Jail and bounty hunter as punishment for corrupted players

Ludullu

Sophisticus wrote: »

This is the kind of suggestions that I like to hear. That might be a good alternative. Can you describe this more precisely what you mean by "tied to your "jury ""?

Just apply the same "a few random people who signed up get picked" mechanic to the social org that's responsible for PK count decreasing quest. A PKer comes to the NPC and wants to decrease his count. The NPC then assigns several people (from the list) that the PKer has to trade/talk with. The trading would be tracked by the system and would set a value to the PK count amount that is then applied to the resources being traded (prices correlated through the node's local market). The person assigned through the quest tells the PKer which resource they need and the PKer then has to acquire the number of resources that would equal the value of his PK count that was set by the system.

The "talking" part could be a party quest/farm/boss with the assigned person that reward the assigned person with something (can be whatever) and counts towards PKers "deeds".

After all those things are done, the PKer returns to the original NPC and gets his count reduced.

At least that's how I'd do it. Obviously Intrepid have their own ideas for it and I hope they're better than what I came up with on the spot.

Tulima

I skipped some pages of this discussion but here are my 2 cents.

I played Archeage back in the day and thought the jail system was fun. As a Juror, it felt great giving a PKer the maximum sentence whilst they were begging and pleading. It was hilarious to be set free as a criminal because I was lucky enough to have friends/guildmates assigned as jurors.

I remember one time my guild collaborated with the pirate faction and a lot of us died and were sent to court. However, the jurors were all friends and we were set free while the entire faction chat was malding.

Admittedly, the jail system did not stop crime(PK, thieving, etc) from happening. If you got caught for stealing you'd get a sentence of about 15min I would just AFK, watch a youtube video, and be free.
If I PK'd and got a longer sentence, the same thing I'd AFK, buy groceries or hit the gym or whatever.

This is why ashes should NOT have a jail system because it encourages the player to NOT play. If a player accumulates too much corruption then he must actually work to get rid of it, in contrast to a jail system where you can just go afk.

TLDR: Jail is a fun system but not good at deterring PKing

superhero6785

Jail sounds like "temporary ban" to me. No, I don't think banning players for playing a feature of the game (open world PvP) is a good idea. Corruption already has its punishments tied to it, the severity of which still needs tested/balanced.

akabear

Honestly, a little corruption is ok, but impeding a healthy amount of pk`ing will be bad for the game. It`s a balance that L2 got wrong at the start, and right in the middle and no idea about now.

In L2 for the clan and alliance member, pk`ing was more a warring, political, ransoms, extortion, territorial grab, region defending, ending wars, starting wars, spy/bot/thief reprimanding tool than just simple griefing. Generally, griefing was held accountable by the community, so if not authorized by clan and not a clan to stand by you, the community dealt with the player.

The structure of AoC appears to be heading the same direction as L2, and if the above game elements develop similar importance, then pk`ing will be a necessary evil. Without, little gravity to political decisions.

It essentially created the necessary drama to bind allegiances and divide communities and keep a constant evolving drama to return to each play!

Is anyone that is against it also a past L2 player?

PenguinPaladin

Sophisticus wrote: »

I am not primarily suggesting this jail system to satisfying Rper. the RPer was just a addition reason. It is about replacing an automated system with a player driven one that gave the players responsibility and decision -making. if u have a other idea that give us that, then good. its dont need to be a prison.

I would argue the curruption system is a system that makes players activly make decisions.

The difference being when the decision making happens. With curruption in place as is, the decisions made by those willing to become currupt and they balance the pro's and con's of doing so. And players still make decisions on how to treat a currupt player. You can run in terror, fight back, try and lead others to them.

I dont see this as a forced automated system of punishment. I see it as allowing the world at large to react to you breaking a law of nature.

I dont support your jail/council trial idea, and the RP one is the most obvious stance to attack, that is why i have been targeting it.

But my next attack is just "who cares" the only people who would have to deal with your trial idea are those going red and breaking rules. Before this trial system exists, no player going red wants to have to deal with 20-30 minutes of social interaction before they are even punished.... and thats if they get into their trial immediately. Having a trial system is just a huge turn away to more casual players that end up having to spend their time there.



You act like curruption is an automated system forced on the player. When its not. The curruption system is a punishment system however it doesnt decide anything on its own. Its the doorway you get to look at, inspect, and debait if crossing it is worth anything to you. And you are still given the option to make that decision. And if you make that decision doesnt decide your fate. You arent just killed, you dont become helpless. You are left to the world, to react to your actions. If you the player, want to argue, make deals, run and hide, or fight for your life while red. Do it.


The difference is time taken, and the "forced" aspect. With the curruption system as is. Its instant. Talk to the bounty hunter after you. Try and make deals. Its instant. Now do they have to respond to you? No. Because no one should be forced to play how you want to play. But in a social setting it can happen.

In your purposed idea, even without the jail. You are asking for, a fight with Bounty hunters, where when you lose you HAVE to interact with some sort of trial to decide your punishment. Its just a whole unnecessary, and foced step. To the punishment system, that already allows you to attempt this type of begging for mercy, before you are killed...


I would argue, bounty hunting shouldnt be all that rewarding. It should be titles. And maybe some gold from the nodes if they want to invest some taxes towards rewarding bounty hunters. Rewarding people too much for hunting reds allows for abuse of the system, and make people want others to go red. Which works directly against the fact that foing red is just a punishment

Nerror

Dolyem wrote: »

Hard no on the prisons. "timeout" is not a suitable punishment seeing as its basically a soft ban for a period of time for participating in the games intended features.

Yeah I agree with this. No jail or timeout.

Dygz

I don't understand what a jail system has to do with RP.
Especially since most people will just log out or play an alt while waiting for the jail time to expire.

PenguinPaladin

Dygz wrote: »

I don't understand what a jail system has to do with RP.
Especially since most people will just log out or play an alt while waiting for the jail time to expire.

He only wants the jail so there can be a trial...

He only wants the trial so the players can decide punishment... aka, i want to greive some players, and let my friends off easy...

Which is all just too abusable, and pointless in the overall aspect of the game. In my opinion. Even if a handful find it "fun"