Jail and bounty hunter as punishment for corrupted players

I love all the concepts of AOC. It seems to me to be the MMORPG that the players give the freedom, possibility, responsibility and social interactions back that are missing in almost all today's MMORPG.

The only system, as far as I inform me, is the PvP Flagged system (non-combat, combat, corrupted). It will probably be a good system to punish Ganker, but I am against that the system itself (by debuffs, gradation of equipment, half-loot drop) punishes the Corrupted players. This would be an automated system, similar to BDO, that players would take responsibility and possibility to solve such problems.

Instead, I would like the punishment to be shifted to the Bounty Hunter System with the addition of a player driven jail system (similar to Archeage).

The Corrupted Player would not only have the Bounty Hunter as a punishment, but also the prison, depending on the severity of his crime.

This would bring significantly more responsibility and social interactions to the players than a currupt system that weakens you with debuffs and bounty hunters who kill you. After that there would be no consequences.

In order for all of this to work, the bounty hunters must also be rewarded very well, so that there are more bounty hunters than Ganker.

What do u guys think about that?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sophisticus

NiKr wrote: »

A huge guild just registers as jury (upwards of multiple hundred people potentially) and can pretty much control the entire process, just based on the statistical possibility of their members getting picked to be the juror on any given case.

At that point you're literally giving those "mafia" guilds the power to control who gets punished and who doesn't. The "RPers love this mechanic" is cool and all, but when a huge hardcore guild is abusing said mechanic it's no longer just an RP thing.

And I know what exactly Steven is talking about in that quote. I've been on the both sides of the "big guild crumbles under its own weight" situation, but that usually happens when there's limited resources in the game or if some party in the guild feels like they were fucked over. But I really don't see how a "sign up as a juror and keep saying everyone's innocent" order from the GL could destroy a guild But what that order would destroy is any casual's existence on the server, because the whole system would be flawed.

Afaik AA had a faction-based pvp system and you could only PK people on your own side in particular circumstances (correct me if I'm wrong), while in Ashes literally anyone can kill literally anyone else. It's not like you'd be going against your own people, but instead you could just kill whoever and then walk free because your huge guild took up the majority of jury signups.

As for time wasting, going to jail for 30 minutes is literally nothing to me if it allows me to kill dozens of people w/o any punishment. The current system is in place to minimize those exact situations, while this prison system doesn't seem to do that at all, unless you somehow control who exactly gets on the jury instead of it being purely random. And the "witness" part is still flawed because, as I said, the criminal's friends could just support him always.

As I have said several times: If you throw away any idea and system in AoC because it is susceptible to exploit or abuses, then we probably would not have a MMORPG like AoC, but again an MMORPG like any other.

Maybe there are opportunities to realize this idea, maybe not. Perhaps the players just have to stick together if such a guild are mafias. You have to fight them and take there influence. That is something that will be possible in AoC. For example: only members of the guild who own a node can become a jury. As soon as the guild loses its influence in the node, there will also bea new guild, new jury members who hopefully will not be so corrupted. I think its all up to the players. The game only has to give the players the opportunity.

Mag7spy

They had jail in BDO, it was one of the most dumb wasting things in attempt to stop pvp. So not only are you are wasting 30 minutes in jail plus the jury time. Sounds absolutely terrible, and it won't stop pvp it would just cause everyone to attack each other since there aren't item drops.

Only desire for this system so you can mass pvp kill people and if you out gear people no one can stop you. And when you go to jail you just get some food, take a break for a bit and come back and do it again.

If you think the corruption system is too strong, voice your thoughts on that and through testing hopefully there will be a good balance in allowing pks and reducing griefing to the extent devs want.

Sophisticus

Mag7spy wrote: »

They had jail in BDO, it was one of the most dumb wasting things in attempt to stop pvp. So not only are you are wasting 30 minutes in jail plus the jury time. Sounds absolutely terrible, and it won't stop pvp it would just cause everyone to attack each other since there aren't item drops.

