AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here’s an alternative idea, and a very simple one. Leave it as is, in that if you are green then a red is treated just like an NPC and you can fight them without flagging, stay green, and die with a normal PvE death penalty.
But if you force attack (Ctrl+F or whatever) the same way you would normally do if attacking a purple or green, then you turn yourself purple. This is then a choice; stay green and if you die they get corrupted but risk regular death penalties. Or go purple, and if you lose you only take on half the penalties, but if you die they don’t get corrupted, and since you’re purple others can now attack without corruption either.
The idea of halving the death penalty as a PvP combatant is to encourage PvP, but let's be honest, they’re punishing people who are wimps and don’t fight back. Whatever the intention, that’s the result. I don’t like the idea of fighting back and still getting punished.
You keep treating fighting back as a negative thing in addition to being "punished".
Walk away. You wont get killed.
If you do get killed it should have concequences. And by getting yourself killed it means you wanted some of that sweet red loot. You made your choice. You took the risk.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I just hate the loophole that a red killing greens gets to force the green to die with full non-combatant penalties. That’s Intrepid enabling griefing and taking choice away from players. It’s not thought out very well.
My guess, though, is that it will change after overwhelming negative feedback during testing.
It is an interesting point.
I don't consider it forcing the green to die with normal penalties, but I can understand why you would want to have the option to halve the death penalty.
I think Steven's perception will be that people just need to get used to the normal death penalty being the normal death penalty.
What's also interesting to me is that dying green means that the Corrupted attacker gains even more Corruption. PvPers tell PvEers they should just be content that PKers will be punished with Corruption or by Bounty Hunters, whatever. Seems the same applies here.
Also, people have said that if you consent to play the game, knowing the rules...you get what you consented to. If that's true, there is no forcing to die with the normal death penalties. That's automatic consent when you choose to play the game. Just as there is no forced/non-consensual PvP.
I find it interesting that you see the reward of losing less while participating in open world pvp as a loophole that reds will use to grief you.
Yet here you are, trying yo introduce a whole system change so that you can benefit by losing less as s nom combatant.
You are creating the loophole atama, not the reds.
Here’s my question... Does a green person attacking a red turn purple? Because our chart indicates otherwise.
I’m hoping it does despite what is above. I hate the idea of being attacked by a red enemy, fighting back, losing, and dying as a non-combatant despite participating in PvP. That seems like Intrepid supporting griefers.
We had this discussion a month or so ago.
My simple solution to this, the solution that I think fits the ideals of the game the best, is that any player killed by a corrupt character only takes the combatant death penalty, regardless of flag state.
This does a few things. The first is that it eliminates the situation you are talking about here - a situation that should never happen.
The second thing it does is it lowers the incentive (even if only a little) for a corrupt player to continue to kill. If you are out hunting resources from players, you would probably want to try and rid yourself of corruption as soon as you gained any in order to have a chance to gain more resources.
When I suggested this, there were people that put up some fairly weak opposition to the idea - but I think it is a fairly elegant solution to the situation, and one that fits in with what we have been told is the general idea behind corruption and such.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I find it interesting that you see the reward of losing less while participating in open world pvp as a loophole that reds will use to grief you.
And I find it interesting you don’t.
Yet here you are, trying yo introduce a whole system change so that you can benefit by losing less as s nom combatant.
You are creating the loophole atama, not the reds.
Um, you call someone engaging in PvP a “non combatant”?!
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Here’s my question... Does a green person attacking a red turn purple? Because our chart indicates otherwise.
I’m hoping it does despite what is above. I hate the idea of being attacked by a red enemy, fighting back, losing, and dying as a non-combatant despite participating in PvP. That seems like Intrepid supporting griefers.
We had this discussion a month or so ago.
My simple solution to this, the solution that I think fits the ideals of the game the best, is that any player killed by a corrupt character only takes the combatant death penalty, regardless of flag state.
This does a few things. The first is that it eliminates the situation you are talking about here - a situation that should never happen.
The second thing it does is it lowers the incentive (even if only a little) for a corrupt player to continue to kill. If you are out hunting resources from players, you would probably want to try and rid yourself of corruption as soon as you gained any in order to have a chance to gain more resources.
