Raven016 wrote: » I have no problem accepting Steven's definition of griefing. You said "Most of my arguments have been for defending against green griefers. " What changes to the corruption you want which help defending against green griefers? The one in the OP does not seem a good idea because it would allow a player who want to attack a group of greens to get the corruption of only one green if they chose to fight back after one of them was killed. And that group of players can be a group of gatherers or a group of travelers with a mule, transporting goods from freehold to caravanserai.
Raven016 wrote: » @Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends? - if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green - if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » @Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends? - if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green - if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them. I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection.
Dolyem wrote: » Also here's Steven's full quote about griefingWhen we think about 'what is griefing?' Griefing isn't necessarily the realization of risk. Risk is a healthy thing. Risk makes us value reward. Without risk we would not pursue certain achievements, because anybody could achieve them. Risk makes us have a sense of thrill, or have some sense of anxiety; and those are all emotional responses that get elicited when risk is present. So, risk isn't a bad thing. We like risk, not just in PvP but in PvE as well: when you can't always predict the environment or encounter you are part of, risk is something like 'Ah, I've never seen this boss do that before.' or these adds came at an ill-placed time, there's a trap here that I didn't experience before. There's a lot of elements that risk introduces that keep gameplay less stale; that keep it more dynamic; that introduce environments where the unexpected can occur. That is a good thing. Now the question is, when risk becomes something that doesn't stop other players from impacting your gameplay in a negative and harassing and repetitive manner. The motivation to do that action is less about their personal advancement and more about impacting your gameplay, because when they elicit the response of anger or rage from the player, they feel a sense of accomplishment. That in my opinion is what griefing is. It is outside of the expectation of the gameplay behavior that is communicated in the design philosophy.[1] – Steven Sharif
Dolyem wrote: » Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC??? They do indeed, though I think they are on the fence about only having bounty hunters at military nodes
Dygz wrote: » Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC???
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » @Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends? - if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green - if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them. I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection. No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker. The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption. The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green. The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict. The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt. By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Oh god, where did you find that? Thats a permanent increase to corruption gain for every kill you get. This alone will completely remove OW PvP within a month if you can't get rid of those. Ashes has many paths to OW PVP that do not include the risk of Corruption.
Dygz wrote: » If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off. Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK". Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP. But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » Bounty Hunters are associated with Military Nodes, IIRC??? They do indeed, though I think they are on the fence about only having bounty hunters at military nodes I'm not aware having of Bounty Hunters only at Military Nodes. But, the quest to activate the BH status is at Military Nodes. I'm not aware of any hints that Steven plans to change that.
Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off. Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK". Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP. But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE. By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Solvryn wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Dygz wrote: » If you become Corrupted, you consent to being treated like a monster until the Corruption is worked off. Doesn't really matter if you think you were just doing some "honor PK". Only way to grief me is non-consensual PvP. But... I'm aware there are gamers who have the view they can be griefed via PvE. By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point. Stevens definition of griefing, is actual griefing. Intent to harass other players or otherwise cause them grief, it's deliberate, requires intent, straight to the point. And it's hard to measure that.
Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » @Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends? - if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green - if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them. I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection. No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker. The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption. The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green. The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict. The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt. By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead. Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking? If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption.
Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » Raven016 wrote: » @Dolyem What if players could decide the default state they want to get after the purple timeout of ends? - if they see themselves more often as non-combatant they would chose light green - if they see themselves more often in combatant state they would chose dark green The dark green would get less corruption as you suggested in the OP but would also notify before attacking that he is often determined to kill. That way the light greens could chose to attack first or to flee instead of waiting what happens when their health is low level - if the attacker stops before killing or if finishes them. I don't see what this would really accomplish? It goes back to the opt-in result where everyone will flag as what benefits them more. Everyone would just choose light green for more protection. No, the light green would not protect. By choosing light as a defender you would not put more corruption onto the attacker. The dark green would protect the attacker against accumulated corruption. The problem I see in the OP is that somebody attacks and kills a green. The other green nearby may run or stay but would decide to fight back only after the first green was killed, an action the attacker cannot predict. The group of greens don't know either if the attacker will kill or stop, being afraid to become corrupt. By setting the dark green color, both sides get some something useful, before the fight: the defending side gets only an information and a hint that they better run. The attacker side gets the benefit of not getting the corruption if the defenders didn't run but chose to attack instead. Hmm, I'm having trouble picturing exactly what you're describing. Are you just saying light indicates less cumulative PKs and dark indicates many? So before combat can be initiated, players can get an idea of whether or not other non-combatants have a history of attacking? If so, I'm not against it. I don't even see the need to prevent the dark green from getting corruption. To me it's as simple as if that player kills a player who doesn't fight back, they get some corruption. If they do it multiple times in a short period of time, that's griefing and should exponentially increase the corruption gain. But if players are fighting back, that's a PvP engagement and shouldn't grant corruption. Yes, that is the idea. The green player should get the information that is dealing with somebody who prefers to kill and is not intimidated by the corruption.
Dolyem wrote: » Your reasoning assumes all corruption is griefing. When it can be as simple as dealing with PvE griefing. So it's a moot point. Now if we are complaining about getting corruption from camping players and killing lowbies who aren't fighting back...that would make more sense with your point.
Solvryn wrote: » You didn’t come up in full loot MMOs or come up in hardcore PvP environments, so I don’t expect you to get it right away.
Dolyem wrote: » By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point.
Sylvanar wrote: » See you are trying to perfect human behavior through a set of rules. If it were possible then such laws would have been made IRL and we would be living in a utopia where everyone would always be happy and shooting rainbows.
Sylvanar wrote: » My take on this: Corruption is a way to deter PK griefing without having to jump through hoops. Griefing via mobs isn't like jumping someone from stealth and killing them in 2-3 seconds... That is a >30 second commitment to a play where if the other player is smart or attentive enough can easily get out of dodge... a very meh option overall for the griefer. This is why I am okay with the system as it is because it gets rid of all the lazy griefers right of the bat. So basically: - Simple enough. - Exploitable, but not straight-forward. - Chances of failure or the situation being turned around exist as well. I can only think of 1 way to make corruption system more effective and keep it simple at the same time: - When a green player is attacked by an already agro-ed mob or another player, they will get immunity for 5 or so seconds. This will give the player a chance to decide if he wants to defend or not and go from there. This way we preserve owPvP, keep corruption system simple, more effective...maybe, just maybe make the penalties associated with the system more bearable to make bounty hunter system more relevant. Thoughts.
Dygz wrote: » Dolyem wrote: » By Steven's definition, you can only be griefed if the action was intended to harass the player. So defending one's node does not fit this definition. What you or I think griefing is defined as is irrelevant at this point. Well, my definition of griefing fits within Steven's. But, yes, what matters, really is how Steven's definition affects the game design.
