Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
lol. okay. we can just pretend you weren't trying to be an ass since u dont have the balls to own up to it. wont matter to me then.
I'm suggesting a base design choice. I only had a numerical inference to simplify the suggestion. The point is, the conditional modifiers for corruption having an extra initial step, which is pre-death, might be nice to discourage people who want to play around the system and harass people by not killing them.
What you're saying doesn't have any difference to what the current system is. If green player 1 attacks pacifist green player 2, but don't want corruption, in either system, they will stop BEFORE killing them.
In the current system, I can be a purple griefer and follow a green and attack them as they try to fight mobs as much as i want. Zero limitations. The player base itself would have to intervene.
ok then. so sry. crow is innocent and is pure in his intent with all his words. my bad bud. moving on
It's fine. I responded to you as if you were an adult with the ability to hear a disagreement to a suggestion without taking it personally. Clearly that was a mistake based on your tantrum to hearing 'no'. I'll adjust accordingly in the future.
This doesn't comport with your suggestion. Here's your proposed change:
Here's the disconnect I'm seeing: Players A and B are both Green.
Player A attacks Player B. Player A is now Purple.
Player A continues to attack Player B, now Player A is Red and gains corruption even if Payer B is alive and well.
That's a very different system than what's currently planned.
So then, in the current system, why does the dude seeing me farming NOT want to kill me. I still can't see the difference on this part specifically. How is the dude's TTK changing so severely in my system?
Idk if my system changes that really. I feel like players would still do a basic hit to initiate a fight, especially because they couldn't do another hit without turning red. So they wait to see if they respond. And if they do, great, its pvp on a fair level. If the green player uses the advantage against a purple player, that sucks. But the current system advocates for that in a similar way but on the reverse because I can keep attacking them. So, one of the players will have the opportunity to abuse the system for an advantage. And it just depends on which side do we want that on.
I think this can be solved with tuning some variables. It doesn't have to be single hit. But it does have to be simple so that players go into a pvp situation with proper intent. I also didn't know that PK count stat dampening went into affect upon re-becoming red again. But i think it's also fair for the stat damening to have SOME effect, even on that individual moment.
I would hope people go for the same fair fight on the other side of it. This game might be having active block, maybe even the case of being forced the brunt a massive attack isn't here either. who knows tho
I think it was more so your obtuseness and giggling more than being told no. Your sense of humor is a bit caustic, possibly more than some people are used to. I don't mind it, but it could be jarring to some people. @Alacrite just needs to learn to not take it personally as it is something you do with everyone equally.
Your idea is not good. Your scenario of someone being attacked repeatedly without being killed is intended, and not griefing, within reason. Obviously in extreme situations where someone is doing it to you 24/7 (or for some other inordinate amount of time) for no reason, you have a case for harassment and you need to contact a GM.
But the grabass that players are going to do to each other, the iffing at each other, trying to scare others off, that's all intended man.
Under your system, if you want to remove someone from a farming location, your only choice is to kill your target (unless you're somehow so much stronger that you can completely outfarm them). One weak hit would obviously not remove the target, but it would bring you up to the 100% chance to become a red player if you attack them more. But if your target is farming mobs, there's a chance that doing your strongest hit could put them at risk of doing from a mob and they might run away at which point you might be able to take over the farm cycle. But if your hit doesn't achieve that, your only choice is to run away or become a PKer immediately. Well, you could obviously be a dick and do the harassment technique that I wrote above, but rn I'm talking about a dude that might want to avoid doing that.
At the same time, doing a big hit on a green player lowers their chance of fighting back because they'll feel like it's an unfair situation. And hell, why should they even fight back right now, when they could just tank another hit and then try to kill a Red player and get way more loot off of them. "If the attacker already went red then they will obviously try to kill me, so I might as well fight back and get a chance at some juicy loot. They might even have stat dampen and I'm gonna win!"
And now you have a win-win situation for the green player and a lose-lose situation for the attacker.
In the current system, there's a choice for the attacker. Do you want to have a fair pvp? You do a small attack and give the target a chance to fight back. They didn't? Hit them again to tell them to scram. They still didn't fight back? Now's your main decision and risk-weighing. Do you go red to remove them or does the location not warrant the risk?
The other initial choice is to immediately hit them with your big abilities explicitly telling them you want to take over the farm. If the green player believes in their power, they might still fight back.
And from the pov of the green player in the current system they also have more choices. They might fight back right away if they like pvp. They might test the attacker's willingness to PK them. And even at the very end of that test, the green player still have the choice of "do I want to suffer normal penalties or do I want to lose half the stuff?"
In your system there's no such decision-making. For a green player (no matter where they are on the pvx spectrum) the best decision is to wait for the second hit and then start fighting back. If the second hit never comes, you just continue farming. If it comes, you can fight back w/o becoming a freebie for all the other people around you and you have a chance at juicy PKer loot.
And this decision tree only leads to more dissatisfaction on all sides. If the green player dies while trying to kill the Red, they lose more stuff. If the Red player kills their target, even if they might've just wanted to shoo them away, they'll be severely punished (well, on top of being punished for just hitting a dude twice). And any stronger player feels bad for wasting their time on becoming stronger, because that power is useless when you get punished for using it. The current situation already gives the opportunity to go into pvp with "proper intent". And the punishment is there to stop people from genociding everyone around them. And the tuning will be done during the alpha2 to figure out how much punishment should a kill give.