The problem with BDO and AA Jails system is that it wasn't hard enough. The karma system in BDO (from which AOC's flagged system is inspired) is also not punishing enough. The idea itself can be daunting enough, you just have to implement it well.

Mag7spy wrote: »

Only desire for this system so you can mass pvp kill people and if you out gear people no one can stop you. And when you go to jail you just get some food, take a break for a bit and come back and do it again.

In AA, every player had a criminal record. The jury could see how often and why this player was put into prison. So if someone kept killing innocent people, the jury has increased their time in prison. From me you can also make it 1 day in prison.

Mag7spy wrote: »

If you think the corruption system is too strong, voice your thoughts on that and through testing hopefully there will be a good balance in allowing pks and reducing griefing to the extent devs want.

I don't think the punishments are too high. I think it's just boring to be punished in this way.

Ludullu

Sophisticus wrote: »

For example: only members of the guild own a node can become a jury. As soon as the guild loses its influence in the node, there will also bea new guild, new jury members who hopefully will not be so corrupted. I think its all up to the players.

Except guilds do not control or own nodes. The best they can do is take up as many citizenships as monetarily possible and be "effective" rulers, but unless someone destroys the node, I doubt they'd just leave it.

As for removal of exploitable systems, we don't necessarily need to remove them, but we should minimize the potential of those exploits. Or at least decrease their severity to the minimum. The currently proposed system already has a fairly low number of exploits, which can be minimized even further with just a few balancing touches.

The jail system seems to have much greater potential for abuse and exploitation, while providing much lesser punishment to the criminals, on top of the punishment itself being bad. The current punishment is just a multiplier on the death penalty. It doesn't change gameplay, it just provides a deterrent against those who want to go on killing sprees. The jail system would put a complete halt on any meaningful gameplay for those who PK rarely, while not being strong enough against those who want to PK often, on top of being way more abusable.

Both systems "waste" PKer's time. Except one does it in a non-gameplay-changing way, while the other just removes the player from the game. Though in the case of the latter, the removal would most likely be way more lax than the former's. Depending on balancing, the current system could set the PKer back by days worth of XP and potentially remove some of their gear, if they had enough corruption. If you had days' worth of jail time on a character - you've effectively banned a player for doing smth that the game allowed them to do. And if you give them a way to shorten that punishment greatly - you've now hasn't deterred them from doing such a thing again, because the punishment wasn't big enough.

My main point here is this: removing a player from meaningful gameplay is bad. And if you don't want your players to do smth that would warrant removal from gameplay - just don't allow them to do that thing at all.

Ludullu

Sophisticus wrote: »

The karma system in BDO (from which AOC's flagged system is inspired) is also not punishing enough.

It was L2 (maybe even L1) and not BDO. BDO took L2's system and bastardized it.

Sophisticus wrote: »

I don't think the punishments are too high. I think it's just boring to be punished in this way.

I find that a bit ironic

Mag7spy

1 day in prison LMFAO

No one:....

Mag7spy

Sounds like something you do when you can't create a good system to prevent griefing so you just make it so people can no longer play the game days at a time.

The whole point of jail was to give a short time period where the person wouldn't be able to grind in the zone as the zone space and amount of areas were limited so they didn't want people flagging every second. As when you flag in BDO the respawn point is like 30 seconds max from where you die.

Elder

I don't think anything like this would be a fun mechanic. Considering the punishments that intrepid have planned for griefing are already supposedly severe, this would most likely be an unnecessary system to incorporate as well.

If you want a jail for roleplaying purposes then maybe something like jailing temporarily banned accounts might be more appropriate. Although that's still unnecessary IMO.

Sophisticus

NiKr wrote: »

Except guilds do not control or own nodes. The best they can do is take up as many citizenships as monetarily possible and be "effective" rulers, but unless someone destroys the node, I doubt they'd just leave it.

