Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

A 4th player-combat-flagging-status

1…1415171920…22

Comments

  • hleVhleV Member
    edited August 2023
    Depraved wrote: »
    if u played l2 then u should know the stat dampening is a good thing.

    also, if you change the system so that reds can fight back vs aggressive greens without getting more corruption or without their stats lowered, then the system becomes more desirable to be in, which is the complete opposite direction and intent of the system.

    i agree that it might not be fair that ur stats get dampened, but this is actually fair in many situations other than im a solo player who gets attacked by greens my own level while im red. no matter what you do, someone will always get the short end of the stick. in this case, im fine with it being the solo pk player since the game is designed around group play and it also prevents far worse things.
    I'm giving up on you, sorry :neutral: It's getting as bad as Dygz's trolling.

    You're only generalizing, rather than discussing the very specific, small part of the corruption system this topic is about. "stat dampening is a good thing"? Where did I ever say that stat dampening as a whole is bad? If you're actually talking about the specific scenario the topic is about, then you should make it look so, because this isn't about entirely removing stat dampening, extra corruption for continuously murdering greens, etc.

    So I'll just finish with this, in a pretty general way, too, specifics having been laid out numerous times in previous posts:
    Stat dampening for red is fine, but not in all of the cases it currently applies to.
    Red state is never desirable to be in, but certain penalties are just badly designed.
    We don't know how bad it'll get, maybe escape is very viable so nobody really gets affected by these issues, but I'd rather they patch them up before we have to find out in the live game.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Can't always get what you want.
    Unlikely to see a signifcant change in Corruption design before testing Alpha 2.
    But, yes... Everything is subject to change.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    hleV wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    if u played l2 then u should know the stat dampening is a good thing.

    also, if you change the system so that reds can fight back vs aggressive greens without getting more corruption or without their stats lowered, then the system becomes more desirable to be in, which is the complete opposite direction and intent of the system.

    i agree that it might not be fair that ur stats get dampened, but this is actually fair in many situations other than im a solo player who gets attacked by greens my own level while im red. no matter what you do, someone will always get the short end of the stick. in this case, im fine with it being the solo pk player since the game is designed around group play and it also prevents far worse things.
    I'm giving up on you, sorry :neutral: It's getting as bad as Dygz's trolling.

    You're only generalizing, rather than discussing the very specific, small part of the corruption system this topic is about. "stat dampening is a good thing"? Where did I ever say that stat dampening as a whole is bad? If you're actually talking about the specific scenario the topic is about, then you should make it look so, because this isn't about entirely removing stat dampening, extra corruption for continuously murdering greens, etc.

    So I'll just finish with this, in a pretty general way, too, specifics having been laid out numerous times in previous posts:
    Stat dampening for red is fine, but not in all of the cases it currently applies to.
    Red state is never desirable to be in, but certain penalties are just badly designed.
    We don't know how bad it'll get, maybe escape is very viable so nobody really gets affected by these issues, but I'd rather they patch them up before we have to find out in the live game.

    when you change something, it affects other things. thats why im mentioning other things. you cant just tunnel vision in the change that you are making. you have to analyze how it affects other things in the game.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    hleV wrote: »
    You hit your opponent once and bam, death penalties halved. Except when it's red vs green.
    Yes, but now you'll die for sure, while remaining green might not lead to your death if your attacker is afraid of getting corrupted. And the "every consecutive kill of another green will get you even more corruption" is one of the reasons for why that attacker might be scared.
    hleV wrote: »
    A green that attacks a red has consented to attack a red. Which part of this PvP is not consensual? Notice how I'm not even bringing a case for a red who doesn't fight back, because red is supposed to be hunted. The problem is with red having to bend over and have the green take him down so as not to risk additional corruption if escape is not viable, which is bad system design. The risk isn't just too high, it's nonsensical to continue being additionally penalized for one thing that you're already being penalized for.
    I guess we'll just have to disagree on this point. To me it makes the most sense. The PKer killed someone who didn't fight back, so now he has to stop fighting back against other people like that. The "hunted" part works for both BHs and other players, BHs just have an advantage. But the red is still on the run from everyone.

