I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?
I think the penalties for both non-combatant death and corruption need to be equally severe. The PKer needs to have to think twice before going corrupted, and the non-combatant really needs to have to think twice to not defend themselves. This would be the only way this system would work to actively stop greifers and encourage pvp out of the non-combatants.
Non-Combatant is not an unwanted or negative behavior. There’s no reason it would or should be punished.
PKing a Non-Combatant is an unwanted, negative behavior. It is punished as such and should be.
Fighting back is already encouraged via reduced death penalties. If a player sees someone not fighting back, it’s safe to assume they have nothing of significant value worth defending (or you have royally pissed them off enough for them to choose to inflict Corruption over protecting their items), and if you continue to kill them you deserve the punishment for negative behavior. I’m getting tired of this “uwu what do you mean I get punishing for PKing” stuff that keeps popping up
I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?
I think the penalties for both non-combatant death and corruption need to be equally severe. The PKer needs to have to think twice before going corrupted, and the non-combatant really needs to have to think twice to not defend themselves. This would be the only way this system would work to actively stop greifers and encourage pvp out of the non-combatants.
Non-Combatant is not an unwanted or negative behavior. There’s no reason it would or should be punished.
PKing a Non-Combatant is an unwanted, negative behavior. It is punished as such and should be.
Fighting back is already encouraged via reduced death penalties. If a player sees someone not fighting back, it’s safe to assume they have nothing of significant value worth defending (or you have royally pissed them off enough for them to choose to inflict Corruption over protecting their items), and if you continue to kill them you deserve the punishment for negative behavior. I’m getting tired of this “uwu what do you mean I get punishing for PKing” stuff that keeps popping up
What i mean is, the reduction in dropped goods when fighting back needs to be enough of a reduction to give non-combatants a tough choice.
"Do I make this attacker go red, or do I keep 25% (or whatever the reduction ends up becoming) more of my gathered mats/gold"?
If the normal dealth penalty is 50% of gathered mats for instance, and the reduction in penalty only makes it 40%, of gathered mats, most non-combatants will likely stay green because what is an extra 10% when you can punish this attacker? But if it reduces to 20%-25%, that might be enough of an incentive to fight back.
The corruption system is ok but a once per hour free no penalty pvp action would be cool. Allow for a little bit of extra fun once in a while without thinking you're losing something.
The scenario that I keep going over (particularly if stealth is in the game) is the one in which a PKer attacks someone who is roleplaying as a lumberjack. The lumberjack, being a fairly normal person, attacks back. Then becomes flagged for PvP. The PKer's stealthy buddies jump in and no one gets corruption. People who don't think that PvP is going to end up boiling down to this are wishful thinkers. The idea doesn't scare me, but it will limit who is willing to put time into the game.
I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?
I think the penalties for both non-combatant death and corruption need to be equally severe. The PKer needs to have to think twice before going corrupted, and the non-combatant really needs to have to think twice to not defend themselves. This would be the only way this system would work to actively stop greifers and encourage pvp out of the non-combatants.
...
PKing a Non-Combatant is an unwanted, negative behavior. It is punished as such and should be.
...
The PK-er wants it.
Some Non-Combatants want it too, in the form of possibility.
Steven wants it as a risk feature of the game.
September 12. 2022: Being naked can also be used to bring a skilled artisan to different freeholds... Don't summon family!
The corruption system is ok but a once per hour free no penalty pvp action would be cool. Allow for a little bit of extra fun once in a while without thinking you're losing something.
The problem here is that while you are giving a would-be attacker some freedom, you are taking some freedom away from the would be attackee.
In the context of PvP, this will always be the case. Any time you give one side something, you are taking that same thing away from the other side.
"It would be cool if" needs to be balanced on both sides. It would be cool if you could attack someone without corruption, but perhaps to balance that out it would be cool if someone could give you corruption without you attacking them.
I'm not a fan of opt-in PvP. In fact, I'm a bit concerned that if the impact of corruption is too great and the penalties for dying as a non-combatant too small, then we'll effectively have recreated an opt-in PvP system. Who would want to risk gaining corruption if they have to farm XP for a few days to get rid of it? Who would choose to fight back when they can just let the person debuff themselves with corruption without losing much themselves?
There's plenty of opportunities to PvP gatheres, because there are areas and circunstances in which he green flag becomes purple automatically
I liked Ultima Online, you gank someone and you become red, then you can't enter regular cities, you can only enter the pk city
But it's kinda crazy thinking that people can respawn and gank others over and over, i don't think that is griefing, but it's kinda crazy that we have this system called respawn. People don't gank others non stop in real life because there's no respawn in real life lol
I am a bit against corruption, I would prefer putting people in jail and lynching them when they leave
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
you can always become a bounty hunter, it will automaticly flag you and other bounty hunters for pvp
or on the open sea you will also flag automaticly. plenty of opertunity for that
the beginning of wisdom is to know you know nothing
you can always become a bounty hunter, it will automaticly flag you and other bounty hunters for pvp or on the open sea you will also flag automaticly. plenty of opertunity for that
Just to clarify, BHs are flagged against PKers only, not others.
There already is an opt in/out system for PVP in Ashes of Creation.
