Attacking your citizens is bad

If attacking fellow citizens is possible, I think it should be denied.

What do you think?
Any reason to want to kill players in your node?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

Strevi wrote: »

If attacking fellow citizens is possible, I think it should be denied.

What do you think?
Any reason to want to kill players in your node?

Bad faith actors...

Internal disputes that could be handled by easy PvP conflicts...

If we can't throw someone out of a Node by 'vote' or something, might need a method for dealing with them...

I'm fine with increased penalties for attacking them. I'm fine with GREATLY increased penalties such as corruption or anything else someone wants to come up with.

In some cases intra-node PvP will be a SOLUTION to internal node strife, not a problem. In others it will be borderline harrassment (not true harrassment because they could leave and that's the whole point of doing it).

I prefer if we're able to do it generally, unless we're going to make entire 'police' systems within the game code to grant specific players the Monopoly on Internal-Node Violence.

EDIT: Clarification - speaking only for myself, NOT for my group, in this thread. They may be along.

Ludullu

I'd probably link this to Intrepid's reasoning for inability to flag on your party/guild/ally/raid-mates. Intrepid say they want node relationships to pretty much supersede all the other ones. So why can we flag on node-mates, but not on others?

If inability to flag is there to prevent exploits of some kind - does this not apply to nodemates too? And if it doesn't apply to them then I think Intrepid should stop saying that node relationships are more important than guild/ally ones.

Strevi

Azherae wrote: »

If we can't throw someone out of a Node by 'vote' or something, might need a method for dealing with them...

We can talk with the metropolis' mayor to send inquisition, preferably from a military node, if the mini nation has one.

Strevi

NiKr wrote: »

I'd probably link this to Intrepid's reasoning for inability to flag on your party/guild/ally/raid-mates. Intrepid say they want node relationships to pretty much supersede all the other ones. So why can we flag on node-mates, but not on others?

If inability to flag is there to prevent exploits of some kind - does this not apply to nodemates too? And if it doesn't apply to them then I think Intrepid should stop saying that node relationships are more important than guild/ally ones.

But do you want to be able to kill your citizens or attack their caravans?
The game tries to bring players together... even those who do not want to be part of a guild:

Solo players
Ashes of Creation provides gameplay options for solo oriented players.[3]
...
Node citizenship and social organizations provide the ability to interact without the strong bonds that typically come with guild-oriented organizations.[3][12]

Ludullu

Strevi wrote: »

But do you want to be able to kill your citizens or attack their caravans?
The game tries to bring players together... even those who do not want to be part of a guild

I want to be able to kill anyone I want. But there's certain abuses related to that kind of freedom. Intrepid decided to limit those abuses to a certain extent and I want to hear the exact reasoning, so I can make a decision whether I agree with it and whether it would apply to node relationships as well.

JamesSunderland

I believe the most common thing that will lead fellow node citizens to fight each other will be the greedy desire to monopolize certain areas(may it be because of its monsters or natural resources) aswell as to take over personal caravans for personal benefit.

I believe restricting fellow citizens from having conflicts, limits individual freedom and responsability.

But i believe that excessively attacking your fellow node dwellers should eventually turn you into an Enemy of the State.

Strevi

Azherae wrote: »

I'm fine with increased penalties for attacking them. I'm fine with GREATLY increased penalties such as corruption or anything else someone wants to come up with.

Hmm... I am fine with decreased penalties for attacking citizens of other nodes.

George_Black

This isn't a faction based pvp mmo like eso and wow.

I will attack whoever I want or need to. Why the hell would you want to prevent that?

Solvryn

Strevi wrote: »

If attacking fellow citizens is possible, I think it should be denied.

What do you think?
Any reason to want to kill players in your node?

Yeah, if they’re being pricks and disrupting the node is a great damn reason to drop them.

Taleof2Cities

George_Black wrote: »

I will attack whoever I want or need to. Why the hell would you want to prevent that?

Sometimes sifting everything down into its simplest and purest form can provide that "a-ha" moment.

Strevi

George_Black wrote: »

This isn't a faction based pvp mmo like eso and wow.

If you attack caravans, your reputation goes down against that node which sent the caravan. Then you can become permanently flagged against some nodes only, which you see as your enemies.

George_Black wrote: »

I will attack whoever I want or need to. Why the hell would you want to prevent that?

The game tries to bring people together. Not all people but those who belong to the same node. That is a core pillar of the game.
By Steven's definition, attacking your own citizens would be griefing:
It is something that is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1]

Xenra

Makes me wonder how a person allied to one node will be treated by another's npcs. Could you be a wandering merchant of sorts and travel between each peacefully? Or say you are and native players to the node attack you within the city. Does the guard then watch as the foreigner is murdered or interject? Or even rival guilds within the same large node is it more that the guards are just a part of the environment there to tell me where the inn is located or will there actually be more than reputation bars and corruption levels?