    If anything, the fact that PKers can fight back against flagged/BH players for free is a huge benefit.
    hleV wrote: »
    The first green victim did have a choice other than running that didn't involve infinite corruption if you choose to live.
    Yes, but the system is supposed to protect those greens, not the reds. The red decided to murder their target and now has to pay the price. That price includes evergrowing punishment if the red continues killing greens.

    Just as the game is not for the pvers who don't want to be killed in open world, the game will not be for people who want to PK and then get away for free. Fighting back against everyone w/o additional punishment constitutes "getting away for free" imo. Obviously it doesn't for you, so the game might not be for you either.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Solvryn wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It’s based off of scarcity, you’re supposed to fight over it. Steven calls this soft friction.

    Protecting your nodes resources is a feature within the land management system. It has nothing to do with a Dictator.

    Ashes can’t even have an Emperor and Empire, it doesn’t support it. Only Kingdoms.

    It could become a dictatorship if the mayor would hire Dolyem to stay near them and kill all greens who touch them, for the greater good of the node.

    A Dictator wields the full authority of the Empire. A node isn’t an Empire.

    There will be many Dick Tators in Ashes, but no dictator. Dolyem isn’t a dictator or dick tator, like me he wants a fleshed out system.

    I don't think Dolyem's OP is bad. Just that it would lead to a different player interaction on in the world of Vera.
    The Land management feels incomplete at this moment. Probably we will get more information later.
    Important is to have enough players to keep the servers alive, which will be hard if those players will rather put another game on 1st place.

    The different player interaction would be to deter griefing while allowing for PvP in the open world to occur in a healthy amount and manner.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023


    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • LudulluLudullu Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
    This is exactly why this system should have its own flagging interactions, just as enemy of the state system does or the wars system.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Nah, fresh character. No guild or node affiliations. Can't declare on me.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    oh. well i guess they will have to make fresh characters too and just kill you.
    ow war between 200 vs 200 lvl 1 xDDD
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    Depraved wrote: »
    oh. well i guess they will have to make fresh characters too and just kill you.
    ow war between 200 vs 200 lvl 1 xDDD

    Still doesn't work, corruption out the ass for them, so once they get so corrupted I'll not only kill them, but get all of the resources back

    Edit: and the main objective still follows through, the environment gets destroyed regardless
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing

    its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing

    its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD

    Corruption says otherwise. I am punished every time I attempt to stop you.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing

    its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD

    Corruption says otherwise. I am punished every time I attempt to stop you.

    but u can cleanse it and kill me again. killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 1 is not the same as killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 50. also if u as a lvl 1 its no biggie
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    Dolyem wrote: »
    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacre enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
    According to Ashes rules, that is not griefing.
    And... PvP can be used to limit that behavior.
  • DepravedDepraved Member, Alpha Two
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.

    ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacre enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.
    According to Ashes rules, that is not griefing.
    And... PvP can be used to limit that behavior.

    Harassing to prevent the game from being played as intended. I would be exploiting a mechanic to prevent players from having resources
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited August 2023
    You could try it. It won't work very well.
    You would be playing as intended.
  • Ayeveegaming1Ayeveegaming1 Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I wonder if the game tracks players by account or individual toons. I also wonder how many alts we can make per account. Hopefully just one, that would be great :smiley:
    vmw4o7x2etm1.png
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    You could try it. It won't work very well.
    You would be playing as intended.

    I'm sure 1 raid group doing it and another to kill the corrupted will do well enough. It's either the ultimate resource farm or the ultimate environment bomb
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    You can be sure - means nothing until we test it.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Raven016 wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Some of yall keep acting like OWPvP PKing won't be one of the only relevant ways to maintain Environmental Management and you're wrong for doing so. "Declare war" won't work against players who purposely have gatherers without guilds or home nodes to grief your node. PKing is your only option at that point, so there needs to be a balance to allow for that to be taken care of. And only griefing should be punishable with corruption, as it's purpose was stated by Steven.

    Environmental management is a good feature as it educates toward being mindful and less greedy. But yes, will trigger some discord in the community. If players cannot manage it, then the default will be to grab everything everywhere as soon as possible. Preventing players to harvest by force is a dictatorship. I would rather see ways to decide by voting how to deal with resources.