When I suggested this, there were people that put up some fairly weak opposition to the idea - but I think it is a fairly elegant solution to the situation, and one that fits in with what we have been told is the general idea behind corruption and such.
I’m not opposed to the idea. I can’t really think of a solid argument against it.
Eh. A non combatant should have the choice to flag combatant vs a red player
Maybe if they hit the force attack combo it let's them flag vs corrupted players? Idk, just feels odd that they cant flag up against corrupted players but hey maybe that will be explained sometime.
Eh. A non combatant should have the choice to flag combatant vs a red player
Maybe if they hit the force attack combo it let's them flag vs corrupted players? Idk, just feels odd that they cant flag up against corrupted players but hey maybe that will be explained sometime.
The idea behind it is from the perspective of the corrupt player.
If they made it so that players needed to flag as non-combatants in order to not take the full death penalty against corrupt players, they would also then need to make it so corrupt players gained corruption for killing combatants.
The idea is, as I explained in the other thread, that corruption is supposed to snowball. This won't happen if the best option for other players you attack is an option that sees said corrupt player not gain additional corruption.
Edit; a lot of double negatives in that, sorry it's a bit hard to read - though I assume you understand what I'm saying.
1
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
In relation to PK`ing gatherers only, I see a balance between the value of what they may drop on the ground when killed, which may differ depending on the area someone is XP`ing vs just how hard it is to wear off the karma. It may just be the quality of the drop in some areas as opposed to the quantity
If the drops are lucrative, it may be worth the risk.
If staying red for too long is just too challenging then perhaps the incentive won't be there..
Word usage is always connotative as well as denotative.
Watch any anime that includes the term PK and it will most commonly have the connotation of the quote I included. Because it's the most common usage internationally.
Oh well, if anime does it, then it must be correct.
Oh well, if anime does it, then it must be correct.
Dygz likes to make up his own definition for words, and then not explain that definition to others and just assume they are able to read his mind and know what he means when he says words.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
You continue to use terms like "niche" and "PvP centric" without any basis for qualifying what either actually means in your opinion.
I did qualify. EVE is niche because it's pretty much the only example of a successful PvP-centric MMORPG.
PvP-centric means most of the game gameplay design revolves around PvP combat.
If it's half PvP and half PvE...like Ashes is...it's not PvP-centric. Ashes is PvX.
WoW is really a PvE game with some servers that allow PvP combat. Historically most of the WoW servers have been PvE servers. But, I'm throwing you a bone by granting you it might be close to evenly split at the moment.
I don't really care what your perspective is.
You can have the perspective that the solar system is geocentric if you want to.
I'm just informing you that you that you are mistaken. I'm not really interested in convincing you.
Well no, you didn't. All you did was say what YOU thought niche meant and I would beg to differ with you. Prove to me, with actual numbers or percentages what qualifies as "niche" in an MMO. Show me some official statement because just like your cherry picked statement, all you have is an opinion, not fact.
And if you, yourself believe EVE is PvP centered then I hate to break it to you but EVE has PLENTY of PvE content. This backs up my statement that all the games I mentioned ARE just as PvP centric. Still waiting on your proof that most of the highly successful MMOs now a days are PvE only.
Of course you are being very closed minded and unwilling to discuss anything. I see now that you think the world revolves around you and your opinions and only you are right. If you want to voice more than an opinion however and want others to listen to you, you need to bring something more to the table.
Dygz likes to make up his own definition for words, and then not explain that definition to others and just assume they are able to read his mind and know what he means when he says words.
More inane lies from noanni.
Almost as many lies per day as Trump.
You are the one that used the word "coding" to refer to all development, and when called out on it still took several posts worth of blaming others for not understanding before getting around to begrudingly giving your definition - though without admitting that you were in the wrong by using your own definition.
It isn't the first time it has happened, either. You have a long history of poor communication in general - all anyone needs to do is listen to any of your interviews with Steven to understand that.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
No. When called out on it I clarified what I meant by coding.
I did not blame anyone for not understanding, I blamed you for assuming you knew what I meant and then going on a rant about that. I happily gave my definition, I did not begrudgingly do so.
This is just more of you projecting your own twisted perspective so that you can troll.
Heya folks! Let's bring this on back around to the original question/topic at hand, "List the reasons why you would PK somebody that doesn't wanna fight back", rather than going back and forth on semantics here
Here's my list...
