Combatant attacks non-combatant

Hello. I am a veteran Ultima Online player and I thought they had an excellent flagging system. I was looking over the proposed flagging system of AoC and found a point of confusion. If a combatant attacks a non-combatant, the non-combatant can’t even defend themselves lest they become a combatant? This seems like an oversight.

If you’re innocent and someone attacks you, I think you should be able to defend yourself without the possibility of being ganked by a third party.

Thoughts?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

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!*

Child Item