    It's literally a weapon though. With the way its currently set up, I will just have an alt strictly staying green whose sole purpose is to go to enemy nides, and gather everything and anything to hurt that nodes environmental management, and I get protected by corruption while I do it.

    That was mentioned by Steven that is possible so is not griefing.

    So there can be a degree of economic warfare by sending players out into zones where you want to mitigate collection of resources. You send your players out there to take all those resources and then that diminishes the land management score of that particular zone.[5] – Steven Sharif

    Node governments will have to discuss it.
    Enemy nodes will try to grab each-other's resources. That's part of the war.

    And no where in that quote did he address the fact that through being a non-combatant, you are fully able to grief that system. Just because he hasn't addressed it doesn't mean it is intended. Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources, not only do we have a detterent for a grief, but we also add risk to gathering scarce resources. Not to mention we also increase the pool for bounty hunters to hunt from

    I don't think I understand what you say, especially the last sentence.
    He explicitly mentioned that gatherers will go into enemy territory. And they'll be green. Because the mentioned it as an intended game mechanic, that is not griefing by his definition.

    Starting from here I do not understand: "Now, if players become corrupt for gathering dwindling resources..."

    If I make a fresh level 1 with the sole intent to go massacred enemy node environments, that is griefing. There's no real negative of going into an enemy territory as green and hacking everything to pieces. It is flaw because there is no risk. I don't care about what resources I gain or lose, only that I destroy that environment. Without PvP to limit this, it is an unchecked system.

    well that isnt griefing. you are gaining materials plus weaking your enemies. thats fine imo xD but yeah someone gotta make another lvl 1 to fight u hahaha

    I am going to be getting a group together to test to see how fast we can sabotage a nodes environment, and encourage others to attack us. Clear cutting materials, hindering Environmental management, causing widespread corruption to anyone attempting to stop us. And we don't lose out on a single thing. Zero risk with all of the reward of burning a node. If you think that's balanced you're on crack

    didnt say it was balanced or fair. just said it wasnt griefing. but yeah there should be a way to fight back other than counter ruin their own node hahaha

    probably the issue will be social repercussions. they will declare war on your node, beat you and take your stuff xD

    Also, if I'm powerless to stop you, it's griefing

    its not. and you can stop me with another lvl 1XDD

    Corruption says otherwise. I am punished every time I attempt to stop you.

    but u can cleanse it and kill me again. killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 1 is not the same as killing a lvl 1 with a lvl 50. also if u as a lvl 1 its no biggie

    Entire time I'm cleansing you are continuing to destroy my nodes environment. I could kill you all day regardless of your level and you'd still achieve your goal
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Dygz wrote: »
    You can be sure - means nothing until we test it.

    And i plan to test it thoroughly, even if by the current system it's pretty obvious what the outcome of an organized move in this manner will result with. Zero risk, high reward.
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • OkeydokeOkeydoke Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I know what you're talking about Dolyem. My confidence isn't as high as it used to be, but I still have high confidence that Steven won't let his game and the systems within it become a meme.

    When the time comes I intend to vigorously test and vigorously debate. For now I'm mostly just chillin. But I do know what you're talking about with a lot of things said in this thread.
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Okeydoke wrote: »
    I know what you're talking about Dolyem. My confidence isn't as high as it used to be, but I still have high confidence that Steven won't let his game and the systems within it become a meme.

    When the time comes I intend to vigorously test and vigorously debate. For now I'm mostly just chillin. But I do know what you're talking about with a lot of things said in this thread.

    Just let me know when and what you need help testing and I will do the same
    GJjUGHx.gif
  • DolyemDolyem Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Depraved wrote: »
    Dolyem wrote: »
    Also as the gatherer, I can have a max or mid level unaffiliated character and achieve the same goal. No corruption on my part.

    ill attack you with a lower level then and if you retaliate you will get purple, ill log into my main after u kill my lowbie and finish u off ;3

    thats the thing though, I would never retaliate unless you were corrupt
    GJjUGHx.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.