Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Phase II testing is currently taking place 5+ days each week. More information about testing schedule can be found here
If you have Alpha Two, you can download the game launcher here, and we encourage you to join us on our Official Discord Server for the most up to date testing news.
Comments
So I can agree with bandits being able to kill bounty hunters, but the goal here was to create a living pvp experience for bounty hunters and bandits to participate in but not to the level of corruption gameplay. Essentially bounty hunters vs bandits would be combatants vs combatants and die with these death rules. This promotes the use of each system and would generate more active pvp in the world outside of the prime-time objective based pvp. Bandits steal from greens or purples, Bounty hunters arrive to kill the bandits, and whoever wins walks away with some progression in their respective role and some coin or resources in their pockets.
Added this to the OP: Bounty Hunters will instead be killed when they reach 0 hit-points, increasing the bounty on the bandit by a moderate amount. Well, I am not sure how titles are displayed so this was more of a guess on my part. What would be ideal is that when you "inspect" another player it just gives you vague information along with the unlocked titles of the player. So with this you could see who was a "cop" or "robber". Ultimately the system can do without this, I wouldn't be mad if it was not added.
As for flagging, the idea is to flag bandits and bounty hunters to each other when they both have their abilities "Pillage" and "Pathfinder" activated. Effectively a toggle pvp system with some rules to avoid griefing but enough freedom to keep the spirit of a living. dangerous world where your choices affect those around you.
This is not a goal of the Ashes devs to the degree that you seem to expect.
I understand, however I'd revise the bandit role as a hard counter for BHs, while I love the idea of adding "stealing" to the open world game play model without death being involved the whole fight to incapacitation just seems irrelevant to me. In this regard I would rather there be a formal steal function that causes some level of corruption or other flagging mechanism without a fight involved.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Well, the big issue with a stealing system without pvp will have people complaining that it is unfair and all that. The example being the people that replied previously that miss-read my OP as doing this very thing. The knocking out idea is my way to reduce the penalties to those that get attacked one-sidedly while giving bandits a role that interact with other players as well as giving bounty hunters more targets to hunt down and do consensual pvp with.
They don't fight back? Get corrupted and kill them or walk away.
Bounty Hunters are just there to punish you even more if you go corrupted.
If you're allowed to steal people and don't get corrupted, everyone will just go Bandit, lesser benefit at no cost.
Wrong. You would have a healthy amount of bandits AND bounty hunters. This promotes a more robust pvp experience for those that wish for it outside of the prime-time content. Both sides have risks and both sides have rewards.
Exactly my point.
So because the green player wasn't able to defend themselves and kill the bandits this means bandits have no risk involved ever? This is about risk vs reward not tacking downsides to one another. Not to mention bandits that flag up are automatically attacked by city guards and as suggested the hideouts they need to run to will be placed in dangerous pvp oriented zones.
Bandits risk death penalties for this while their victims risk a small amount of materials.
You (THE PLAYER THAT IS KNOCKED UNCONCIOUS) do not have go run back out to your farming spot, you do not lose durability, you do not lose the item drop chance when killing mobs, you do not have your health and mana reduced, and finally you do not gain exp debt.
I really dont understand what there is to complain about aside from the fact that the victim might just suck at pvp and would need a bounty hunter to come and help them retrieve the stolen loot, which is the entire point of this suggestion.
First, all zones are PvP oriented, except nodes.
Second, you will only flag at the exact moment before killing a green, you don't go out with a target on your back.
Third, when you gain corruption you need to:
Can you spot the difference? The only reliable source to remove corruption is killing mobs, which means having to sit in a place for a period of time where you can get ganked and killed by BH or other people.
What you propose is the following:
So the Bandit it's not really at risk compared to a really corrupted player.
On the other hand, IS wants to decentivize player killing because it's not a desired behaviour. You will argue you're not killing a player, but they're losing profit anyway, which is EXACTLY the same outcome that you get when you kill a player in terms of materials.
A system designed to decentivize a behaviour shouldn't be expanded upon, because it's not a system to reward PKing, it's there to stop it as much as possible.
Plus, this whole system would only work against someone who doesn't want to fight back. Which means you are proposing a system to target those people that REFUSE to fight back.
If you know they don't want to fight back, you shouldn't get an easier way out.
You have not done anything yet, so you are not penalized. You become flagged as a combatant the second you attack someone anyway, and that is the intent. To pvp as a combatant. Yeah, they are two completely different systems with completely different mechanics and intents/goals. Shocking.
Do not use "corruption" to describe this as a bandit does not suffer the penalties of death as a corrupted player. If they did it wouldnt even be worth being a bandit. You will just confuse yourself and other readers.
congrats, you are starting to understand things. I don't want bandits to be punished as they are not doing anything to grief other players as much as corrupted players, and the interaction that does "interrupt" other players is balanced with the bounty hunting players being on the look out and hunt for bandits and the part you keep missing. Anyone can kill the bandit, including the people that were just robbed. Don't get caught with your pants down and you can potentially kill the bandit before they even knock you out.
ill just copy paste my response to dave since you failed to read it earlier. There is a massive difference between killing a player and my suggested knockout mechanic. Well this is just you not agreeing with bounty hunters needing an expansion on their current abilities which means we really don't have anything to to talk about anymore. If you can't even agree that bounty hunters will have little to nothing to do with just the corruption system to deal with then its probably best that we not talk circles around each other anymore.