Maybe they leave, maybe not. It depends on the players and other guilds who want to prevent Mafia Guilds influence.

NiKr wrote: »

As for removal of exploitable systems, we don't necessarily need to remove them, but we should minimize the potential of those exploits. Or at least decrease their severity to the minimum. The currently proposed system already has a fairly low number of exploits, which can be minimized even further with just a few balancing touches.
The jail system seems to have much greater potential for abuse and exploitation, while providing much lesser punishment to the criminals, on top of the punishment itself being bad. The current punishment is just a multiplier on the death penalty. It doesn't change gameplay, it just provides a deterrent against those who want to go on killing sprees. The jail system would put a complete halt on any meaningful gameplay for those who PK rarely, while not being strong enough against those who want to PK often, on top of being way more abusable.

Here I agree with you. The jail system have much more potential for abuse and exploitation and the current punishment not. Ultimately, it depends on whether it is worth adding such a system for the developers and players. In this case it would be worth it to me. It is even welcome by me that it is exploited. This creates the social dynamics that I want. Hopefully it will regulate itself through the players and guilds. It will of course be a constant up and down, but that is part of the vision of AOC. The current system is very static and automated. Something that does not match AoC´s conception imo.

Apart from that, I don't think such a jail system is less punishing. Depending on how long you are in jail, it is very punishing. It ultimately depends on the player-type. One feels more punished when he is taken away, the other feels more punished when he loses an item.

NiKr wrote: »

Both systems "waste" PKer's time. Except one does it in a non-gameplay-changing way, while the other just removes the player from the game. Though in the case of the latter, the removal would most likely be way more lax than the former's. Depending on balancing, the current system could set the PKer back by days worth of XP and potentially remove some of their gear, if they had enough corruption.

I also agree with this. The current system is punishing enough. I never said anything else. I just want to be punished in a different way.

NiKr wrote: »

If you had days' worth of jail time on a character - you've effectively banned a player for doing smth that the game allowed them to do. And if you give them a way to shorten that punishment greatly - you've now hasn't deterred them from doing such a thing again, because the punishment wasn't big enough.

NiKr wrote: »

My main point here is this: removing a player from meaningful gameplay is bad. And if you don't want your players to do smth that would warrant removal from gameplay - just don't allow them to do that thing at all.

You rationalize the matter too much ^^ I want the players become criminals. The jail system is there for that. Otherwise you could stay with the current system. For many players, this system could become a content that is fun while it is punishing the criminals. Win-win i guess. And just because the game is allowed to make such things that don't mean that they have to do it. We would not have to punish them either.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Potatoh potahto, Dygz. It's about the pov. The point is, you're punished for dying. A "criminal" that attacks other people gets less of a punishment than a non-criminal does and a murderer gets an even bigger punishment - and that is not how irl works, while this prison system tries to imitate real life.

That's not potatoh, potahto.
There are death penalties for dying.
Combatants get half the normal death penalties.
Non-combatants get normal death penalties.
Corrupted get 4x the normal death penalties.

I dunno why you are referring to a player who attacks another player as a criminal. What is criminal about that? That is fair play.

A player character who kills a Non-Combatant is a criminal punished with Corruption and 4x the normal death penalty. Sure.

We don't pee or poop or vomit in Ashes - and that's not how real life works, either.
There is no reason to have a prison system in Ashes. Steven wants us to be actively doing stuff, rather than not doing stuff. Player agency is a high values in Ashes.

unknownsystemerror

Ludullu

Dygz wrote: »

We don't pee or poop or vomit in Ashes - and that's not how real life works, either.
There is no reason to have a prison system in Ashes. Steven wants us to be actively doing stuff, rather than not doing stuff. Player agency is a high values in Ashes.

Literally my point and we have the same view on the suggested system, but yet again you're stuck on semantics.

CROW3

This idea is like a band-aid on a gunshot wound.

