mcstackerson wrote: » it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone. If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back.
daveywavey wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » it will need to be tested but does it really change that much if there is more than one person doing the ganking? the non-combatant doesn't suffer an increased penalty and the person who kills them suffers the same penalty they would have if they killed them alone. If you spread the penalty, you are multiplying it. Yes, ganging up on someone isn't the nicest thing to do but as it said, they aren't suffering a greater death penalty for it so i'm not sure why the corruption penalty should be multiplied. All you really are doing by ganging up on them is increasing your chance of victory and possibly decreasing the likely hood of them fighting back. It means that all those that were involved in killing the non-combatant suffer a punishment for it. They'll all go Corrupted, and if they do it enough, they'll all take penalties for it. And they'll all be on the Bounty Hunter radar. Let's say, for example, that it takes 10 kills before a PKer takes a penalty. In a PKer group of 10, that can be spread out so that it takes 50 kills before everyone has that penalty. If that's the intention, then fair dos. But it seems like an easy way to game the system.
mcstackerson wrote: » The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die. To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them. As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant.
daveywavey wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die. To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them. As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant. The system is there to stop the random killing of multiple non-combatants. Part of the system is that the more you kill, the more you're hit with stats and skill dampening. If you can spread that out over a wide group, you're gaming the system. If you've done 99% of the damage to a non-combatant, it shouldn't matter that someone else made the killing blow. You've done your part in it, and you should also take the credit for it.
mcstackerson wrote: » daveywavey wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The moment they get any amount of corruption, they are corrupted and will suffer the increased death penalty if they die. To your first point, they didn't all kill the non-combatant, the one who scored the killing blow killed the non-combatant. The game doesn't penalize you for attacking someone, it penalizes you for killing them. As i said, it's not gaming the system. The killer is still gaining corruption and it's penalties, all the group did was make it easier to kill the non-combatant. The system is there to stop the random killing of multiple non-combatants. Part of the system is that the more you kill, the more you're hit with stats and skill dampening. If you can spread that out over a wide group, you're gaming the system. If you've done 99% of the damage to a non-combatant, it shouldn't matter that someone else made the killing blow. You've done your part in it, and you should also take the credit for it. The system would would still stop them and does things to deter this. I also don't think this is as good for the group as you think. The more corruption you get, the more deaths it will take to get rid of it. In addition to that, the more kills you get, more corruption you get for each kill. So even if they try a kill funnel strat, that person will start to get more and more corruption for each kill which will also mean they are easier to kill. Remember, non-combatants don't become combatants when they attack corrupted so someone can still attack the person. On top off all that, the longer they stick around an area, the more time a group has to form to counter them, that is if they don't happen to come across one that is already formed doing something else. This is also one of those frustrating things to argue where it's something that is possible but how likely is it. Technically the whole server could decide they hate one person and never let that person kill any mobs or get any resources. That's an exaggeration but to illustrate a point. You have a scenario where 10 people decide they want to pk and are assuming that they will be able to max out everyones corruption without encountering any resistance. I rarely see gank groups with more then 2 people if even that and you assume 10 people are going to want to run around killing people until they max out corruption and are finally brought down so they can eat that penalty? How likely/often do you actually think it is that 10 people will want to do that and then how long would they really be able to do it before they are stopped? This is a hard part to understand but this is part of the system, yes it allows this but with the deterrents in place, how often will it happen. And as a side note, keep in mind what you are recommending would make it so that if you attacked someone but backed off because they weren't fighting back, i could then kill that non-combatant to make you corrupted.. But as it's been said, testing.
CROW3 wrote: » If 10 people attack a green melee at range, I wonder if they could 100-0 the green before an attack could get off. If so, yet another case for the toggle. I like the idea of corruption being spread across the group, and the mechanics would be fun to solution as long as it’s easy for players to understand.
George Black wrote: » None of those complaints are valid. If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted. If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted. Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish.
Sathrago wrote: » George Black wrote: » None of those complaints are valid. If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted. If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted. Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish. im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die.
George Black wrote: » Sathrago wrote: » George Black wrote: » None of those complaints are valid. If you fight back 1v1 the other guy doesnt get corrupted. If you dont fight back a 1v1, the other guy gets corrupted. Wanting to spread the punishment to 20 people, because 20 people attacked you and you DIDNT fight back just seems like a petty, vengeful wish. im just confused as to how you think 1 person can fight back against 20. Fighting back or not, you will die. It's not about the "fight back" It's about the "I want them ALL to pay for killing meeee". The OP will still die. They just want more people to pay for their death.