Dygz believes that the punishment will be so big that people rarely PK each other at all. I believe it'll be scaled depending on character lvl difference. Same-lvled people shouldn't get too much corruption, while killing a person a few lvls below you should give you quite a lot and killing someone >10 lvls below you should cripple you like a damn semi-truck running you over. The reality will probably be somewhere in-between, but I highly doubt it'll be punishing people for hitting others, because if Steven wanted that kind of system, he'd just implement a toggle or just have no pvp at all. And the current system encourages a fair fight way more than yours does. At least under the current penalties and their implementations. And I don't see a point in changing those as well, just to fit your system, when people haven't even tested the current one.
From my understanding of that flowchart, a green CANNOT kill a green. So I'm not sure I follow your argument.
"Ashes will not be for everyone. And that is ok." - Steven Sharif
Non-Combatants can't attack each other and remain Non-Combatants.
No. The goal is not met because if I can turn purple and get half the death penalties just for attacking a Red, I have no reason to continue to attack after I turn purple. And the attacker gets 4x the death penalties just for attacking me once.
Also, I'm not going to want people attacking me while I'm Purple.
But, when you say that the player who turns Red is met with more PvP, what you are really saying is that the players choose to PvP outside of Battlegrounds will be punished with 4x th death penalties merely for initiating PvP.
Which means no one will do that.
You are right here. Even though I stated a "second attack condition", my main goal for the condition is actually just somewhere "pre-death". I tend to simplify my point to not get so wordy. But I also see your argument for wanting death to be the condition, and I think its fair and already a good system.
You do have the experience of L2 so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right that it does make a fairer fight. I'm completely imagining the scenarios, for a combat system that hasn't been revealed yet.
I still would like to think there's a fine balance before the PK. We also don't know how the hp visibility will work either.
I also only ask this because I have friends that I would want to like the game, even though they're very much not into PvP. But that's because most MMO's have never had a solid world pvp mode that attracts casuals. And this game is very much built for casuals just as much for hardcore players, in terms of the intention.
I also forgot to ask Alacrite how would dots work in that system lol. Would that be one hit or several? Imagine becoming red because you missclicked and used a dot instead of a singular spell.
Explain your concept of "abusing the system" again, please?
I am humbled.
Thats true to my original post. but you replied to the one comment that said I was merely simplifying the base design choice. The condition for some level of corruption just has to be pre-death. In any system, there are gonna be holes for abuse. So i brought up the question to see if I can cover the hole that is a griefer dicking a pacifist as they try to do their own thing. If the game philosophy only want people turning purple because both players WANT to PvP, then i felt this might help further that cause.
The game is meant to draw in PvE'ers just as much I feel. I'm actually trying to look into modifications that fit their game philosophy. I could be wrong, but as far as I'm concerned, they're equally split and thats why they call the game a PvX game.
Initiating PvP doesn't turn you red in my case. PvP still only happens if green decides to attack purple. Its the point at which purple decides to give up that I'm trying to change. Well, that and also avoiding a purple poking a green as they fight mobs or something. possibly interrupting gathering if thats how that works.
Lets say I'm a griefer, and I don't like this person farming an area I want. Killing mobs that I want. Since they're a pacifist, I get met with no repercussions. So they try to farm something. I hit and interrupt it. Or if they tried to fight a mob. I blast them and CC them, take aggro of the mob to kill and farm it. This would happen in both systems. But I'm hoping my system minimizes it.
Thanks again. Will read in the morning.
As far as the flagging key I am sure keys will be rebindable so you can bind them as you wish.
At 1:09:00
I mean, to start, there is the logistical issue of the suggestion in the OP literally not being able to function.
Since everyone starts out as a green, if attacking a green automatically sets you as corrupt, there is no possible means of acquiring "combatant" status. Everyone will be green until someone attacks a green, in which case they will be corrupt. Any green player that attacks or kills a corrupt player would still remain a green.
There would literally be no possible way to become purple with the suggestion in the OP - without further changes to the system.
The measure of the punitive nature of the system will be less about being "red" alone, but more about what the consequence entails;
a) how much will drop from the red player at death,
b)how hard it will to reduce karma to zero to back non red status
c) how much effort is required to cleanse of kill totals... (equivalent of L2 sin eater quest)
Only really from that can it be gauged if the system provides the right balance. and hopefully the stats are tweaked by the gm`s from analytics gained in-game to maintain the right balance.
Lol. The whole point of this is just theorizing. Literally the first word of the title is "Wondering". I'm on an MMO's forum thinking about a system and design. This is for fun. It's dork shit. I love people coming in here and trying to "own me" for having a thought
There actually was a slight misunderstanding in the beginning so if you read through the WHOLE thing that makes sense. But I did understand it quickly. And ultimately the point the stayed the same. Just extending corruption to a situation where a green's experience is being attacked and seeing how that works with the philosophy of keeping PvP'ers and PvE'er enjoying their own thing.