I would PK:
1. Someone who burnt my toast
2. Someone who stole all my butter
3. Someone who thinks that rye is better than sourdough
7
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Heya folks! Let's bring this on back around to the original question/topic at hand, "List the reasons why you would PK somebody that doesn't wanna fight back", rather than going back and forth on semantics here
Here's my list...
I would PK:
1. Someone who burnt my toast
2. Someone who stole all my butter
3. Someone who thinks that rye is better than sourdough
Valid reasons. Good thing that AoC let's us kill toast burners out in the open world. Imagine not being able to...
3
Options
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
akabearMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
On the L2 map, common Pvp / Pk`ing hot spots were areas for PvE where mobs gave a solid XP return in the right density.
There were a small number of "sweet spots" across the map, within each general area, for solo, small groups, large groups at different levels brackets. From memory, the level grind was often more the focus than the drops.
For the most part, players respected each other in PvE and possession of a space. But vying for those areas means that either you were conspicuous for pvp (when in clan wars) or a possible target for contesting the spot.
I see the same potential for the hot spots, and also for those gathering materials of high value if there is a chance to drop.
On the L2 map, common Pvp / Pk`ing hot spots were areas for PvE where mobs gave a solid XP return in the right density.
There were a small number of "sweet spots" across the map, within each general area, for solo, small groups, large groups at different levels brackets. From memory, the level grind was often more the focus than the drops.
For the most part, players respected each other in PvE and possession of a space. But vying for those areas means that either you were conspicuous for pvp (when in clan wars) or a possible target for contesting the spot.
I see the same potential for the hot spots, and also for those gathering materials of high value if there is a chance to drop.
Try to explain that to people being used to mmos offering single player questing experience (main way to lv up and gear up), with only instanced BG pvp.
Try to explain that to people being used to mmos offering single player questing experience (main way to lv up and gear up), with only instanced BG pvp.
Meh, from a WoW vanilla/classic on PvE server point of view, it's not much different than having a group or a higher level player (from either faction) coming in your area and killing all the mobs you need for your quest or picking the resources you're looking for. You have to wait or move elsewhere.
In both scenarios, your progression is slowed/halted.
But having the possibility to fight over these spots gives the illusion of choice. If you have to constantly fight people for these spots, your progression is slowed/halted while you do so. The more contested they are, the less advantageous they become.
That being said, if fighting for them is what the fun is all about, their value is secondary
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I wonder if gathering body parts counts as griefing?
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
Comments
But if you force attack (Ctrl+F or whatever) the same way you would normally do if attacking a purple or green, then you turn yourself purple. This is then a choice; stay green and if you die they get corrupted but risk regular death penalties. Or go purple, and if you lose you only take on half the penalties, but if you die they don’t get corrupted, and since you’re purple others can now attack without corruption either.
The idea of halving the death penalty as a PvP combatant is to encourage PvP, but let's be honest, they’re punishing people who are wimps and don’t fight back. Whatever the intention, that’s the result. I don’t like the idea of fighting back and still getting punished.
Walk away. You wont get killed.
If you do get killed it should have concequences. And by getting yourself killed it means you wanted some of that sweet red loot. You made your choice. You took the risk.
I don't consider it forcing the green to die with normal penalties, but I can understand why you would want to have the option to halve the death penalty.
I think Steven's perception will be that people just need to get used to the normal death penalty being the normal death penalty.
What's also interesting to me is that dying green means that the Corrupted attacker gains even more Corruption. PvPers tell PvEers they should just be content that PKers will be punished with Corruption or by Bounty Hunters, whatever. Seems the same applies here.
Also, people have said that if you consent to play the game, knowing the rules...you get what you consented to. If that's true, there is no forcing to die with the normal death penalties. That's automatic consent when you choose to play the game. Just as there is no forced/non-consensual PvP.
Yet here you are, trying yo introduce a whole system change so that you can benefit by losing less as s nom combatant.
You are creating the loophole atama, not the reds.
We had this discussion a month or so ago.
My simple solution to this, the solution that I think fits the ideals of the game the best, is that any player killed by a corrupt character only takes the combatant death penalty, regardless of flag state.
