List the reasons why you would PK somebody that doesn't wanna fight back

George_Black · 2020-11-27T03:53:04+00:00

I would PK:* A person in my server that I have come to dislike. * Some stranger that follows me and attacks my target mobs, ruining my XP gain. * Players from a guild I do not like, but we are not officially in war with. * If I am with my group and we have set out to achieve some goal by the end of the day (kill a…

George_Black

I would PK:

A person in my server that I have come to dislike.
Some stranger that follows me and attacks my target mobs, ruining my XP gain.
Players from a guild I do not like, but we are not officially in war with.
If I am with my group and we have set out to achieve some goal by the end of the day (kill a raidboss, farm 1000 animal skins for an armor, gain 2 levels) and there are groups of other players nearby that don't respect unspoken proximity boundaries, I would PK them.
If we come across an enemy guild adventuring and win the fight, I will PK any players in their group that didn't join the fight, unless they immediately teleport back to a node (which from what it seems won't be a thing in AoC), or their fallen friends have respawned away.
If for some reason we fight with a random group of people, out in the open world, I will PK any of their group that didn't join the fight, unless they immediately teleport back to a node, or their fallen friends have respawned away.
If an inrl friend of mine PKs for some reason I don't agree with, I will have to PK any player that targets my friend before we run away together.

What is your reason that you'd PK and risk losing gear upon death while Corrupted?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

As you see, there is no set definition. So you can stop calling each other wrong. You're both wrong, and neither of you are wrong. If you want to talk about PK, first state how you mean it, then talk about it.

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.
The common usage is derivative of the literal meaning of the words. Of course.
But, when people say, "he sucks at basketball", they are not being literal. Same thing for PK.

Katak

So you can toggle into a force attack state, but you don't flag until hitting someone while toggled.
In Ultima Online, you could see this toggled state (war mode), at least if the combatant was on foot. I am not sure if there is plan for Ashes to have some indication that players are toggled or not.

I imagine that it's better if that toggle remains private so people don't try to intentionally put themselves in harm's way in order to force someone to become flagged. At the same time, that person probably shouldn't have been toggled in the first place, though.

True red PKs in UO participated in non-consensual combat. There was even a sub-type called a noto-PK (greys), who weren't flagged as PKs, but would go into a criminal state so people could attack them and they could then kill those attackers without getting a murder count.

Other forms of combat that resulted in player death (duels, and the like) did not make the victor a PK.

I get it that the literal sense is player killer, but the term was not used for that in practice.

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

As you see, there is no set definition. So you can stop calling each other wrong. You're both wrong, and neither of you are wrong. If you want to talk about PK, first state how you mean it, then talk about it.

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.
The common usage is derivative of the literal meaning of the words. Of course.
But, when people say, "he sucks at basketball", they are not being literal. Same thing for PK.

1) The idea that your usage is most common is your opinion, and one you shouldn’t treat as absolute fact because you can’t prove it.

2) It still wouldn’t matter. If a term has more than one meaning then if you can’t make it clear what you mean then your communication skills are lacking, and you need to improve that if you want to participate constructively on a forum.

Dargron

Dygz wrote: »

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.

To be fair, I'm not sure EvE Online is as different to Ashes as you imply. EvE has a lot of PvP, but just like Ashes it also has it's fair share of PvE - it has its own versions of hostile mobs, dungeons, harvesting, processing and crafting - all of which are essential for the resources needed to build the stations, ships and weaponry needed for PvP.

George Black wrote:

I did tell him off because he took the high moral ground saying that you can play the game without PK.
a) I never said you cant play the game without PK
b) Just because he wants to avoid PK, it doesnt mean there are no good reasons to do it, and that PKrs epeen.

Appologies if I misinterpreted, but your post I replied to gave off the strong impression that you were saying that your entire purpose for creating this thread was to convince "Carebears" that everyone will have some reason to kill non-combatants, that those who do so are not griefing because everyone will do it and it's part of the game. I simply replied that hadn't been my experience, even in EvE, a game with a reputation for being one of the more hostile and cut-throat MMO's out there (so much so that at one point they actively changed their whole marketing pitch to "Be the bad guy").

Personally, I'm just a more defensive player. Combat is a last resort for me, unless I'm actively at war or rushing to someone's defense. I've never seen a need to kill a player unless they show hostility first. Grudges are strong and memories are long - kill someone at my harvesting spot and tomorrow they are my enemy, show them respect and tomorrow they may be a valued ally helping defend me from an attacker.

I may not have played L2, but I have done my due research into this game. Currently, my only "potential" reasons for killing a non-combatant pretty much align with PlagueMonk...
1. If they have a long history of Ganking/Griefing me (but, odds are, such a player won't be a non-combatant).
2. If they are an obvious bot, in which case, is it really a PK if it's not a real player?

