My take on the flagging system

I just wrote a quick google doc for my take on the flagging system.

That doc is not complete and my english is bad. The system is not flawless and suggestions for improvements are welcome.

If you think its shit pls let me know why :-) i mean it could be

https://docs.google.com/document/d/10SYzPCrJ487tV9AbDjl_fouNClMnz-uHmwN6bwSo27A/edit?usp=sharing

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Serithis

Jahad wrote: »

Well you are right, for sure. I wrote it on google docs because its easier to read and write :-)
Maybe ill redo it for the forum.

Well to point out a quick error in your google doc, how can someone have different colored names for different flags, while also having a color for deciding whether or not they're in combat? you can't be red and blue or green at the same time

Ludullu

Serithis wrote: »

you can't be red and blue or green at the same time

Well that's where you're factually wrong. We gamers are RGB kind of entities. We're the rainbow itself

Jahad

Serithis wrote: »

Jahad wrote: »

Well you are right, for sure. I wrote it on google docs because its easier to read and write :-)
Maybe ill redo it for the forum.

Well to point out a quick error in your google doc, how can someone have different colored names for different flags, while also having a color for deciding whether or not they're in combat? you can't be red and blue or green at the same time

?
I dont see it. If you refer to the second table i wrote right above it assuming you have to flag yourself Combat.

Otherwise a noncombat is of course green.

I didnt include red players at all. The second i have more information about the whole corruption system i could add more. but its seems that is not neccesary. At least not at the moment :-)

NiKr wrote: »

Serithis wrote: »

you can't be red and blue or green at the same time

Well that's where you're factually wrong. We gamers are RGB kind of entities. We're the rainbow itself

Yep, we are the Rainbow :-)

Depraved

Jahad wrote: »

tautau wrote: »

My first impression is that it adds a lot of complication without giving us any benefit. Could you explain why we care who is the attacker or defender? I agree that your proposed system gives us more information, but I do not see how it is generally Useful information. Since the current PK count already adds punishment to particularly bad/red players, how does your calculations of how much corruption to assign improve upon the current system?

Thanks, TT

The question is who gets corrupted? If a 2 man party kills another player does only the killer get corruption or both ?

My proposed system ensures that if you are an very aggresive player ( you open up most of the fights against unsuspecting targets or help the attacker more often than the defender) you will get punished at some point, even if most of the time you dont personally kill the target.

But like i allready wrote, its not done and for sure flawed :-)

Thanks for the feedback

why? what if the attacker is the underdog. maybe he got killed by the defender before, and now he is trying to get his farming spot back, and he is also lower level and undergeared. why punish people for helping either side moe than the others?

Jahad

If it is close to the original attack there should be no problem. One could expand the system with a timer so that the original attacker doesnt lose its flag for about 10 minutes or so and the timer will get renewed the second you attack him.

If your Revenge is, lets say, 5 days later. we could add RevengePoints, so that if you attack him first you still get the attacker flag but not the ATTPoints and so on and so forth.

The problem here is that the system might get overly complicated when we just assume things, they need to be calculated through.

Serithis

NiKr wrote: »

Serithis wrote: »

you can't be red and blue or green at the same time

Well that's where you're factually wrong. We gamers are RGB kind of entities. We're the rainbow itself

Guess it is a bit harder to avoid the RGB these days lol. It sounds like a new RGBTQ

Serithis

One place I do have to correct myself, I think I get what he meant. Criminals would stay red, but innocent players would switch between a non-combat or combat flagging except for these scenarios where criminals are involved with flag defending and attacking, it just wouldn't be necessary unless it was a type of political conflict that distinguished itself separate from just being a typical criminal. But whatever side a criminal joins, it's not going to impact the fact of their status.

Hartwell

There are benefits of differentiating combatants on the offensive and the defensive. It makes it easier to program guards to attack the offending player, instead of attacking defensive players. It allows for disorganized players to assemble more effectively in an otherwise hectic situation, instead of a lone player striking another in a crowded area and eventually everyone ending up purple. It would make attacking another have a more guaranteed risk of other players assisting those on the defensive, which would lean towards more order and peaceful conduct in populated areas. It aligns with the goals of the current system.

That said, I feel like there could be a way to simplify this concept even further. The combatant status could just be split into two states. This would make it easier for players to understand what is going on.

CROW3

Hartwell wrote: »

This would make it easier for players to understand what is going on.

If you kill a green, you’ll gain corruption. If you heal the dude that kills the green you’ll gain corruption.

Why does that need to be simplified?

Edit: healing doesn’t incur corruption. Thx @NiKr

Ludullu

CROW3 wrote: »

If you heal the dude that kills the green you’ll gain corruption.

Why does that need to be simplified?

You're making a suggestion there, right? Cause this is not the case rn.

CROW3

Gah! Thanks, @NiKr. Conflated a conversation earlier with the wiki reference.

Even more simple.

Child Item