This does a few things. The first is that it eliminates the situation you are talking about here - a situation that should never happen.
The second thing it does is it lowers the incentive (even if only a little) for a corrupt player to continue to kill. If you are out hunting resources from players, you would probably want to try and rid yourself of corruption as soon as you gained any in order to have a chance to gain more resources.
When I suggested this, there were people that put up some fairly weak opposition to the idea - but I think it is a fairly elegant solution to the situation, and one that fits in with what we have been told is the general idea behind corruption and such.
Um, you call someone engaging in PvP a “non combatant”?!
Maybe if they hit the force attack combo it let's them flag vs corrupted players? Idk, just feels odd that they cant flag up against corrupted players but hey maybe that will be explained sometime.
The idea behind it is from the perspective of the corrupt player.
If they made it so that players needed to flag as non-combatants in order to not take the full death penalty against corrupt players, they would also then need to make it so corrupt players gained corruption for killing combatants.
The idea is, as I explained in the other thread, that corruption is supposed to snowball. This won't happen if the best option for other players you attack is an option that sees said corrupt player not gain additional corruption.
Edit; a lot of double negatives in that, sorry it's a bit hard to read - though I assume you understand what I'm saying.
If the drops are lucrative, it may be worth the risk.
If staying red for too long is just too challenging then perhaps the incentive won't be there..
Oh well, if anime does it, then it must be correct.
All hail anime!
Where do you derive your lexicon from? Divine Intellect?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
So, you're honestly sticking to the "Anime knows best" thing....?!
You've "proven" nothing except your misunderstanding of a very basic gaming term. You might want to quit while you're so far behind already...
Well no, you didn't. All you did was say what YOU thought niche meant and I would beg to differ with you. Prove to me, with actual numbers or percentages what qualifies as "niche" in an MMO. Show me some official statement because just like your cherry picked statement, all you have is an opinion, not fact.
And if you, yourself believe EVE is PvP centered then I hate to break it to you but EVE has PLENTY of PvE content. This backs up my statement that all the games I mentioned ARE just as PvP centric. Still waiting on your proof that most of the highly successful MMOs now a days are PvE only.
Of course you are being very closed minded and unwilling to discuss anything. I see now that you think the world revolves around you and your opinions and only you are right. If you want to voice more than an opinion however and want others to listen to you, you need to bring something more to the table.
You are the one that used the word "coding" to refer to all development, and when called out on it still took several posts worth of blaming others for not understanding before getting around to begrudingly giving your definition - though without admitting that you were in the wrong by using your own definition.
It isn't the first time it has happened, either. You have a long history of poor communication in general - all anyone needs to do is listen to any of your interviews with Steven to understand that.
I did not blame anyone for not understanding, I blamed you for assuming you knew what I meant and then going on a rant about that. I happily gave my definition, I did not begrudgingly do so.
This is just more of you projecting your own twisted perspective so that you can troll.
Here's my list...
I would PK:
1. Someone who burnt my toast
2. Someone who stole all my butter
3. Someone who thinks that rye is better than sourdough
Valid reasons. Good thing that AoC let's us kill toast burners out in the open world. Imagine not being able to...
- null list
I'm a nice guy
I wish to add another reason! People saying they are nice guys!
There were a small number of "sweet spots" across the map, within each general area, for solo, small groups, large groups at different levels brackets. From memory, the level grind was often more the focus than the drops.
For the most part, players respected each other in PvE and possession of a space. But vying for those areas means that either you were conspicuous for pvp (when in clan wars) or a possible target for contesting the spot.
I see the same potential for the hot spots, and also for those gathering materials of high value if there is a chance to drop.
Try to explain that to people being used to mmos offering single player questing experience (main way to lv up and gear up), with only instanced BG pvp.
Meh, from a WoW vanilla/classic on PvE server point of view, it's not much different than having a group or a higher level player (from either faction) coming in your area and killing all the mobs you need for your quest or picking the resources you're looking for. You have to wait or move elsewhere.
In both scenarios, your progression is slowed/halted.
But having the possibility to fight over these spots gives the illusion of choice. If you have to constantly fight people for these spots, your progression is slowed/halted while you do so. The more contested they are, the less advantageous they become.
That being said, if fighting for them is what the fun is all about, their value is secondary