Dygz

My use of the word absolute was a snarky response to daveywhavey's statement that it was absolutely literal.
But word definitions are never absolute - that's not the way languages work.
An author could state "I am using the literal/original meaning of the word."
But, again, it's clear in the context of this discussion - especially due to the nature of the Corruption mechanic- that PK is used with the connotation I've stated rather than the denotation daveywavey erroneously claims is an absolute.
The OP very clearly states which connotation he's using: "You can't PK someone who fights back. That's PvP."

And, sure, most common usage is my informed opinion, since I not only speak several languages, but also
have localized several games in several languages for Activision.
You don't have to accept my opinion(s). I'm not super-interested in convincing people. I am interested in sharing info and being sure that people understand what I actually stated.
We don't have to agree.

Leiloni

George Black wrote: »

Leiloni wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Leiloni wrote: »

Both Steven and Jeffrey in the most recent livestream mentioned Ctrl+F being the way to allow your character to hit other players. Then the second part is actually landing an attack that turns you purple. So it sounds like you have a toggle, Ctrl +F, that let's you attack other players but you're still green while in that state. So you'll have two types of green players out there - those who have not activated Ctrl+F (and thus would not be capable of attacking back in PvP until they activated that), and may or may not decide to attack back if you hit them, and those who live in Ctrl+F who likely will decide to fight back.

Um. I dunno how many times it has to be explained to you before you get it.
It's Ctrl + F + attack.
Being green while in that state really has little meaning.
Yes, you will be green when you initiate that attack while holding Ctrl +F, but you will turn purple the moment that attack lands.
You cannot "live" in a Ctrl + F state. I suppose you could run around holding down Ctrl + F, but it would be idiotic to do so because it accomplishes nothing.
Go back and watch the clip. Steven states what the design is and then clarifies, after Jeff speaks, that it's basically the Lineage 2 flagging system. Jeff says, "I thought it worked like this" And then Steven says, "No. It works like this. It's based off of Lineage 2."

Unlikely that a person is going to take a few hits and risk gaining Corruption by accidentally killing the target when you can't con the level of the target.
But, sure, try it.

Aside from the fact that it was quite clear on the livestream, it's also been discussed at length in Discord for days now. The Ctrl+F to flag yourself as being capable of being able to hit other players is a toggle. You don't hold down the key and also attack. Being influenced by L2 doesn't mean he's copying L2.

There is no "flag toggle" that turns you purple.
The toggle enables targeting players.

Yes I've said exactly that several times. I'm trying to explain to someone else that fact, but he's stuck on the first part. He thinks the first part doesn't exist and merely consists of holding down a key and attacking at the same time. I tried explaining you can in fact toggle the ability to attack other players and sit there for a while without attacking.

Leiloni

Dygz wrote: »

Leiloni wrote: »

Aside from the fact that it was quite clear on the livestream, it's also been discussed at length in Discord for days now. The Ctrl+F to flag yourself as being capable of hitting other players is a toggle. You don't hold down the key and also attack. Being influenced by L2 doesn't mean he's copying L2. He's also played other games and is making a system that he feels works better than all of them.

It is quite clear in the Livestream.
It's not a toggle. Steven's response to living in the Ctrl +F state is: No.
It's Ctrl + F + attack. Or hold Ctrl (or Alt) + attack. That creates a forced attack. And when that forced attack lands on your target, you flag purple.

The way to know that a target is not interested in PvP combat (if you don't ask them) is to attack them and see if they fight back.
If you want to engage in PvP combat with a guarantee of fighting people interested in PvP combat so that you don't have to worry about Corruption...go attack a caravan or participate in a siege.

Ctrl+F and Purple are not the same thing. I have said that about 5 times now. It's a two part process. Jeffrey asked if you could sit in Purple state and the answer to that is No. You can toggle the ability to allow your attacks to hit other players and sit in that state (which would mean you are Green all the time, but merely can more quickly and easily attack or defend from an attack without having to toggle first).

George_Black

You both try to explain to one another the toggle.
The other two are arguing about what words to use regarding going red.
None of that is relevant to the topic btw, what reasons would you have to kill a player that doesnt fight back.?

The game has the corruption system to prevent players from going on an unstopable kill spree. Some people want more ways to kill without penalties seeking to make the game a meaningless boring global BG instead of a PvX progression. Others rather being pushed over because PKing a player or PvPing outside of a BG is griefing.

I cant wait for NDA to be lifted. I am sure most of you will stop complaining and some will move on.
But I am certain AoC will be a fun game, more than any you have experienced before.

akabear

I`m sure we wouldn't be having this discussion if we didn't all have to become flat earth people!