Kilion

Let me quickly say: I'm against disabling the option of attacking fellow citizens. I don't like it but I would rather see a solution within the game rather than on the technical level.
There are a couple of interesting points in this I was thinking about.

Do I know which Node someone is a citizen of? If so: How do I know?

I first have to know that someone is part of my node or not to make the decision to kill (or not to kill) them based on such an affiliation.

This creates obviously interesting options. I might allow people to see my citizenship, e.g. with the cities crest next to my nameplate as a warning or to show it but not display who exactly I am affiliated with or to hide it completely. It could also be a "social" active skill to "identify" a player e.g. by progressing in the bounty hunter path to unlock that ability.

Will city guards tolerate fights?

This might be a policy decision for the mayor or depending on the Node type, to allow open fights within the city which increases the strength of soldiers during sieges but obviously makes the city more dangerous. Or the mayor disallows fights in the streets which leads to those fighting in line of sight of guards to be imprisoned for a few minutes or - in case of a repeated offense - for up to 15minutes. And obviously resisting the city guards would decrease reputation even further. The mayor could also choose to allow duels in some predefined areas - duels are 1on1 with both parties consenting.

What to do about them?

Obviously continuously killing citizens of one Node, even if it is the one you are also a citizen of will result in corruption under the usual conditions and reduce reputation with that Node. But at some point, I would like it if there were options to choose from how to handle these people.

Once again I would like it if there was a public office that could decide by which method of treatment this particular Node uses to deal with thug citizens. Maybe like the head of the guard or High Justice. They could choose that a person reaching "critical animosity" will either (1) be banished from the city, meaning no more entry until the reputation has risen again or it will be treated as an invasion of an enemy; (2) a continuous bounty like a daily quest becomes available to bounty hunters who kill that player (first come, first serve every 6-24h depending on the degree of animosity). Bounty hunters should earn a bit less from state enemy kills than from going after actually corrupted players. If a person is corrupted AND enemy of the state both rewards should be granted. It's basically a daily mayoral quest granted until the hunted player has repaired his reputation with the Node. (3) They are getting stripped of their citizenships and their assets in town will be seized. (4) A judgement council is coming together to determine which of the 3 other options will be taken, while the people who decide are in this case citizens of that Node, each being able to cast one vote, after 6 hours to cast the vote the judgement with the highest number of votes is being executed (the vote cannot be cut short).

Strevi

Xenra wrote: »

Could you be a wandering merchant of sorts and travel between each peacefully?

According to wiki

We have conditions that you can set between nodes with regards to either nodes being friendly with each other and acting trade alliances, or they can declare war on nodes similar to how guild wars may function in different games, where those citizens become hostile to each other based on the player government that's elected in the particular node.

I would expect friendly players not to behave like hostile players.
But there should be a risk of hostile players being present when you travel between nodes: full guilds even, fighting each other trying to destroy each other's caravans.

Atama

Strevi wrote: »

George_Black wrote: »

This isn't a faction based pvp mmo like eso and wow.

If you attack caravans, your reputation goes down against that node which sent the caravan. Then you can become permanently flagged against some nodes only, which you see as your enemies.

In a sense, it is faction-based PvP. Or at least, it is some of the time. We have wars between nodes and wars between guilds, which thrusts members into a PvP role for the duration of those wars. So in that sense, yes, there is PvP based on faction.

Now, whether or not that PvP is or should be restricted from members within those factions, that is not something I've seen declared definitively and is worth discussing.

Maybe for the duration of those events it might be restricted. During a war you can't fight fellow guild members or node citizens. I think that's fair. I don't believe we know these details yet.

Strevi

Atama wrote: »

Maybe for the duration of those events it might be restricted. During a war you can't fight fellow guild members or node citizens. I think that's fair. I don't believe we know these details yet.

They ask constantly how they should make the game but core things should be clearly described and not let to the fate of a Q&A lottery once per month.

Guild leaders are like dictators within their own guild. They create the guild, they make the rules. If you don't like the rules, they say you can leave. For sure they will like becoming mayors too and control the whole node and the other guilds might declare guild wars against the guilds which help the mayor maintain it's position as a ruler. But that is ok because it happens as part of a war mechanic.
If the mayor is ok and there are no internal wars for power, why should players have the possibility to fight each-other?

Resources will be scarce. Should everybody rush to collect them as soon as they spawn?
Should citizens fight each-other for those resources?
Will that create a healthy powerful node and a friendly community inside it?

Kesthely

To me its the question what does either option do for player agency? While not attacking people from your own node might prevent some random ganks it does open up for a different type of abuse.

I personally would rather see more player agency then less, and not beeing able to attack people in your node results in less player agency. In addfition, the corruption system will give enough drawbacks to people attacking their own node members, as will have the negative social impact and ramifactions inside the node

Child Item