This is just a dumb comment. If YOU decide to let me attack and beat you into unconsciousness (or for the corruption system, death) you deserve the penalties associated. They have already said they do want you to fight back otherwise it wouldnt make sense for the combatant flag to reduce death penalties.
Also, why the shift? First it was "Greens will just die for free" now its "you will only win against greens that dont fight back". Which is it? Are they defenseless little lambs that you want coddled or are they seasoned veterans that will slap down anyone that tries to rob them?
The thing is, you don't know and cannot know unless you have been farming an area for a very long time as a bandit. And if you do that you increase the chance that the neighborhood spi- I mean bounty hunter is waiting around the corner for you to steal something so they can kill you and take the bounty.
At the moment, this reason requires a kill and causes Corruption. If you do it a lot, you'll show on Bounty Hunter maps and will suffer stat penalties.
Your suggestion allows this reason without the kill, and so without the Corruption. If you do it a lot, you still won't be Corrupted, and so you still won't show on Bounty Hunter maps, and you still won't have stat penalties. You're getting the benefit without the negatives.
Wrong. You show on bounty hunter maps anytime you have stolen goods on your person. From the OP:
Bounty hunters will be able to track down both bandit and corrupted players using the Pathfinder ability. While the Pathfinder ability is activated you will be automatically flagged for both corrupted and Pillager-activated players.
They only need to have done it once for a bounty to appear. The negative is that you can be killed but cannot kill others (excluding corrupted players). Thats the tradeoff for being able to participate in more open world pvp.
If you propose a system like this, maybe with reduced corruption, I'd give it consideration, but as it is you are trying to initiate non consensual PvP without corruption and that's not acceptable. I don't care if you show up on bounty hunter lists, that's not what the developers have in mind to curb this behavior. This idea is a complete non-starter.
its not griefing. That is what the penniless debuff is there to prevent and bounty hunters' job to reduce. By your logic any situation where someone gets attacked and defeated would be considered griefing. The system to keep bandits in check is bounty hunters and players not being literal potatoes that can't defend themselves. This isn't the behavior that the developers are trying to curb with the corruption system. That system is specifically used to avoid the killing of low level players OR the rampant killing of players that do not wish to fight back. They explicitly promote consensual pvp and the bounty hunter vs bandit system allows this with the caveat that bandits have to do a lesser crime of attacking and stealing from other players.
The penniless debuff allows players to leave if there is a group of bandits trying to farm an area, OR they can get back up and try to kill the bandits. If the bandits do this the bounty hunters will show up to deal with them. Then you get your goods back for a tiny fee and the bounty hunter and bandit got to do pvp without risking hours of exp debt and all of the other penalties that corruption has. I see that as a good system to add. It fleshes out the open world making it more dangerous but allows players to participate in pvp more often outside of the objective based prime-time stuff.
You do not have to participate in this system anyway, if you do not fight back, they get some of your materials and you keep farming. If a bounty hunter goes and kills them you get the resources back easy peasy. If they don't you still have what you are continuing to farm without the downsides of being killed.
It seriously sounds like you guys just want to screw over anyone that dares try to pvp with you for the sake of screwing them over alone. If you don't want a bandit to take your stuff you kill them. If you cant kill them let the bounty hunters do it for you. If that doesn't work maybe you should find more friends to farm with or try to rope in more bounty hunters to the area by advertising that these bandits farm you there.
Sorry, your idea is bad and goes against what Intrepid is trying to do.
I dont agree with any of your points. So we cant agree on anything and circle jerking this conversation will just make my fingers tired.
Good day.
One of the concepts I really liked in Archeage was that of illegal farms. You could plant things literally anywhere in the world - but anyone could harvest them. Players could game crime points for this, which could lead to jail time, but it was still a thing that could be done that made that games crime system more than just a way to regulate some aspects of PvP.
If there were any expansion to the bounty hunter system in Ashes, my suggestion would be to add in new ways by which players could gain corruption, not by adding in ways players could basically do the same thing as attacking and killing a player would do, but without getting that corruption.
One thing I will say about this is that any action you can take against another player that a game developer may want to punish you for should require the "victim" to specifically opt in to an action that allows for that to happen. In Archeage, this action that the soon-to-be victim had to do was to plant an illegal farm.
In Ashes, maybe the developers could make it so that anything planted on yourt freehold was open to being harvested by anyone walking past if it wasn't harvested within a specific time frame of when it is ready. Since knowing when something is ready should be a given, being there when your crop is good to go is something players can plan for, and so planting a crop and not being there to harvest is something players would opt in to.
It isn't even remotely the same as what the OP is suggesting, but it is a method to expand the bounty hunter system from that of purely hunting PK'ers.