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

My use of the word absolute was a snarky response to daveywhavey's statement that it was absolutely literal.

That’s fair, my point was that it doesn’t have an absolute definition.

Atama

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.

George_Black

Atama wrote: »

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.

Rly?
You want a red player to simply kill you without incuring even more corruption and PK counts?
You think it is more beneficial for the game to make the life of red players easier to get on the clear because dying as Green while chasing a Red isnt fair?
All reward no risk?
If you are more worried about losing more XP and resources from that red player, dont chase him. Let him go away and be killed by braver players or BH. But no loot for you.

Players turning purple for attacking a red is a terrible idea.
Why would I want to become a free target for anyone, while I am fighting a murderer. So that his nearby friends can floor me without concequences?

Dygz

Leiloni wrote: »

Ctrl+F and Purple are not the same thing. I have said that about 5 times now. It's a two part process. Jeffrey asked if you could sit in Purple state and the answer to that is No. You can toggle the ability to allow your attacks to hit other players and sit in that state (which would mean you are Green all the time, but merely can more quickly and easily attack or defend from an attack without having to toggle first).

You are correct. Ctrl + F and Purple are not the same thing.
I have stated that very thing several times.
Yes. People flagged purple will be purple for a while after combat. Likely for a few minutes.
But, you cannot live in purple. And you cannot really live in a Ctrl + F.
It's not a toggle. A toggle implies you stay in that toggled state without holding the key/button/switch until you toggle it back off.
As Steven clearly states, you have to press Ctrl + F or hold Ctrl or hold Alt WHEN YOU ATTACK.
After that attack hits you are flagged purple. You will stay purple, probably for a few minutes, after combat before returning to the default state... which is green.

You could continue to hold CTRL or hold ALT while waiting to attack, sure. Of course.
But that is not a toggle.

Atama

George Black wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

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.

Rly?
You want a red player to simply kill you without incuring even more corruption and PK counts?

If I fight back? Yes. If I don’t fight back, they get corrupted, just as a purple would.

You think it is more beneficial for the game to make the life of red players easier to get on the clear because dying as Green while chasing a Red isnt fair?
All reward no risk?
If you are more worried about losing more XP and resources from that red player, dont chase him. Let him go away and be killed by braver players or BH. But no loot for you.

Players turning purple for attacking a red is a terrible idea.
Why would I want to become a free target for anyone, while I am fighting a murderer. So that his nearby friends can floor me without concequences?

I want choice. If a red attacks me, I can’t turn purple if I want to and that is freaking BS. It is idiotic. How can you think otherwise?

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

Here’s my question... Does a green person attacking a red turn purple?
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.

The current design is that a green does not flag as combatant while fighting a Corrupt player character because Corrupted player characters are basically treated as monsters/hostile mobs.

The problem with flagging as purple is that you would be open to attack from others for several minutes after the Corrupted character has been dealt with.

Interesting point, though.

George_Black

It most definatly isnt idiotic.
It has been chosen by the devs and it has work in a previous game.
Pause for a minute, think instead of reacting.

You seek to distabilize the open world combat, making it easier for people to PK and disregard the downsides, because you are too afraid to lose a bit more %xp and a bit more resources.

George_Black

If I come and kill your friend I get +1 PK count and let's say 500 corruption points which let's say will take me 15 minutes to get rid of, while people hunt me down for my gear.

If you attack me I have two choices. Get +1 more PK count, 500 or even more additional corruption points and 30 minutes of running away from players while I try to burn my red status. Or start running.

With your proposition I can kill you, while you are purple WITH 0 ADDITIONAL CONCEQUENCESS.

Dygz

George Black wrote: »

Players turning purple for attacking a red is a terrible idea.
Why would I want to become a free target for anyone, while I am fighting a murderer. So that his nearby friends can floor me without consequences?

Exactly.

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

George Black wrote: »

Players turning purple for attacking a red is a terrible idea.
Why would I want to become a free target for anyone, while I am fighting a murderer. So that his nearby friends can floor me without consequences?

Exactly.

A green fighting a red should be purple only for the red fighting them, and green to everyone else.

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.

George_Black

You are crazy to think that a red will risk incuring more corruption penalties such as gear loss, combat effectiveness, PK count and corruption points because he wants to "use a loophole" to make you lose a little bit more xp and mats.

People place too much importance on themselves, demanding for all sorts of extra measures to spare them a tiny bit of incovenience, never thinking of the overall game.

As soon as they kill who they want to kill they will be out of there. If you are greedy enough to hunt them, expect to risk losing more. Go ahead and chase them.

Child Item