. There’s been no mention of any “turn purple” toggle on any streams thusfar.
Warth wrote: » yeah he mentioned it in a Video, that flagging yourself can be done through pressing a single button. He used "F" as an example. Should have been either the Asmongold/TimTheTatman or Shroud interview.
maouw wrote: » @Sathrago I think the idea is that non-combatants can attack a red on sight without penalty. It ain't gonna be easy living the red life.
Sathrago wrote: » maouw wrote: » @Sathrago I think the idea is that non-combatants can attack a red on sight without penalty. It ain't gonna be easy living the red life. I understand that but if there is no toggle this means that a corrupted can freely murder a non-combatant without them being able to opt in to be a combatant and lose less stuff if they die.
Sathrago wrote: » This may not be official, but its the closest I could get to an actual answer.
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » maouw wrote: » @Sathrago I think the idea is that non-combatants can attack a red on sight without penalty. It ain't gonna be easy living the red life. I understand that but if there is no toggle this means that a corrupted can freely murder a non-combatant without them being able to opt in to be a combatant and lose less stuff if they die. As far as I am aware, this is by design. The idea is, if you go corrupt and start killing people, it will snowball. From the perspective of the player being attacked, there is no real option if a corrupt player attacks you - the best thing you can do is fight. Since we are talking about a corrupt player attacking others indiscriminantly, chances are, they won't be that hard to kill.
Noaani wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » This may not be official, but its the closest I could get to an actual answer. I'm not sure why you would think that is any more credible than anything anyone else says. It is literally just some guy saying some stuff, that in this case happens to not be true. The only real difference I can see is - that is what you want to be true, so is what you are chosing to believe.
Atama wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » maouw wrote: » @Sathrago I think the idea is that non-combatants can attack a red on sight without penalty. It ain't gonna be easy living the red life. I understand that but if there is no toggle this means that a corrupted can freely murder a non-combatant without them being able to opt in to be a combatant and lose less stuff if they die. You opt in by hitting back. If you are AFK or 40 levels lower than your attacker and get one-shotted, then I guess you didn’t have a chance. But even if there’s a “turn purple” button you’d still not have a chance to push it in those circumstances.
Sathrago wrote: » Atama wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » maouw wrote: » @Sathrago I think the idea is that non-combatants can attack a red on sight without penalty. It ain't gonna be easy living the red life. I understand that but if there is no toggle this means that a corrupted can freely murder a non-combatant without them being able to opt in to be a combatant and lose less stuff if they die. You opt in by hitting back. If you are AFK or 40 levels lower than your attacker and get one-shotted, then I guess you didn’t have a chance. But even if there’s a “turn purple” button you’d still not have a chance to push it in those circumstances. You cant according to the chart I posted earlier. Greens do not flag when they attack the corrupted player. That's why I have reason to believe there is a toggle.
Sathrago wrote: » The goal of Corruption is to reduce griefing and give players an opt-in system if the player was first combatant. Why on earth would they not allow the green player to flag as combatant to protect themselves? Is this perhaps... a hidden incentive for corrupted players to farm out greens? No, it makes more sense that there is a toggle that allows the player to fight back like they would against a combatant if they choose to.
Wait so an official moderator for the AoC Discord is just "some guy" that said "some stuff"?
Tyrantor wrote: » it seems like Noaani has no real evidence to back up his claims like normal on the matter and is just out here trying to convince everyone that his opinion is the law.
