Combatant attacks non-combatant

Bleebz

there is a system between corrupted or not, built-in. I think that speaks to the point I’m making. We can mince definitions, but corruption tends to be polarizing.

Also I think it’s important to note that role playing tends to scaffold off of the systems in place. We can argue system definitions, but my endeavor was to reach beyond that.

I’ll never win that argument though

If your intent with the role playing counter- argument is to enforce the impossibility of innocence, I think you’re imposing an artificial sense of what’s possible in the environment provided.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Also I think it’s important to note that role playing tends to scaffold off of the systems in place.

I'm at the point now where I don't understand your complaint.

You say you want RP to be based on the systems the game has, yet you are talking about innocence as if it is the flip side of corruption.

It is not.

Bleebz

Innocence isn’t a system, as you already provided. Indeed, I think you purposefully missed my point. Nuance.

Characterizing it as a complaint is noted

Blandmarrow

I rarely agree with Noaani but in this I do.

In nature there is no such thing as innocent or guilty, it's merely something humans have agreed upon in social terms to enforce for our own safety.

Any sentient being is subject to another's actions, whether you deem it right or wrong, it's kill or be killed which it always have been and always will be.

The corruption system is not in place for RP reasons, it's there as a game mechanic to discourage malicious behavior such as ganking low levels or bullying someone over and over by killing them.

In short, it's there to protect the weak or unwilling from reality to make the game more enjoyable.

In reality we also have a corruption system, it's called The Law alongside what is socially acceptable, which is enforced by the community, loosely.

Bleebz

It sounds to me like you’re talking cross purposes. You’re describing a lack of an event in nature while associating it with the imposition of a game mechanic. This is why I am as also confused with nooani’s response.

Bleebz

Perhaps I commented too quickly. You are differentiating between the harsh reality of nature, and the game mechanic which might make the game tolerable to the weak?

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Indeed, I think you purposefully missed my point.

Nope, I am looking for it, I just can't find it.

You say you want roleplaying to be characterized by the games systems.

We don't know much about the lore of the game, but I'll give you a rundown of what I do know lorewise in regards to corruption.

First thing is The Essence. The Essence is basically life-force. it flows through Verra (and most of the other planes of existence) like a river. This life-force can be manipulated in to what we accept as magic. Gods are masters of The Essence, and both mages and clerics are known to be users of it as well.

Corruption is the negative aspect of The Essence. This means that corruption is magical in nature - perhaps even the source of some forms of magic.

It isn't just players that get corruption - corruption is a force of it's own. Mobs can be corrupt, plants can be corrupt, corruption can just exist as a storm.

This is why innocence simply isn't the flip side of corruption - corruption is the flip side of The Essence - or magic.

Bleebz

@Noaani i didn’t say that... I typed that role playing is best scaffolded on the game’s existing systems. It was an abstraction.

Bleebz

@Blandmarrow I’m interested in what you wrote. The concept of nature vs. game mechanic. Would you prefer a very brutal and open system with no repercussions?

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

Noaani i didn’t say that... I typed that role playing is best scaffolded on the game’s existing systems. It was an abstraction.

Quote what it is you are talking about here.

Saying I didn't say that is incredibly unhelpful without defining what "that" is.

Bleebz

What what it is you are talking about here.

Saying I didn't say that is incredibly unhelpful without defining what "that" is.

That’s fair, I was referring to,

You say you want roleplaying to be characterized by the games systems.

When I was referring to an abstract scaffolding from those systems through roleplaying*

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

What what it is you are talking about here.

Saying I didn't say that is incredibly unhelpful without defining what "that" is.

That’s fair, I was referring to,

You say you want roleplaying to be characterized by the games systems.

You said that you want roleplaying scaffolded on the games systems, I said you want roleplaying to be characterized by the games systems.

Explain to me how these two statements are fundamentally different.

I suggest going back to that post and reading what we know (or what I know) of corruption, from a lore perspective, as that should alter your perspective on it somewhat.

akabear

Bleebz wrote: »

Hello again. It could be that I don’t have a good understanding of Lineage 2 PVP or what the intent here is.

Ultima Online (1997-2001 or so) had faction-based PVP that could occur anywhere, and then an innocent, criminal, murderer system. Killing an innocent allowed for them to report you as a murderer. They were allowed to fight back when attacked, and if you died to them, they could loot everything you were carrying.

A criminal was anything from a thief, someone who loots an innocent, someone who heals another criminal or murderer, etc. Attacking a criminal was fair game, anyone could attack a criminal. The timer for being a criminal was 2 minutes.

A murderer was someone who killed enough innocents that they could no longer visit towns, save one or two towns without guards. Dying as a murderer would cause stat loss. Becoming a murderer was a very serious choice for that reason, and it took a long time to decay.

This was a very robust system. There were lots of innocents, criminals, and murderers, and characters in the game were far from safe. I had 2200 murder counts on my PK. From the standpoint of killing innocents, I don’t like the idea that I can attack them, and to apply corruption they’re forced to just stand there and take it.

As someone who has done a lot of PKing, it seems to me like you’re opting to have less PVP threat when attacking a non-combatant.

@Bleebz they system in UO is not so dissimilar to Lineage 2`s system which in turn is a reference to the AoC`s proposed system.. bit like v1.0 to v2.0, to v4.0... with ashes doing it a little different.