Opt In. Log into game
Opt Out. Log out of game.
This isn't snark. This is the actual system in place right now.
Yep. Especially with the Open Seas auto-flag PvP.
@Dygz - Hello my friend. I've been scouring the wiki and cannot seem to find anything about auto-flagging when gathering. Now I don't mean this in a toxic way or to trigger you as I understand your stance on PvP-centric games, to which I hold the same sentiment.
I was however thinking about the land management system in it's fledgling state and what the counter measure is or could be to stop rival node citizens from griefing an enemy nodes defenders with the punishment of corruption for trying to defend against over farming within their ZOI.
The scenario I have envisioned in my head is a node sends hordes of players into another nodes ZOI to exhaust their rivals resources in a very short amount of time, without really aiming to gather resources but with the goal of completely disrupting the enemy nodes advancement.
Therefore, any defenders of said node could be punished with corruption should they decide to attack the over gathering enemy if the gatherers all commit to not attacking back "for the greater good", potentially weakening their enemies to a point where you could simply run over them for resources due to debuff's imposed by corruption. The enemy would possibly still get away with 50% of their materials, but the node defenders will have gained corruption. It could be argued that gaining corruption is a harsher punishment to deal with than just letting the land be ravaged and waiting for scraps to trickle in. Would this mean that you would have to completely abandon the land around your node in order to gather resources from another? Would it mean that gathering is in-fact a smaller contribution to a nodes advancement than I anticipate? Or perhaps I'm interpreting this all wrong in which I sincerely apologise!
If anyone else could perhaps shed some light on this scenario and if it has already been clarified it would be much appreciated.
Comments
Non-Combatant is not an unwanted or negative behavior. There’s no reason it would or should be punished.
PKing a Non-Combatant is an unwanted, negative behavior. It is punished as such and should be.
Fighting back is already encouraged via reduced death penalties. If a player sees someone not fighting back, it’s safe to assume they have nothing of significant value worth defending (or you have royally pissed them off enough for them to choose to inflict Corruption over protecting their items), and if you continue to kill them you deserve the punishment for negative behavior. I’m getting tired of this “uwu what do you mean I get punishing for PKing” stuff that keeps popping up
What i mean is, the reduction in dropped goods when fighting back needs to be enough of a reduction to give non-combatants a tough choice.
"Do I make this attacker go red, or do I keep 25% (or whatever the reduction ends up becoming) more of my gathered mats/gold"?
If the normal dealth penalty is 50% of gathered mats for instance, and the reduction in penalty only makes it 40%, of gathered mats, most non-combatants will likely stay green because what is an extra 10% when you can punish this attacker? But if it reduces to 20%-25%, that might be enough of an incentive to fight back.
Some Non-Combatants want it too, in the form of possibility.
Steven wants it as a risk feature of the game.
The problem here is that while you are giving a would-be attacker some freedom, you are taking some freedom away from the would be attackee.
In the context of PvP, this will always be the case. Any time you give one side something, you are taking that same thing away from the other side.
"It would be cool if" needs to be balanced on both sides. It would be cool if you could attack someone without corruption, but perhaps to balance that out it would be cool if someone could give you corruption without you attacking them.
There's plenty of opportunities to PvP gatheres, because there are areas and circunstances in which he green flag becomes purple automatically
I liked Ultima Online, you gank someone and you become red, then you can't enter regular cities, you can only enter the pk city
But it's kinda crazy thinking that people can respawn and gank others over and over, i don't think that is griefing, but it's kinda crazy that we have this system called respawn. People don't gank others non stop in real life because there's no respawn in real life lol
I am a bit against corruption, I would prefer putting people in jail and lynching them when they leave
or on the open sea you will also flag automaticly. plenty of opertunity for that
@Dygz - Hello my friend. I've been scouring the wiki and cannot seem to find anything about auto-flagging when gathering. Now I don't mean this in a toxic way or to trigger you as I understand your stance on PvP-centric games, to which I hold the same sentiment.
I was however thinking about the land management system in it's fledgling state and what the counter measure is or could be to stop rival node citizens from griefing an enemy nodes defenders with the punishment of corruption for trying to defend against over farming within their ZOI.
The scenario I have envisioned in my head is a node sends hordes of players into another nodes ZOI to exhaust their rivals resources in a very short amount of time, without really aiming to gather resources but with the goal of completely disrupting the enemy nodes advancement.
Therefore, any defenders of said node could be punished with corruption should they decide to attack the over gathering enemy if the gatherers all commit to not attacking back "for the greater good", potentially weakening their enemies to a point where you could simply run over them for resources due to debuff's imposed by corruption. The enemy would possibly still get away with 50% of their materials, but the node defenders will have gained corruption. It could be argued that gaining corruption is a harsher punishment to deal with than just letting the land be ravaged and waiting for scraps to trickle in. Would this mean that you would have to completely abandon the land around your node in order to gather resources from another? Would it mean that gathering is in-fact a smaller contribution to a nodes advancement than I anticipate? Or perhaps I'm interpreting this all wrong in which I sincerely apologise!
If anyone else could perhaps shed some light on this scenario and if it has already been clarified it would be much appreciated.