If the premise is that ‘corruption doesn’t work as intended’ the solution isn’t ‘we need to add another system to deter griefing’ - the solution is to adjust the corruption system.

If the corruption system fails, the owpvp pillar of Ashes will very likely fail as well.

Dygz

NiKr wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

We don't pee or poop or vomit in Ashes - and that's not how real life works, either.
There is no reason to have a prison system in Ashes. Steven wants us to be actively doing stuff, rather than not doing stuff. Player agency is a high values in Ashes.

Literally my point and we have the same view on the suggested system, but yet again you're stuck on semantics.

LMAO
Or maybe you're not great at stating points?

Sylvanar

Your suggestion almost single handedly cripples open world PvP. Prison would be such a big deterrent that gankers would probably quit the game or will just create 3-4 characters and cycle through them if they are motivated enough.

Even though I am more of a PvE and organised PvP player, this is just too much. So, HARD NO from me. It will literally kill the game. You might as well ask IS to remove the owPvP.

Edit: Your idea is literally GREIFING ON STEROIDS disguised as rp-ing as Jury... smh

PenguinPaladin

Otr wrote: »

Also why use the word "ganking" for something which is normal PvP?
The fun of one player is to fight. Why take that fun away?
I would rather create areas on the map where the peaceful player can have fun too and be protected by strong NPCs. And another area where PvP-ers can fight as much as they want without getting corruption, until they get the daily amount of PvP fun they need and go and do PvX with everybody.
For some reason players on this forum do not like this suggestion.

Ill try and keep it short because its not the thread topic.

But people dont like this segregation of zones, because we want just a world. What rules there are in said world should be a blanket, Should be in effect everywhere. And the social structure in the game should make the variations you are suggesting.

PenguinPaladin

Otr wrote: »

PenguinPaladin wrote: »

Otr wrote: »

Also why use the word "ganking" for something which is normal PvP?
The fun of one player is to fight. Why take that fun away?
I would rather create areas on the map where the peaceful player can have fun too and be protected by strong NPCs. And another area where PvP-ers can fight as much as they want without getting corruption, until they get the daily amount of PvP fun they need and go and do PvX with everybody.
For some reason players on this forum do not like this suggestion.

Ill try and keep it short because its not the thread topic.

But people dont like this segregation of zones, because we want just a world. What rules there are in said world should be a blanket, Should be in effect everywhere. And the social structure in the game should make the variations you are suggesting.

There are more advantages than disadvantages in my suggestion.
It is weakly related to this thread, being an alternative way to help people play as they want.
But you can bump my thread if you want to discuss it. I am not bumping it.
Sorry for not answering there at that time when you posted.

The reason why im no longer watching that thread or care to talk about it is even with points to argue against your idea, you say you believe your idea is better and they can and should just change everything else to suit it.

So there is no discussion to be had. You think your right, i think your wrong. Cool.

Mag7spy

All i saw was you could be in jail for a whole day, that was the moment this idea was trash.

PenguinPaladin

Mag7spy wrote: »

All i saw was you could be in jail for a whole day, that was the moment this idea was trash.

Is pointless really. If curruption gives you enough negative exp that you have a few hours of gringing to do then whats the point of a jail?

Sylvanar

Otr wrote: »

Also why use the word "ganking" for something which is normal PvP?
The fun of one player is to fight. Why take that fun away?
I would rather create areas on the map where the peaceful player can have fun too and be protected by strong NPCs. And another area where PvP-ers can fight as much as they want without getting corruption, until they get the daily amount of PvP fun they need and go and do PvX with everybody.
For some reason players on this forum do not like this suggestion.

Your suggestion would create a PvP zone and PvE zone.

AoC is a PvX game. So this zoning thing falls flat right here. PvX is not optional. Sure you can take measures to play what you want but you cant segregate yourself from the world with 100% certainty. AoC is not for people who want PvE exclusively. They need to find other games.

Child Item