But perhaps to help fill the blanks relative to the system you are perhaps more familiar describing in more detail the known system of L2 which is largely refrenced vs AoC which is still not quite tested to see how similar

• Pvp could occur anywhere but towns
• Killing an innocent turned you "red", just as a murderer without a need to report
• Killing a "red" could be done with nil consequence and gave potential for loot (varied alot from early beta to later game)
• Being "red" earned you "karma".at an expodential scale. gaining more and more karma per kill & a pk count.
• If you had pk`s uncleared when you went red, then you immediately gained higher amount of karma
• To reduce your karma you either had to die it off or xp it off
• To reduce your pk count you had to do a time consuming quest that reduced a random amount of pks off, somewhere between 1-5..
• Over 5 pks and you ran the risk of a large amount of equipment being lost when dying
• Those who were "red" could not enter town technically as the guards would try to kill them, but the guards were not so strong, so sometimes that was not an issue and/or there were ways back to your clan hall to be safe and not hurt
• Nobody in town could kill a "red"
• A very robust system like UO but got softer over the years
• And in late game when 1hr xp = 0.3% xp up, and a death took 90min play time, people really considered their pvp game!

AND

The system was used both ways to advantage.

• Players would pk and risk trying to wear of karma before being found and attacked much like AoC
• Players would also play victim allowing themselves to die multiple times just to get the pk`er over x number of pks so they in turn could kill them for the drops

Bleebz

@akabear Not to detract from your post, because I appreciate it, they were very similar! Not identical, but more similar than maybe any other game
I can compare it to.

*edit: I misread. I agree, not dissimilar. I am excited to see this type of ruleset in a modern MMORPG

Bleebz

@akabear my original post was not meant as a deviation, but a question of nuance. UO had a very well conceived system, arguably better than lineage 2, in complexity

akabear

Ah.. I tried UO briefly, I was so excited when I finally got the chance to play it having played every ultima from the very first but alas on a 56k modem, it was just awful and unplayable!

Bleebz

haha, heard

Blandmarrow

Bleebz wrote: »

@Blandmarrow I’m interested in what you wrote. The concept of nature vs. game mechanic. Would you prefer a very brutal and open system with no repercussions?

I would actually, because it's more believable to me as it is more consistent with how reality works which helps immersion.

I do recognize that these systems are needed to make the game less punishing because we play games to have fun, not to be smacked in the face with reality.

I also happen to have played full loot PvP which I very much enjoyed so that might be part of it.

Bleebz wrote: »

Perhaps I commented too quickly. You are differentiating between the harsh reality of nature, and the game mechanic which might make the game tolerable to the weak?

Pretty much I guess.

When I say weak I mean players that play casually, because generally they can't compete with players that play 6h+ a day.

Bleebz

@Noaani i don’t endeavor to explain to you how my text and your text differ in my intent. I was focusing on an abstract concept while you were focusing on systems. It’s pointless.

Bleebz

@Blandmarrow point taken, but I would challenge you to question where our culture comes from as natural beings. Concepts of morality are woven into the nature of people, I would contest. It’s why, in my opinion, concepts of morality are welcome in games like this

Warth

@Bleebz

criminal =/= combatant

criminal == corrupted

Bleebz

@warth I understand the difficulty of comparing this project to like a 22 year old game however that was the best game ever made (that version), and this game is rubbing elbows. It’s very exciting xD

And just to be consistent, the flagging is very similar, I focused on a very minor point for discussion. I still think it’s worth discussing.

Look guys, I might be biased okay

akabear

Warth wrote: »

@Bleebz
criminal =/= combatant
criminal == corrupted

Nice point! But whilst criminal = corrupted, I imagine to save their ass, a corrupted will likely stay in a ready combative state until karma or what ever equivalent there is, has been worked off.

Bleebz

Just to be on a level, the flagging comparison, somewhat loosely:

Innocent : Non-Combatant
Criminal : Combatant
Murderer : Corrupted

Obviously AoC is using less moralistic language, and my arguments tend to follow, as a detractor.

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

I was focusing on an abstract concept while you were focusing on systems.

I did say several times there was no point in talking about innocence in regards to Ashes, as it does not exist here - neither as a system, nor as an abstract concept.

Yet you continued to bring it up.

If you wish to draw a comparison between the corruption system in this game and a similar system in another game that you have played - great, go for it. Just be aware that you are drawing a comparison, and there will be many differences (which is what I was trying to explain to you, before you started insisting on talking about innocence in Ashes, which doesn't exist).

Bleebz

I will strongly disagree with your statement that it does not exist as an abstract concept. You’re injecting your interpretation of how people are required to interact with the content.

I realize we’re on a fine line here, but I will not abandon my view that you’re imperiling the definition of a MMORPG.

akabear

You are losing me, sounds a bit like Edmund Husserl and his view of "the reflective study of the essence of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view." but he never played an MMORPG in 3rd person view, so what would he know!

Noaani

Bleebz wrote: »

I would strongly disagree with your statement that it does not exist as an abstract concept.

In terms of development, it absolutely doesn't.

In terms of anything other than development, it doesn't matter.

Literally any and all concepts can exist in an MMO if people want them to. Karma can exist as an abstract concept if someone believes in it.

That doesn't mean it is a concept that the game is being developed around. There is no concept that a player that hasn't attacked another is considered innocent in any manner, they are simply a player that is a valid target for PvP combat at all times while they are logged in.

Bleebz

@Noaani I think you’re dithering between systems and abstraction. Role-playing games are meant to be inclusive of creative inspiration. That would include concepts of innocence. I think we’re arguing about madness at this point.

daveywavey

Maybe it'd be helpful if there was some kind of "toggle", where you could permanently flag yourself as Purple?

Discuss.



*grabs the popcorn!*